Republicans in the Arizona legislature are on the cusp of passing significant tax relief for hardworking families and small business. With historic levels of surplus cash sitting in the state coffers (over $4 billion for FY 2022 alone), returning this money to taxpayers makes sense. In fact, it would have already happened if not for two lone holdouts within the Republican caucus, claiming the $1.9B tax cut is just “too big.”
Are they right? Should the size of the tax package be reduced to avoid a funding cliff in the future?
For an answer to this criticism, it makes sense to examine current revenue projections being provided by the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC). For years JLBC has been relied upon as an independent source for revenue and budget projections by the state legislature. JLBC has never been accused of partisanship or of “cooking the books” to produce rosy budget scenarios. If anything, they have historically been too conservative in their figures, often because they don’t use dynamic modeling for their growth projections.
With this in mind, JLBC is projecting that by FY2024, baseline revenue for the state will be over $14.5 billion, a figure that has been growing with each month. For perspective, legislators were budgeting just shy of $11.1 billion in ongoing revenue prior to the pandemic—meaning that Arizona is expected to see a 31% increase in state revenue in four years.
Where is all this new revenue coming from? While a portion of this surplus is expected from economic growth, that is not the only source. Much of this new revenue is from a series of tax increases that continued to be ignored by opponents of the budget.
Remember the “monumental” new gaming compact Ducey signed in April—the one allowing for sports and fantasy sports betting? That is projected to rake in $300 million of new revenue annually by FY2024.
As a constituent in LD8, I have been hearing for years from Representative David Cook about his “conservative record.” This has been the song Cook has sung every election, and being completely unchallenged, he has successfully convinced many voters it is true.
But David Cook is no conservative, and him just saying he is, doesn’t make it so. The gig is up; Mr. Cook can’t run away from his very liberal record anymore.
Last week Rep. David Cook singlehandedly killed much needed tax cuts, institutionalizing the damage of Prop 208 and carrying the water for the democrats and Red4Ed. He was the lone Republican in this vote.
In trying to spin his way out of siding with the Dems on opposing tax relief, Cook is telling voters in Pinal County that he cut taxes by $600 million last year. One small problem with his claim–it never happened.
No tax cuts were passed in 2020, as the Pandemic ended session early and a “skinny budget” was passed by the legislature.
Cook didn’t vote to cut our taxes in 2019 by $600 million either. In fact, he raised taxes when he voted to collect a new tax on online sales which has resulted in an over $425M windfall in state and local coffers so far. Although Cook and his Republican colleagues did lower income rates in 2019, this was a part of an effort to stop a tax hike caused by conforming with the Federal Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Stopping a tax increase is not the same as a tax cut. None of this was very conservative.
Cook didn’t cut our taxes in 2018 either–he again voted to raise them. Cook voted with the Democrats for the now repealed $32 car registration fee most Republicans voted against. That wasn’t Cook “standing against his colleagues” to defend conservative principles. No, that was Cook standing with the Democrats and other liberal Republicans to pass a new $500M tax. This is not conservative.
And In 2017 Cook tried to raise our taxes again when he voted for a bill in the House Transportation committee to increase our gas tax by over 50%. This is not conservative.
This year Cook has been the main champion in the House to permanently increase unemployment benefits. On the heels of a government shutdown of the economy, Rep. Cook sponsored the bill this year that would increase unemployment taxes on small and medium businesses by 14 percent. Businesses are already struggling to hire workers back because they are competing against government paying people more to stay at home. This is not conservative.
Amid a surging border crisis, this year Cook was one of only four Republicans who voted to allow illegal immigrants to qualify for in state tuition, scholarships, and financial aid at Arizona public universities. This is not conservative.
The truth is that the legislature hasn’t cut taxes by $600 million in all of the years David Cook has served in the legislature. We have only seen our taxes go up, with Cook and his Democrat pals leading the way.
This year the state has a historic $4 billion surplus sitting in the coffers that all Republicans, except for David Cook, want to use to ensure real relief to taxpayers with real tax cuts.
Voters of LD8 aren’t fooled anymore, despite the impressive amount of gaslighting Mr. Cook does. David Cook is not a conservative. And it is long overdue he stops pretending to be.
With states still feeling the economic damage done by the COVID-19 pandemic, President Joe Biden signed the “American Rescue Plan Act” to give states billions of federal dollars to help them recover. But there’s a catch: The Act effectively prohibits states that take the money from cutting taxes through 2024. That’s unconstitutional—and the Goldwater Institute is joining one legal challenge to it.
Congress can sometimes put conditions on grants to states, but it can’t take advantage of an emergency to coerce states into giving up control of such an important issue of state policy, and it can’t impose a condition on a grant that has nothing to do with the grant’s purpose. That’s why many state attorneys general have filed federal lawsuits challenging this “Tax Mandate”—and it’s why the Goldwater Institute has filed a brief supporting the state of Ohio’s challenge.
THE TAX MANDATE
A provision in the Act says that states cannot use federal grant money to “directly or indirectly offset” a loss of revenue resulting from a tax cut enacted between March 2021 and the end of 2024. If they do, the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury will take the federal money back, up to the amount of revenue the state lost. That appears to mean that states that cut taxes between now and 2024 will have to pay back some or all their grant money.
The Tax Mandate’s defenders say this is just to make sure states actually use federal money for COVID relief. But the Tax Mandate doesn’t actually do that. The Act lists four broad categories of things a state can spend federal grant money on. After states spend the money, they have to report how they spent it to the Treasury Secretary. If the Secretary determines that a state spent money on something that doesn’t fall into one of those categories, she can take that money back.
So if a state receives a grant of, say, $5 billion, it has to show that it spent $5 billion on things the Act allows. If some things it reports weren’t appropriate uses of the money, the Secretary can recoup that portion of the grant. That alone ensures that states spend their federal grants for the purposes Congress intended.
The Tax Mandate, on the other hand, does not help ensure that states spend their grant money properly. Instead, it focuses on whether a state indirectly used federal funds to offset revenue lost as a result of tax cuts. That might make sense if the Act were otherwise designed to deny federal money to states that could afford to pay for their own COVID relief (if they put other policy priorities aside). But the Act doesn’t do that.
If you’ve tried to book a room at the Suites on Scottsdale (formerly known as Homewood Suites) since May 24, you’ve probably been left frustrated. All the rooms are currently listed as “Not Available” through the rest of the year.
A normal person would likely assume that this is because the hotel is going out of business. But that’s not the case. Instead, the hotel was secretly converted into a makeshift migrant shelter by the Biden administration almost overnight.
That comes out to $352 per bed per day of your hard-earned tax dollars.
While hotel rooms in Scottsdale can certainly be expensive, those rates tend to drop significantly in the summer months. It doesn’t take more than a few seconds to do a search that produces a long list of rooms (not just beds) available at hotels in Scottsdale for $75-$150 a night. That’s because people don’t usually flock to Scottsdale when the forecast says it will be 117 degrees on June 15.
But the outrageous no-bid contracts and extravagant bed rates aren’t the only problem.
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
In a handful of words, with only slight variations, elected leaders in the United States vow to, “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
What if the domestic enemy is staring back at you in the mirror.
Any elected officer seeking to promote a collectivist, socialist or communist ideology, should on principle, resign immediately. You cannot, at the same time, espouse these ideologies and keep the oath you have sworn to uphold.
I elaborate:
Domestic enemies of the Constitution include those who do not believe in the ideals protected by the Constitution or the Federal Republic which it creates.
Abraham Lincoln taught that the Constitution was created to protect the principles, ideals and values as set forth in the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution, thus, should be viewed as the “strong box” protecting the precious truths written by Thomas Jefferson and unveiled to the world on July 4, 1776.
Included in these truths are the following:
That “all men are created equal.”
American patriots still believe this to be true but if one has a Marxist belief system, he does not. Marxists believe that there are oppressors and the oppressed, perpetrators and victims.
If one falls into the oppressor or perpetrator class, as determined by them, then he/she is not to be treated equally but as a cancer to be eviscerated. This person is to be demonized, ridiculed and accused of nefarious deeds regardless of individual ideas, thoughts, and history.
And, of course, if everyone is treated equally, it means we will not have equal outcomes. That is not fair to communists.
So, “equity” — equality of outcome — becomes the new mantra. In 2021, it is this clamor, unnerving and morally debased, that needs to be called out and extinguished.
We must grasp that we cannot have a nation that is free and treats everyone equal and, simultaneously, one that promotes “equity.”
Next, the phrase, “that they are endowed by their creator.”
Stop right there. Marxists believe there is no God and, therefore, He cannot endow anyone with anything. The only endowing, in fact, is that performed by earthly mandates from those in power. Therefore, securing that power is justified by any means.
I offer, “with certain unalienable rights.”
Marxists do not believe in unalienable rights to individuals. This belief messes up governments’ ability to do what they thinks is best for the collective.
If individuals have unalienable rights, this automatically neutralizes the power of a centralized authority.
I offer, “that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Each one of these flies in the face of Marxism. To them, your life is not your own, liberty is a hiss and byword as it can be used against the states’ interest, and one’s pursuit of happiness is not a concern. Your happiness may conflict with what government deems best for all.
Of course, control of private property is part of the, “liberty and pursuit of happiness,” claim in the Declaration as per Madison and Jefferson. But protection of private property is to be shunned by Marxists, as “equity” cannot be attained when people control what they produce or own.
I offer, “that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.”
“Heresy!”, is the cry of Marxists. Governments set up to protect individual rights as its primary function!? How do we get anything done with that? Surely, governments need to be set up to make life fair and equitable; to force people to do the right thing; and to comply with what we think is right. So, say communists.
Make no doubt, this is the big one.
Patriots still believe that protecting our liberty is government’s primary role while the enemies of liberty have other priorities. We have had many priorities subvert that of liberty of late. Let’s not forget what we allowed our governors to do under the guise of our safety this past year.
I offer, “deriving their just powers by the consent of the governed.”
Marxists believe that we cannot function and create a utopia that is “just and fair” to all with only limited powers delegated to government by the people.
Government must be the arbiters of its own power. The people know nothing of what is best for them. Limited powers delegated are too restrictive and will delay the work that needs to be done. Expediency and today’s exigencies are what is important and no parchment barrier, like the Constitution, should be allowed to get in the way of progress, they contend.
So, we see that Marxists of all shapes and sizes do not believe in the fundamental truths that all Americans used to believe in from birth. The American Creed, the second paragraph of the Declaration, was the vision we all embraced.
Today, we see this common belief is no longer embraced by all – but something to be scourged by the American Left.
And the same people that deride the ideals in the Declaration are attempting to destroy the document constructed to protect it.
The Constitution is a compact among the states that grants limited power to the federal government for a reason. These limitations of power inhibit the ability of authoritarians to do as they wish. Destroying these limitations is, in fact, a defection to Marxism.
Federalism, or the separation of powers between the national government, the states, and the people, is to be overcome by ignoring those inconvenient restrictions contained within the Constitution — and concentrating all political power in Washington, D.C.
Marxists also do not believe in the separation of powers between executive, legislative and judicial branches. All are to be used as tools to consolidate power and by any means necessary. Illegal executives-orders, legislating from the bench or creating laws through bureaucratic overreach are all legitimate tools, provided they further the cause.
The Bill of Rights? Nothing sacred here to Marxists.
Freedom of speech and the press should be curtailed for our own good. Only ”correct ideas,” approved by social media giants should be aired to public audiences. Freedom of religion is a privilege, not a right. Forget the 2nd Amendment. Due process, the taking of private property without compensation and Equal Protection Clause are all outdated and, in fact, impede what is needed today in order to make progress.
Arbitrary edicts and rule from on-high with few legislatures in-session or consulted about issues that deal with, “we, the people?”
Didn’t we fight a revolutionary war that dealt with lack of representation?
We have come so far.
Few of our elected officials openly endorse Marxism or Communism, but by looking at the policies they support, we know where their true allegiance lies, and it is not to the Constitution or the ideals it protects.
Jeff Utsch, of Tucson, AZ, is an instructor at the Leadership and Freedom center in Gettysburg PA and teaches on the Constitution around the nation. You can find published articles, podcasts, and commentary at www.jeffutsch.com. He can be reached at Jeff@jeffutsch.com
These days more and more apparently intelligent people seem to upspeak. That’s the irritating “Valley Girl” inflection where every sentence sounds like a question. Don’t these people trust their own thoughts and words?
Perhaps upspeakers’ brains are fried after being fed a steady diet of DEI, ESG, and BIPOC. For the uninitiated, these initials stand for “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion”, a corporate stock/investment rating based on Environmental awareness, Social justice and (right-minded) Governance to enhance the lives of “Black, Indigenous, People of Color.” “Privilege” gets the full word. White people must “check their privilege at the door” and shut up under the current era of Stalinesque cancel culture.
Black American slaves used to have some version of Simon Legree as their master. Now the woke white liberals have assumed that role. Even views BIPOCs as helpless morons whom only the government can rescue.
Of course, little BIPOCs are the perfect unsuspecting targets. Despite parental objections, new school curricula include Marxist inspired critical race theory that teaches children to hate others based on skin color. Instead of learning the 3 Rs, kindergarteners are encouraged to explore their gender identity and question the family structure . The latest data show that only 35 percent of 4 th graders are proficient in reading and 41 percent are proficient in math. Instead of learning the necessary skills to race to the top of the ladder of success, they have the tools to win the victim triathlon. The prize: dependency on government resources.
COVID-19 added a new ingredient to the melting pot. Brown-skinned Americans fare more poorly with COVID than whites. Some reasons are sociological , such as crowded living conditions, working in service jobs that cannot be done from home, and inconsistent access to health care. Some reasons may be physiological. Studies have shown racial differences in the body’s ACE-2 receptors. These receptors help control inflammation, especially in cells lining the blood vessels . These are the sites where the “spike” protein of the SARS-Co-V-2 virus (that causes COVID-19) enter and infect healthy cells throughout the body. Notably, there may be more ACE-2 receptors in patients with hypertension, diabetes and coronary artery disease—conditions plaguing black Americans . Moreover, people with brown skin have lower levels of Vitamin D, a factor in the risk of contracting a SARS-Co-V-2 infection and the severity of COVID-19.
Knowing the higher risk, the DEI folks should have launched an education campaign informing BIPOCs about non-prescription supplements like quercetin, zinc, and vitamin D, as well as prophylaxis or early treatment with inexpensive medications ( hydroxychloroquine , ivermectin , and fluvoxamine , among others) that can significantly reduce symptoms and prevent hospitalizations and deaths.
Instead, the public health gurus waited for vaccines. The guise of “ vaccine equity ” drew attention away from legitimate concerns about the shots. Despite the increased susceptibility to COVID-19, black Americans remain skeptical of the shot. Folks still remembered the instances where the underserved were “helped” by the government. The 1932 Tuskegee syphilis study denied a group of black men treatment for 40 years. Without informed consent, an experimental measles vaccine was administered to babies starting in 1987. After too many African and Haitian children deaths to ignore, the program was halted.
Able to read, BIPOCs learned about the serious side effects that include sometimes fatal blood clots, facial paralysis, possible menstrual problems, heart inflammation , among others. They wondered why the less effective Johnson & Johnson vaccine was sent to underserved neighborhoods. They wondered why the government had to offer $116 million in prizes , trucks, and customized firearms to encourage people to get the shot. They wondered why the government was going door to door to find BIPOCs to whom to give shots.
In order to swoop in to the rescue, the government-pharmaceutical complex could not allow the 34 million Americans who have had documented COVID-19 or a SARS-CoV-2 infection to depend on their natural immunity . Like a virus escaping from a lab or jumping from a pangolin to infect humans, the government control expanded from BIPOCs to privileged white folks.
What are we to do about the tension between addressing real health disparities and recognizing that racial disparities are used as a cover for manipulating society? Together we rip off the mask of benevolence. As ethical physicians, we pledge to treat all individuals with dignity and respect. We will explain the risks and benefits of their options and let patients decide. As active citizens, we demand prophylaxis, treatments of our choice, and the freedom to choose to receive or decline the shot. We take advantage of the law. A number of courts have been on the patient’s side.
