by Earl Taylor | Sep 2, 2024 | Opinion
By Earl Taylor, Jr. |
One of the principles of liberty our Founders adhered to is that only limited and carefully defined powers should be delegated to government, all others being reserved to the people. This principle is clearly followed in Article 1, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution wherein is outlined the 20 or so areas in which Congress can make law. This concept was abandoned decades ago as Congress began legislating in many other areas not mentioned in Article 1, Section 8.
James Madison clearly explained this principle in Federalist Paper 45: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite.” Unlike the federal Constitution, you will not find in state constitutions specific areas in which state legislatures can make law because there are so many.
How, then, are we to understand the limits our state legislatures, our city councils, our county board of supervisors have in making law? The answer to this question lies in the constitutional phrase “promote the General Welfare.” If one observes the 20 or so powers in Article 1, Section 8 of the U. S. Constitution, they are all areas that benefit the whole people like: military defense, a monetary system, a postal system, a system of weights and measures, a federal court system, etc. In other words, general welfare means if you tax all the people, then you only spend that money for things that benefit the whole people. Under “general welfare” there is to be no tax money going to individuals, special groups, or specific geographic locations, or any other kind of “specific” welfare.
This same principle should apply to state and local governments. For example, city councils should ask themselves what are the things that benefit all the people and that all the people use? The answer would include such things as: good streets, a well-functioning domestic water system, a good sewage system, good police protection, a fair local court system, etc. These are things individuals all want and are willing to spend money to obtain because they use them. It’s really what makes us want to live in a community rather than out in the wilderness. And furthermore, there is usually not much argument or contention about these things because we consider them things that make our lives comfortable.
But what happens when government officials try to use our tax money to provide things most of us don’t want and don’t use, such as: light rail and bus systems, sports stadiums, homeless facilities, conference centers, arts centers, museums, libraries, electric vehicle charging stations, narrower streets and more bike lanes? They try to sell us on these ideas as “Quality of Life” issues. These are issues that do not pay for themselves and therefore are a significant burden paid for mostly by taxpayers who do not use them. These are also issues that cause the most disagreement and contention in a community.
But the true purpose of government is to only protect equal rights so that people can be free to invent and produce items that give us real quality of life. This also leaves more resources in the hands of the people to give compassionate service to the truly needy.
The authority to govern rests innately with the people. Government only has the authority that the people give it. If a person has no authority to take from one person and give to another (stealing), then how can he give his agent, the government, the authority to forcibly take money from citizen A and give it to citizen B so he can, for example, be transported from point A to point B? Isn’t that stealing also? Someone may say, “Well, that’s why we vote.” But can the vote take away a person’s property by legalizing stealing? Of course not!
When we vote this November, hopefully we will choose those who respect the rights of all citizens and reject those who endorse programs which use the power of government to do what individuals can’t do – steal from the people.
Earl Taylor, Jr. is the President of The National Center for Constitutional Studies.
by AZ Free Enterprise Club | Sep 1, 2024 | Opinion
By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |
Arizona, we have a problem. Apparently, the group behind Proposition 140—a ballot initiative aimed to bring California-style elections to our state—got very creative in their signature gathering efforts. In fact, you could say that in many ways, they excelled in duplicating their work. And that’s exactly why Prop 140 should be invalidated.
Back in July, the special interests behind the idea to bring jungle primaries and ranked choice voting to Arizona submitted signatures with the Arizona Secretary of State to qualify the so-called “Make Elections Fair Act” for the November General Election. Just a couple weeks later, a lawsuit was filed after it was determined that a large portion of their signatures were collected in violation of state law. And late last week, we received some good news. The Arizona Supreme Court ruled that the signature challenge lawsuit against Prop 140—which was facing a potential deadline due to the printing of ballots—may continue to ensure that the 40,000 duplicate signatures submitted by the Prop 140 committee are examined and removed from the final tally.
Yes, you read that right. The group that supposedly wants to “make elections fair” is content to do so by counting duplicate signatures (i.e. voters that signed more than once). What does that say about the true nature of this initiative?
>>> CONTINUE READING >>>
by Scottsdale Unites for Educational Integrity | Aug 30, 2024 | Opinion
By Scottsdale Unites for Educational Integrity |
Scottsdale Unified Board Member Libby Hart-Wells appears to have used her position to bypass the Code of Conduct Committee, pressing top district administrators to remove ‘navel’ from the list of body parts that students must cover at school.
Due to Hart-Wells’ actions, Scottsdale’s Chaparral High School began the 2024-2025 school year by featuring on social media a female student wearing a bra top and low-cut jeans, with her entire torso exposed.
Although Hart-Wells’ actions occurred in 2022, parents are only now becoming aware of them due to newly obtained public records. These records reveal Hart-Wells’ growing frustration when staff did not promptly comply with her request to permit midriff shirts. In fact, SUSD staff members told Hart-Wells that they wished to honor the work of the Code of Conduct Committee, however, that message did little to sway Hart-Wells from pursuing her personal agenda.
None of Hart-Wells’ emails indicated that she consulted parents, committee members, or her fellow board members about her plans to modify the policy on students’ acceptable dress.
“It’s clear that board member Hart-Wells does not respect the district or parents or have our students’ best interest in mind. We need school board members who prioritize academics and respect parents’ involvement in their kids’ lives. We need family-friendly school board candidates Gretchen Jacobs, Jeanne Beasley and Drew Hassler,” stated a concerned SUSD parent.
The district emails reveal that, without providing evidence, Hart-Wells asserted, “I did get some student feedback.”
“Please know I press this issue not for myself or as any slight to the committee’s work, but for the students and the learning environment,” wrote Hart Wells. In yet another email, she stated, “I have requested your reconsideration more than once but remain without a substantive response” after the district didn’t acquiesce to her demands.
District emails also show that Assistant Superintendent Milissa Sackos and Director of Support Services Shannon Cronn pushed back on the change internally, and that the district’s cabinet concluded that the modification should not be made. Sackos decried Hart-Wells’ request as “contrary to the committee recommendations after including, without limitation, a discussion with cabinet and school-level administrators.”
Ultimately, Superintendent Menzel instructed staff, “I agree we should do this and hopefully include it on the October 18th consent agenda.” A private memo to governing board members dated October 14, 2022, states “this request was discussed with several stakeholder groups.” Public records show the “stakeholder groups” were only Hart-Wells.
At the October 18, 2022, board meeting, without any public discussion to indicate that the code of conduct had been modified, board members Zach Lindsay, Julie Cieniawski, Libby Hart-Wells, and Patty Beckman approved the revised 80-page Code of Conduct, which was now lacking the word ‘navel.’
That’s what you’re getting from your school board members, Scottsdale. It’s time for a change this November.
Scottsdale Unites for Educational Integrity is a coalition of Scottsdale Unified parents, teachers & community members committed to academic success for every student.
by Dr. Thomas Patterson | Aug 29, 2024 | Opinion
By Dr. Thomas Patterson |
Kamala Harris in her nomination acceptance at the Democratic National Convention assured the roaring crowd that she would “never stop fighting” for the American people and that she would “blaze a new way forward.” The speech disclosed no details, but she appeared to have in mind merely adding to the benefits that the welfare state bestows on grateful voters.
Subsidies for home mortgages, forgiveness of student loans, and free universal preschool have been dangled as possibilities. However, Harris and the other purveyors of free stuff have a big problem. They are running out of other peoples’ money to give away.
It’s not just America but the world’s advanced economies who are seeing the bill come due for decades of social spending exceeding revenue. American leftists like to chide fiscal conservatives for fretting about high tax rates, but economists now note that some high-tax European states are approaching the peak of the Laffer curve, the point at which raising tax rates fails to raise additional revenues. That means hitting the wall.
Western politicians over the last century developed a different style of campaigning for office. Rather than emphasizing the common good and overall strength of the nation, they competed on the basis of what government services they could provide to individuals and groups.
The responses to the Great Depression and the COVID crisis were especially harmful. The New Deal failed to end the depression. We have WWII to thank for that. But the traumatic experience convinced many Americans to think of government as their benevolent caretaker.
The economic deprivations caused by the COVID crisis were due to mostly self-inflicted wounds like the economic and educational shutdowns. Worse, long after the crisis had passed, the checks kept coming to Americans who were not impoverished. The “emergency” expenditures morphed into entitlements.
America has developed a culture of spending which caused the national debt in 2023 to exceed 120% of GDP while 100% has long been considered the outer limit of acceptable indebtedness. We also have hundreds of trillions more in future obligations to beneficiaries with no funding source available.
Time and demographics are not on our side. In just the next 12 years, aging baby boomers will reduce the ratio of workers (25 to 64) to retirees (65 and older) from 3:1 to 2:1. The fastest growing demographic group is those 85 and older, who require extra funding. Moreover, increased security risks like war and terrorism will create additional budgetary stresses.
There are fewer alternatives to reduced spending than ever available. Tax increases are politically unpopular and often don’t produce the hoped for outcomes because they reduce productivity. European countries have about 50% higher tax revenues than America, yet their real GDP per capita is lower, even factoring in the government services and subsidies they receive.
The era of low interest rates and the accompanying “sugar high” is over. The higher cost of debt financing will inevitably impair the ability of succeeding generations, already tapped out, to shoulder the burden of our selfish spending.
By now, we’ve breezed past all the easy fixes. We are facing severe warning signals, and all the red lights are blinking. Yet in spite of the urgent need to change our ways, both political parties studiously look the other way. Getting elected is still the imperative that trumps all others.
The general accounting office (GAO) recently made recommendations for minor adjustments to federal government procedures that would save $208 billion over the next decade. The major one was equalizing payment rates for offices determining Medicare benefits. The proposals are non-controversial and politicians supporting them could take cover by pointing out that they are endorsed by a non-partisan agency. The response has been…crickets.
Scores of scholarly papers have been written on how to reduce government waste, how to expedite permitting, and how to recover COVID over-payments, all to no avail. The politicians just aren’t that interested and, sadly, neither is the public.
We’re hearing a lot about democracy lately. Both parties claim the other one is an existential threat. Advice to would-be political leaders who are courageous enough to go beyond pontificating and do something that might actually preserve our democracy is simply this: cut the spending.
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.
by Mike Bengert | Aug 27, 2024 | Opinion
By Mike Bengert |
We are in the middle of an election season, having just completed a primary election with the general election coming in November. With many important and highly contested races, emotions run high on both sides of the political aisle, sometimes leading people to do dumb things.
Most people want an honest, fair election process with all candidates given the same opportunity to get their name out in front of the voters and make their case as to why people should vote for them.
The Scottsdale city elections, including the mayor and city council, are non-partisan. The election for the Scottsdale Unified School District Governing Board is also non-partisan. Name recognition becomes more critical in those races. Candidates for those offices rely on signs to create name recognition with the voters. The idea is that when people cast their votes, they will see a familiar name on the ballot.
Removing political signs not only interferes with the election process, but it is also illegal.
Those who continue to remove political signs in Scottsdale need to be aware that under Arizona Revised Statute 16-1019, it is a class 2 misdemeanor for any person to knowingly remove, alter, deface, or cover any political sign of any candidate for public office. This includes school board candidates.
In Arizona, a class 2 misdemeanor is a serious charge resulting in up to four months in jail and a $750 fine for a first-time offense. The second conviction could result in six months in jail, a $2,500 fine, and up to three years’ probation.
Think you won’t get caught? Remember there are cameras everywhere, and a sign could very well come with a tracking device that could lead right back to you.
During this political season, there has been a lot of talk about protecting our democracy. No matter which side you are on, removing political signs is a bad idea. Let the candidates get their names and policies in front of the voters, without interference, and may the best candidates and ideas win.
If you think the only way your candidate can win is to silence the other candidates, then maybe you are supporting the wrong candidate.
Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.
by Katarina White | Aug 26, 2024 | Opinion
By Katarina White |
The Screwtape Letters is a satirical novel written by C.S. Lewis in which a senior demon advises his nephew on how to lead humans astray. It exposes moral issues by presenting them from evil’s perspective, and it made me think. I wonder how Uncle Screwtape would reveal the distorted reasoning behind actions like supporting abortion through Proposition 139.
My Dear Wormwood,
I am thrilled to see our schemes in Arizona advancing so well. This November, the humans will vote on Proposition 139, the Arizona Abortion Access Amendment—a constitutional amendment that would enshrine the slaughter of infants up until the point of birth. What a splendid victory this could be for our cause!
For years, we’ve worked to twist their concept of “freedom” into a license for destruction, and what better vehicle than “choice”? The language of this amendment is, dare I say, masterful—dressed up in words like “rights” and “autonomy” that tickle the human mind and make them believe true freedom lies in rejecting any duty toward the most vulnerable. How easily they are led to view abortion not as ending a life, but as an empowering act of independence. Wrap it all in euphemisms, and they’ll never notice the blood on their hands.
But do not underestimate our opposition. Those meddlesome pro-lifers, especially Arizona Right to Life, remain a thorn in our side. They are determined to educate the public on what this amendment truly means and why it must be stopped. They speak of “defending life” and “protecting the innocent,” and they’re working hard to reach as many people as possible with their message. If they manage to expose the truth behind our cleverly disguised rhetoric, they could sway enough voters against us.
We must counter this by portraying them as extremists—out of touch with today’s values and opposed to women’s rights and personal liberty. Our allies in the Arizona Abortion Access Campaign have been skillful in steering attention away from uncomfortable topics like late-term abortions or the erosion of parental consent. Instead, they’ve focused on narratives of compassion and healthcare.
However, we must stay vigilant. Arizona Right to Life is relentless in its efforts to inform voters of the amendment’s dangers. They are spreading the word through educational campaigns, determined to expose the amendment’s potential for unfettered abortion access. We must work tirelessly to drown out their message, keeping the focus on appealing catchphrases and steering the conversation away from the harsh reality of what’s at stake.
In the end, the humans will think they are securing a “right,” when in truth, they will be codifying a monstrous wrong. Our task is to keep them in the dark until it’s too late.
Your affectionate uncle,
Screwtape
Katarina White serves as Board Member for Arizona Right to Life. To get involved and stay informed, visit the Arizona Right to Life website.
