With the New Year upon us, the freedom to freelance will surely be under attack in 2024 just as it has been throughout the Biden reign on a variety of fronts—be it the impending regulatory restrictions soon to be imposed by the U.S. Department of Labor, or prospective bills seeking to limit independent contracting in states like Minnesota and Michigan.
Meanwhile, the ongoing destruction of the independent workforce in California is still unfolding in real-time, thanks to the disastrous AB5 law enacted in 2020, a law so restrictive that it has put hundreds of thousands of Californians out of business across a vast swath of professions.
Proponents of these onerous labor laws have seized on a new tactic to hijack the “flexibility” argument from those of us who advocate for self-employment. They assume that flexibility is our sole reason for desiring freelance careers—whether it’s a single mom needing to stay at home with the kids, or a person with a chronic illness unable to participate in the traditional workplace, to name a few.
While flexibility is just one factor that makes independent contracting appealing, it’s not the “be-all-end-all” for why millions of Americans choose to be in business for themselves. The anti-freelancer forces cite current work trends that began during the pandemic when employees discovered the convenience of at-home work arrangements, equating this to flexibility. But these remote-work arrangements are not the same as being your own boss. Not by a long shot.
For freelance journalist JoBeth McDaniel, the ability to pick and choose clients is imperative, along with being able to charge top rates per project. Also important: not having to be beholden to a single employer or difficult boss.
“I choose self-employment in part due to harassment I endured as a low-level employee in my 20s,” said Daniel. “When you’re a small business, it’s a simple matter to replace one bad client with nine or more others wanting to work with you.”
Another benefit of being your own boss is the opportunity to avoid workplace discrimination, particularly for seniors like audio-visual tech Roger Zeilinski, who lost his career in California due to AB5. “No one wants to hire a senior like me as a full- or part-timer because of the added costs for healthcare, liability, and workers’ comp,” he said.
With ageism rampant in corporate America, professionals in their 50s, 60s, and 70s like Roger find themselves completely shut out of the job market in favor of younger workers. With self-employment, however, age is often not a factor. Certified Medical Transcriptionist Debbie Gosselin lets her work speak for itself: “In most instances,” she said, “my clients don’t even know my age because is irrelevant.”
For writers, journalists, cartoonists, and graphic designers, independent contracting allows an individual to retain intellectual property rights. Freelance writer/photographer Kristina Anderson posed this scenario: “Imagine a newspaper columnist wanting to compile her columns into a published book, or a still photographer who desires to sell their images to another outlet. If I were an employee, those options are off the table, as the copyright belongs to the publisher and not the original creator.”
For those who file Schedule C on their federal tax returns, deducting expenses is crucial, especially if expensive equipment is required in a particular field such as independent filmmaking. Prior to AB5, film producer Dan Cheatham could write off his office costs, vehicle usage, fuel, software, hardware, equipment, healthcare, and self-advertising. “AB5 is poison for the self-employed in California unless we are willing to just volunteer our services and turn this into art for art’s sake,” he said.
Finally, the opportunity to hone one’s craft is inherent in the freedom to freelance. Whether it’s a videographer working with different clients in different settings, a writer growing their skill sets to include photography and web design, or a wedding vendor expanding her offerings, the chance to try on different hats is one of many essential attributes of being self-employed.
According to Gail Gordon, executive director of Numi Opera in Los Angeles, an aspiring opera singer can perform as a freelancer in a mid-tier opera company in hopes of someday joining a major opera house. “Freelancing opens up new horizons and new career opportunities for up-and-coming artists,” she said. “Laws like AB5 take that all away.”
This New Year, the opportunity to freelance will be more essential than ever, be it a full-time career or a side hustle to supplement one’s income. Here’s to hoping the Biden administration will cease and desist its continued assault on legitimate, thriving independent contractors just to appease the selfish wish list of organized labor.
Karen Anderson is a contributor to the Daily Caller News Foundation, a visiting fellow at Independent Women’s Forum (iwf.org), and the founder of Freelancers Against AB5.
When you’re hired to do a job, it stands to reason that you should actually do the job you’ve been hired to do. Think about it. If a company hired you to be a writer, and you never did any writing for the company, you probably wouldn’t keep your job too long. That is, of course, unless you work for the government.
For quite some time now, federal, state, and local governments across the country—including right here in Arizona—have been engaging in the practice of “release time.” If you’re unfamiliar with this term, it means that certain people are hired to do a specific job for the government, but instead of doing that job, they are “released” to work full-time for their union. This could be someone like a teacher, for example, who instead of teaching students, spends all his or her time doing work for the teachers’ union. But here’s the thing, even though these employees don’t actually work for the government, they still get a paycheck from the government—all funded by your tax dollars.
Is this practice unfair? Yes. Is it unconstitutional? Absolutely.
That’s why the Goldwater Institute has been challenging this practice in our state in a case that has made its way to the Arizona Supreme Court…
Last fall a television news host advised viewers to “fasten their seat belts” because they were now in the exciting final countdown to the presidential election – which was at that point fifteen months in the future!
Strange as it once would have seemed, the comment actually made some sense because the news cycle had been filled for three years with daily analysis of the latest poll results and speculation from the campaign trail. Somehow, we have bumbled our way into extraordinarily long election seasons.
Endless campaigns have not evolved in response to public demands or the efforts of good government reformers. On the contrary, a majority of Americans report feeling fatigued and believe that presidential campaigns run too long.
It wasn’t always this way, of course. Presidential candidates were originally chosen by Congress. By the mid-19th century, national parties had formed, and candidates were selected in smoke-filled rooms at their conventions. After WWII, presidential primaries emerged as a way for rank-and-file party members to participate in the selection process.
By 1960, there were 16 state primaries. John F. Kennedy was nominated when his strong showing in West Virginia convinced Democrats a Catholic could be a viable candidate. After Democrats changed the rules following the contentious 1968 convention, even more states began conducting primaries.
Each new reform had the effect of lengthening the campaign season. In 1976, Jimmy Carter, the obscure governor of Georgia, won the nomination by getting a jump on the competition in the January Iowa caucuses. Ambitious politicians ever since have taken note.
In the late 20th century, the race among states to bolster their influence by holding earlier primaries was on. By 2008, four-fifths of the states were conducting their primaries by March.
Campaigns begin long before the primaries. Active campaign staffs for the 2024 election by now have been operating for years. In the past, early in the election year was often the time candidates declared. This year, the train has left the station already. Deadlines for many primaries have passed. It would take a Herculean effort to jumpstart a campaign at this point.
Some commentators applaud the democratization of the candidate selection process. But super long campaigns have several unfortunate consequences.
Financing a long campaign is a money draining effort that favors deep pockets. Most candidates are unable to self-fund, so they are obliged to spend immense amounts of time and do lots of promising to raise the necessary millions.
Voters may complain about campaign length, but the media are fine with it. Horse race stories are easy to write and sell well because they are simple to understand and naturally involve human interest as the candidates become known to voters.
Meanwhile, stories which are consequential for all Americans, like the deliberations of the Federal Reserve Board, the growing bellicosity of America’s existential enemies, or the details of energy policy get scant attention.
Campaigns affect governance too. It’s well known that the more challenging, risky issues are harder to tackle in an election year. When every year is in effect an election year, then it’s never the right time to do the heavy lifting.
Forgiving student debt and paying outrageous, unwise sums for hostage ransoms, especially for celebrities, is catnip for weak, vote-seeking politicians. On the other hand, anything that reeks of fiscal restraint or sacrifice for the future public good is studiously ignored. Entitlement reform is out of the question.
Campaigns could theoretically be defended for allowing voters to more thoroughly vet the candidates and so make better-informed decisions. But it doesn’t seem to work that way. We have elected mostly mediocrities in the last half century. The process this cycle seems to be producing is the most incompetent, dishonest, and disliked candidates in memory. We can do better.
Other modern democracies don’t subject themselves to such an exhausting ordeal. Elections in Canada, the UK, and Australia, all admittedly parliamentary systems, are legally limited to about six weeks. Nobody is clamoring for longer elections in these countries.
America has short presidential terms and long election seasons. As inertia and populism continue to dog our politics and the problems pile up, maybe we also should consider limiting our costly, dysfunctional campaigns.
Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.
Residents in Arizona public school districts are engaged in a spiritual and moral battle. Some are determined to advance an insidious LGBT agenda, but I choose to fight on the side of God and those who love children. So, when left-wing journalist Richard Ruelas published this sleazy article, I felt it was my duty as a truth-teller to respond in earnest.
First, I’ll clarify for equity cheerleader Ruelas that I didn’t coin the expression “pedophiles by proxy” during the Higley Unified School District (HUSD) board meeting. I initially used the phrase while exposing the shenanigans of Peoria Unified School District (PUSD) Board President David Sandoval and Board Members Bill Sorensen and Melissa Ewing, who refused to read a physical privacy policy. The trio also failed to properly handle community concerns when public records revealed a district attorney advised Executive Director of Education, Christina Lopezlira, to inform administrators of “emerging practices for supporting transgender students,” and to “amicably address the competing interests and rights” of parents who object.
During the Title IX presentation on March 9, 2023, PUSD legal advisor, Lisa Anne Smith, confessed that SCOTUS (still) has not ruled on any case that permits or mandates biological boys and girls to share private spaces at school. This fact was reiterated by Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne.
Furthermore, HUSD Board President Tiffany Shultz and Board Member Amanda Wade mocked a proposal for an enhanced dress code, agreeing that it would “sexualize students’ bodies.” Shultz and Wade also agreed that educators’ attempts to regulate indecent and disruptive clothing was a “waste of time.” Wade even advocated for removing the word “immoral” from policies that govern electronic communications between students and district employees. It’s absurd how public servants dismiss concerns from parents and teachers who want to protect children.
Reading Ruelas’ junk mail reminded me of my conversation with Liberty Elementary School District (LESD) Board President Michael Todd. He told me the conservative majority board was “trying to clean house” and that I was “late reporting” on his cross-dressing colleague, Paul Bixler. At this point, Bixler had served on the board two years, had already achieved state-level exposure during a House Education Committee meeting and was trending nationally after invading a female locker room. Todd assured me, “I’ve not ever seen Paul go into a women’s restroom on school grounds. Did I see him go into one at a hotel at a conference, yes I did…but that’s not at our schools.” Hmm…I guess I’ll never know (or care) what spooked Mr. Todd. Suffice to say, it was highly suspicious and unprofessional when this duly elected official threatened to resign over a belated news story.
The Ruelas article also sparked frustrations over responses from Chandler Unified School District Board Member Kurt Rohrs. Parents I spoke with said his position on allowing male and female students to share private spaces is unclear. Ruelas claims Rohrs said “he would not ask the board to enact a [bathroom] policy because it would violate federal law,” and that “the discussion about the issue isn’t rooted in fact.” Rohrs is quoted directly stating, “‘Parents are reacting this way because they are fearful. It’s clearly not rational. It’s emotional.’” At a glance, Rohrs’ comments come across dismissive and calloused. But keep in mind that Ruelas is a pretentious jester on a mission to distract everyone from the severe consequences of transgender ideology.
What happened twice in Loudoun County is a fact. What happened in Appomattox County is a fact. What happened in Vermont is a fact. What happened in Oklahoma is a fact. What happened in New Mexico is a fact. What happened in California is a fact. What’s happening in Arizona is a fact. So, I’d say irrational describes the diabolic social experiment that’s been deployed against America’s youth. And I’d say, if your kids are exposed to or assaulted by a member of the opposite sex on school grounds, you should be emotional about it! Ring every district phone, fill every inbox, darken every doorway, occupy every board meeting, alert the media, pull your kids out, sue that government-funded hotbed. Somebody is bound to get the message.
In general, board members looking for “middle ground” on school bathrooms are in for a turbulent 2024. When it comes to the safety and innocence of children, I implore you not to run as a conservative if you’re going to govern like a moderate. Your credibility will be shot, and your career will end in disgrace. There’s no such thing as moderate morality. You either have dignity and common sense, or you want boys and girls to share private spaces at school. You either believe parents have rights in public education, or you’re pro-government. You’ve either read the Title IX transcript and know that the corrupt Ninth Circuit ruling needs to be overturned, or you’re not up for the fight.
Of course, fiscal responsibility, increasing enrollments, and improving test scores are important. But these are not primary concerns for most parents. Preventing rape, violent assaults, hypersexualized curriculum, secret teacher-student relationships, and other exploitive behaviors are the leading issues in education right now. If these matters directly affect your district but you’re not in the majority (or you have a dissenting opinion), the best you can do is make coherent public comments, introduce constitutional policies, and cast votes that convey logical consistency to your constituents.
The worst you can do is entrust the verity of your statements to a narrative pirate like Richard Ruelas.
I want to highlight the passion and prowess of one board member who persisted in taking corrupt colleagues and administrators to task for their reckless policies and predatory practices. On November 21, 2023, America First Legal (AFL) announced that Mesa Public Schools (MPS) Board Member Rachel Walden is suing her district. The Arizona Sun Times reported that AFL “is representing Walden in her Maricopa County Superior Court lawsuit against [MPS] and Superintendent Andi Fourlis, which alleges they schemed to circumvent the Arizona Parents’ Bill of Rights after the community learned it was blocking parental notifications.” The MPS transgender support plan—adopted in 2015 without parental knowledge or consent—is dangerous, unlawful, and immoral. To grasp how radical MPS has become, read the Sun Times article alongside Walden’s opinion editorial and Mesa school board candidate Ed Steele’s analysis.
Teachers and Counselors should NOT suggest putting children on a transgender support plan but that is happening. Parents will not be notified. This is the meeting last night. I was prohibited from talking to the district lawyer under "legal advice." pic.twitter.com/qUPWZyCgAa
— Rachel Walden – Candidate AZ Corp Comm (@waldenpatriot) May 11, 2023
Using public education to push transgenderism on children is pure evil. Discussions on human sexuality are the primary responsibility of parents, not the government. Swapping clothes and pronouns, taking puberty blockers, and undergoing sex reassignment surgeries does not change the biblical, biological, and binary reality that dysphoric people are trying to escape. Moreover, unrestricted access to private spaces with members of the opposite sex is not a prescription for gender confusion. And pretending to be something you’re not will never cure suicidal ideations. Despite the U.S. Department of Education’s misinterpretation of the Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia case, and their ludicrous Title IX amendment proposal, forcing male and female students to share bathrooms is not the law of the land.
Parents, when hardened LGBT activists say they’re coming for your children, believe them. Invest time researching this issue and avoid gaslighting anecdotes like those propagated by the Arizona Republic. Before you openly chastise any board member, make sure you have sound knowledge and understanding of the Constitution, state laws, and district policies. Let’s continue to stand up together and push back against this present darkness.
I’ll see you in the boardrooms.
For nearly two decades, Tiffany Benson’s creative writing pursuits have surpassed all other interests. When she’s not investigating Kennedy Assassination conspiracy theories, she enjoys journaling and contributing to her blog Bigviewsmallwindow.com. She encourages average citizens to take on an active role in the grassroots fight for future generations.
After several years of inflated budgets propped up by trillions in unsustainable COVID cash flowing to the states from the federal government, Arizona lawmakers will be coming into the new year and the new legislative session facing a potential shortfall for the budget year in excess of $400 million. Naturally, the left and their sycophants in the media have for months been decrying this to be the result of 1) historic tax cuts enacted by Republicans in 2021 and 2) the successful universal expansion of school choice in 2022. This couldn’t be further from the truth, and there are three key facts that need to be remembered when discussing the state budget and a potential funding gap.
1. The Shortfall Is a Fraction of the Arizona Budget, Nothing Like California’s Crisis
The projected $400 million shortfall represents less than 5% of the total state budget, which spends $17.8 billion this year. Far from catastrophic. Compare this to our neighbor California, facing a $68 billion dollar deficit (nearly four times the size of our entire budget), which represents 22% of their $308 billion bloated budget – up from less than $200 billion only four years ago.
Opposite to our approach, California has continuously increased taxes, having one of the highest income tax burdens in the country. They also don’t provide choice to parents and families to make educational decisions themselves. Surely, if Arizona taking less of the people’s hard-earned money and providing ESAs to all families is the cause of our small funding gap, California, doing the exact opposite, should place them in tip top shape, right?
Imagine a future where abortion is sanctioned until the very moment of birth, parental consent becomes a relic of the past, and taxpayers foot the bill for all abortions.This is not a distant dystopia; it is the gruesome reality that will unfold if a new controversial amendment—the Arizona Abortion Access Amendment—finds its way onto our state’s ballot this November. Now, Arizona voters stand at a crossroads—sign a petition to advance the possibility of this horrific amendment to the Arizona Constitution or decline to sign the petition and stand for the sanctity of life.
The heart of this matter lies in the proposed amendment’s language, asserting, “Every individual has a fundamental right to abortion…” This means that if it gets passed, the Arizona Constitution will be amended to make abortion a fundamental right for all individuals. The amendment’s text also explicitly states that the State shall not enact, adopt, or enforce any law, regulation, policy, or practice that “denies, restricts, or interferes with an abortion after fetal viability that, in the good faith judgment of a treating health care professional, is necessary to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant individual.”
This means that if this amendment passes, it will not only embed abortion as a fundamental right in our state Constitution, but it will remove any constraints on the abortion industry. Just read that direct quote from the proposed amendment again. The text explicitly bars the state from interfering with abortions after fetal viability, contingent upon the “judgment” of a health care professional. Is there any surprise as to why the abortion industry is championing this amendment so heavily? The removal of gestation limits offers abortion businesses unrestricted access to perform abortions at any stage without legal impediments, which will give them significant economic and financial benefits!
Analyzing the language of the amendment reveals three major implications:
Abortion up until birth.
Abortion with no requirement for parental knowledge and/or consent.
Abortion completely funded by taxpayers.
Under this proposed amendment, a 15-year-old girl could abort her baby up until the time of birth, without her parent’s knowledge or consent, and send the bill to taxpayers. That’s not only dangerous, it’s insane.
Proponents of the Arizona Abortion Access Amendment assert that the amendment’s primary objective is to save the mother’s life; however, upon closer examination, the amendment intentionally misleads voters by instilling an urgent fear that the mother’s life is at risk. Anthony Levatino, MD, JD, a board-certified obstetrician gynecologist, challenges this perspective, stating, “There are several serious conditions that can arise or worsen typically during the late second or third trimester of pregnancy that require immediate care. In many of those cases, ending or ‘terminating’ the pregnancy, if you prefer, can be life-saving. But is abortion a viable treatment option in this setting? I maintain that it usually, if not always, is not.” While the amendment writers want the public to believe that this amendment is necessary to save the mother’s life, clearly it’s nothing more than a sympathetic tactic to garner support.
On September 12, 2023, the Arizona Abortion Access Amendment petition campaign began. If petitioners are successful in gathering 383,923 signatures by July 3, 2024, the amendment will appear on Arizona’s ballot this November.
We can’t let that happen.
That’s why it is imperative for Arizona voters, taxpayers, and citizens to take a stand. And many pro-life organizations are doing so right now by leading a grassroots effort to educate Arizonans about why they should “Decline to Sign” this petition.
“Decline to Sign” aims to prevent the Arizona Abortion Access Amendment from even reaching the ballotby engaging in extensive education and awareness efforts. Volunteers associated with this grassroots initiative are dedicated to approaching Arizona voters, taxpayers, and citizens with kindness and providing a comprehensive understanding of the proposed amendment’s potential consequences. “Decline to Sign” volunteers believe that once the proposed amendment’s true nature is revealed, Arizona voters, taxpayers, and citizens can make an educated and informed decision whether to support, or not to support, the proposed amendment. The “Decline to Sign” initiative challenges the proposed amendment’s false impression that it advocates solely for “women’s reproductive health.” The “Decline to Sign” initiative also seeks to shed light on the proposed amendment’s harsh and permanent implications.
The proposed Arizona Abortion Access Amendment presents a crucial juncture in the ongoing discourse about the sanctity of life. As the petition process unfolds, Arizona voters, taxpayers, and citizens face the responsibility to protect the sanctity of life in our state and ensure that the voices of all life within the community are heard.
Katarina White serves as Legislative District Co-Chair for Arizona Right to Life. To get involved and stay informed with the “Decline to Sign” initiative, visit the Arizona Right to Life website. Katarina also delves deeper into the proposed amendment through the “Conservative Seoul Show,” where she presents the “Sanctity Unveiled” segment. You can join her as she explores the challenges faced by the sanctity of life in the State of Arizona here.
