by John Huppenthal | Oct 30, 2024 | Opinion
By John Huppenthal |
This analysis looks at President Trump’s first three years in office—2017, 2018 and 2019, the pre-COVID era—to get a more unbiased view of the policy impact of his approach.
In Trump’s first three years:
Trump extended economic growth to achieve the longest economic expansion in the history of the U.S.: 10.5 years.
Trump had the largest single year increase in 2019 median household income in history, increasing income by $5,420 to a level, $81,210, that Biden/Harris still haven’t reached.
To do this, Trump created 7.1 million full-time jobs in his first 3 years as president, the jobs that count: full-time jobs, in the pre-COVID era. This is more than an amazing feat because Trump only created 6.7 million total jobs. How did Trump increase full-time jobs by more than his total job increase? By making every job he created a full-time job, and, most importantly, converting 400,000 of Obama’s part-time jobs into full-time.
By comparison, Harris/Biden only created 1.0 million full-time jobs in the last two years, September 2022 to September 2024, the post-COVID era. Most of their job creation has been part-time jobs.
Trump created so many jobs that job openings exceeded the number of unemployed for the first time in history, not only exceeded but went on to double the number of unemployed.
The open job force was so strong under Trump’s first three years that he was stripping 160,000 people per month out of welfare for a total reduction of welfare recipients of 8.5 million, 19% of the total recipients.
The open job force was so strong that, for the first time ever, a million people left Social Security Disability and went from consuming Social Security tax dollars to paying into the system.
Trump pushed the bankruptcy date for the Social Security system back by years through welfare enrollment reduction and increased employment and wages.
Trump’s lowest unemployment rate of 3.5% was the lowest level since Eisenhower, just 0.1%, a tenth of a percent from its lowest level ever.
When Trump’s USMCA treaty was put in place, it created the world’s largest international trade confederation.
Trump set 12 all-time records for Black employment, pushing Black unemployment to its lowest level in recorded history, 5.3%, far below Obama’s lowest rate of 8.0%.
Trump reduced the personal income taxes for all families of four or more making $53,000 or less to zero. In the other 150+ countries of the world, such families are considered rich and pay tens of thousands in taxes. Economists have not begun to understand the full ramifications of this feat. In chess, it’s called checkmate. No other country can get the upper hand.
As a result, the wealth of the bottom 50% of the U.S. increased by $1.4 trillion under Trump. Under Obama’s last four years? 0.8 trillion
In a sane, rational world, Trump would have earned three economics Nobel prizes, setting records for trade, unemployment reduction, economic growth, and achieving economic equality. (That’s equality, not equity).
Trump’s strategy for his second term: the roaring 20s, where growth was 40% as compared to Obama’s 11%. The 1922 Fordney-McCumber tariffs of 40% were combined with a reduction of the personal income tax rate from 76% to 25% under Calvin Coolidge.
I am confident that Trump is eyeing a massive trade deal with China, just like Trump’s USMCA, which has shifted the trade balance of the world.
If Trump is successful at combining a modest and carefully designed broad tariff of 20% or less with equal or greater business tax rate reduction, we are likely to have the roaring 20s all over again. Hard to believe that the U.S. economy of $28 trillion could grow another 40% in the next four years but hold on to your hats.
John Huppenthal was the Arizona Superinterndent of Public Instruction from 2011-2015. Prior to this role, John served as a member of the Arizona State Senate and the Arizona House of Representatives. You can follow him on Twitter here.
by Dennis Liles | Oct 29, 2024 | Opinion
By Dennis Liles |
School board elections in Arizona are a non-partisan race, by law. In an ideal world, candidates should be focused on the well-being of students, academic achievement, and facilitating as much parental involvement as possible. That’s definitely true in Mesa, where the school board should be comprised of members who want to ensure that students are educated rather than indoctrinated.
But a recent news item by the local NBC affiliate chose to highlight partisan political party affiliation instead of focusing on how each candidate views their role as a potential Mesa school board member.
The story focused on three candidates running for the Mesa School Board as a slate: Courtney Davis, Josh Chilton, and Lacy Chaffee. Courtney Davis, in particular, is a current board member who was appointed by Steve Watson to replace Laura Ellingson in August 2023. The night she was sworn in was the first time she had ever attended a Mesa School Board meeting. The legacy media conveniently left this out. But that’s not all they left out.
In a typical biased move that’s become commonplace for the legacy media, the two opposing candidates—Sharon Benson and Ed Steele—were not offered an opportunity to be interviewed for the story. On top of that, they were given only a few hours to respond before the segment aired.
But here’s the truth about the three slate candidates. Davis, Chilton, and Chaffee have focused their campaign on social issues rather than actual student achievement. All three candidates have endorsements and stated positions that run counter to the values that are expected of elected school board officials. They all support males in female spaces, special transgender rights, Critical Race Theory, and eliminating school choice.
Davis, Chilton, and Chaffee have also been endorsed by Legislative District 9 Democrats, the anti-school choice group “Save Our Schools,” and the teachers’ union, Mesa Education Association.
Digging deeper, the Arizona Education Association endorsed legislative candidate Lorena Austin who promotes drag show fundraisers for her campaign. They have also endorsed Proposition 139, which will allow abortion up to fetal viability and would allow minors to get an abortion without any parental involvement, including notification.
Right now, the Mesa School District faces some significant headwinds with declining enrollment, reduced funding, and competition for students and teachers from charter and private schools. Shouldn’t that be the top priority rather than radical social issues?
Fixing Mesa’s problems requires new board members like Sharon Benson, who brings both a teaching background and small business expertise, and Ed Steele, who brings a wealth of business expertise and problem-solving ability to tackle the problems facing the Mesa district. Both Sharon and Ed have had children enrolled in the Mesa district and have a vested interest in keeping the district at the forefront of educational excellence.
Their goal is to support academic excellence, parental involvement, fiscal responsibility, teachers, safety, transparency, and accountability.
For this election, voters need to decide what they want: a radically aligned slate that is more interested in indoctrinating rather than educating students, or Sharon Benson and Ed Steele, who have the expertise, conservative values, and vision to keep Mesa Public Schools a leader in public education.
Dennis Liles is a Mesa resident and Precinct Committeeman in Legislative District 10.
by Christy Narsi | Oct 28, 2024 | Opinion
By Christy Narsi |
This November, Proposition 140, the Make Elections Fair Arizona Act, will be on the ballot. Prop. 140, if passed, would create a Rank-Choice Voting (RCV) system, where voters rank candidates in order of preference. Supporters of the proposition claim it will incentivize candidates to reach out to as many voters as possible, regardless of party affiliation and “liberate us from the grip of partisan primary elections.”
But will it really make Arizona elections more fair?
RCV may seem logical on the surface, but in reality, it introduces a complex vote tabulation system that lacks transparency and often leads to weird election outcomes.
In most elections, a voter casts a single ballot for the candidate he or she likes most. With RCV’s ranking system, if one candidate receives more than 50 percent of first place votes, the election is over and the candidate with the most votes wins. If, however, no candidate receives more than 50 percent of the votes, election officials conduct a series of closed-door instant runoffs by eliminating the candidate with the fewest first place votes and redistributing those votes to the second choices on those ballots. This process continues (eliminating the last place finisher and redistributing his or her votes) until a faux majority is created for a single candidate.
Today, there is bipartisan support for ensuring every vote counts. Yet RCV guarantees the opposite, and instead will create confusion, dropped votes, and a convoluted system of ballot counting that does not represent the will of the people.
“Ranked Choice Voting can lead to bizarre outcomes where a person who was the first choice of very few voters can still win,” explained Independent Women’s Law Center’s Jennifer C. Braceras. Democratic principles are actually sidelined as RCV encourages candidates and interest groups to play games and try to manipulate outcomes by introducing additional candidates to divert attention from stronger opponents, rather than try to simply bolster their own support.
A study of ballot data from New York City’s 2013 and 2017 general election, and of New York City’s 2021 Democrat mayoral primaries, showed “ballot errors in RCV elections are particularly high in areas with lower levels of education, lower levels of income, higher minority populations, and a higher share of limited English proficient voters.”
Policymakers should be working to make voting easier and more accessible for all Arizonans. Therefore, we should reject schemes such as RCV that make voting more complicated, less accessible, and less transparent.
Voting should be simple: one person, one legal vote; may the best person win. RCV violates this principle by allowing some voters to effectively cast more than one ballot while excluding other voters whose ballots were exhausted prior to the ultimate run-off. RCV is a dangerously complex process that confuses voters and disincentivizes participation. This is a real threat to our democratic process.
Christy Narsi lives in Surprise, AZ. She is the National Chapter Director at Independent Women’s Network (IWN). Christy is passionate about developing and empowering women who make an impact in their communities.
by Warren Petersen | Oct 28, 2024 | Opinion
Arizona voters deserve to know election results within hours, not weeks. There’s one important step we can take to make this a reality.
By Warren Petersen |
We’re in the final stretch of the 2024 election cycle. In just a matter of days, we should know the outcome of races and issues on the ballot that are important to the lives and livelihoods of Americans and the Grand Canyon state.
The key word is “should.” Unfortunately, as recent history has shown us, receiving results on winners and losers may not happen in a timely fashion in our all-important swing state.
During the last several election cycles, Arizona was in the national spotlight with embarrassing headlines because of election issues. Citizens have been rightly frustrated over delayed results and day-of voting problems. However, we don’t have to perpetuate these narratives again come November. By voting early in-person, people can avoid day-of voting problems and know the final outcomes of races on election night, instead of weeks later.
If more people understood how votes are counted, they would probably change their voting behavior. The first batch of results appearing on T.V. screens at 8 p.m. on election night are the ballots that were dropped off, or mailed in, before 7 p.m. the Friday before election day. Then, from 9 p.m. until about midnight, results start coming in from people who voted in person on election day. If this was how everyone voted, we would likely know the results by midnight despite close races. But close races, and the phenomena known as “late earlies,” have thrown a wrench into the process and are prolonging results.
Arizona has been the epicenter for close races. In 2022, several races, with millions of votes cast, were decided by just a few hundred votes. These close races have not only made your vote more important than ever, but they have also created a situation where the winners of races cannot be determined until nearly every single vote is counted, and that takes quite a bit of time.
Many people don’t realize this, but if you drop off your early ballot on election day, which is also known as a “late early,” it does not get counted for days. When ballots are dropped off on election day, they must go through the signature verification process. If there are problems with your signature or ballot, then your ballot needs to be “cured.” The county has five days to cure a ballot, and if the county cannot reach you to cure your ballot within that time frame, then it does not get counted at all.
It can be frustrating that election officials have not been able to administer elections without this issue, but citizens can take action to avoid voting delays and election result delays. Vote early in person, Monday through Saturday, until election day. Some vote centers in Maricopa County are even open on Sundays. Early voting locations can be found at www.beballotready.vote.
Don’t let our elections drag on, and don’t let yourself become disenfranchised because of an issue with a ballot dropped off on election day. The future of our state and our nation are dependent on every single vote. The country is watching and waiting for our important swing state to get this right and to provide results in a timely manner.
Warren Petersen is the President of the Arizona State Senate and represents Legislative District 14. You can email him at wpetersen@azleg.gov.
by Kim Miller | Oct 27, 2024 | Opinion
By Kim Miller |
What’s on your ballot is not really candidates—it’s values. God cares about governments because governments impact people—people He values.
Does God want families and communities free to thrive?
Does God care about rampant crime?
Does God want women and babies protected from harm?
Does God say parents have rights to protect their own children from sexualization?
Does God want people free to speak and to worship?
Does God want His people to do our part to influence the world we live in? – YES! Your vote is a gift–fought for by our country’s founders and the millions of soldiers who died protecting it. Your vote is also a privilege and a duty.
God has asked His people to actively care for others and our world. Yet, recent research says 32 million Christians who regularly attend church are unlikely to vote this election. Almost HALF of all people of faith say they don’t plan to vote. The margin of victory in the swing states during the 2020 presidential election was only about 600,000 votes.
Do you know what this means? If even a tiny percentage of non-voting people of faith would just show up to vote, our country would be restored to basic Biblical values of freedom and strength almost immediately.
The national study by George Barna of Arizona Christian University’s Christian Research Center reveals that the 49% who are not likely to vote in November, represents about 104 million eligible non-voters in the “people of faith” segment. Of those people, it’s predicted that 5 million additional Christians would likely vote if their pastor encouraged them to do so.
Barna said, “[T]he 32 million Christians sitting in the pews each week who refuse to vote are a gamechanger. It’s low hanging fruit for pastors as they try to motivate those congregants to carry out their civic duty and honor God through their influence for things that matter in our culture.”
If Arizona pastors simply encourage their members to vote, it will change everything!
If Arizona church-goers simply encourage each other to vote, it will make a HUGE difference!
One main reason Christians say they don’t vote is because they feel uninformed. Get together with your Bible study groups; grab some friends in your faith circles! Have coffee and discuss together what’s on your ballots. We’re asking people to hold a ‘Ballot Coffee/Party’—just a simple coffee or casual gathering where friends and family can discuss their ballots together and have fun while completing their own ballots, based on their values and accurate information—like our AZWOA Voter Guide.
It is our contention that it is the duty and responsibility of every Christian to vote and to vote for leaders who promote Christian principles. God is most certainly in control, but that does not mean we should do nothing to further His will. We are commanded to pray for our leaders (1 Timothy 2:1-4). In terms of politics and leadership, there is evidence in Scripture that God has been displeased with our choices of leadership at times (Hosea 8:4). The evidence of sin’s grip on this world is everywhere. Much of the suffering on earth is because of godless leadership (Proverbs 28:12). Scripture gives Christians instructions to obey legitimate authority unless it contradicts the Lord’s commands (Acts 5:27-29; Romans 13:1-7). As born-again believers, we ought to strive to choose leaders who will be themselves led by our Creator (1 Samuel 12:13-25). Candidates or proposals that violate the Bible’s commands for life, family, marriage, or faith should never be supported (Proverbs 14:34). Christians should vote as led through prayer and study of both God’s Word and the realities of the choices on the ballot.
Calling all people of faith!!—This great and free nation was formed by ‘the church’. And it will ONLY be revived by people of the church! EVERY ONE of us must do our part—by prayer, by grace, in truth, through community, in action.
Kim Miller is the President and Founder of Arizona Women of Action. You can find out more about their work here.
by AZ Free Enterprise Club | Oct 25, 2024 | Opinion
By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |
If you can’t get people to like your ideas, change the system. That’s the clear agenda behind the Prop 140 scheme that seeks to bring ranked-choice voting and jungle primaries to Arizona. And there’s no more hiding it.
At a recent news conference organized by the Prop 140 campaign, Kimber Lanning—founder and CEO of a group called Local First Arizona that wants to build “equitable” systems for Arizona’s businesses—let the mask slip. Lanning revealed that when other states have adopted the reforms included in Prop 140, they have been able to move forward on transformational ideas like climate action plans and providing driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants.
Wait. Aren’t ranked-choice voting and jungle primaries supposed to lead to more moderation in the government? That’s what the backers of Prop 140 continue to push. But since when did climate action plans and special benefits for illegal immigrants become moderate?
Therin lies the true motivations behind Prop 140. Liberal billionaires from Colorado and others states around the country are pouring millions and millions into Arizona to pass this initiative in an effort to turn Arizona blue. They envision a system anchored around ranked-choice voting and jungle primaries will put them in charge of the political and policy agenda here in Arizona.
And in their zeal for power and control, they don’t even recognize the underlying hubris and irony of their entire campaign…
>>> CONTINUE READING >>>
