by AZ Free Enterprise Club | Jul 7, 2021 | Opinion
By the Free Enterprise Club |
After raking in cash from taxpayers amounting to a staggering $4 billion surplus, Governor Ducey and Republican legislators have delivered big with a historic tax cut this year. At full implementation, the cuts enshrined in SB1827, SB1828, and SB1783 will total $1.8 billion, and this couldn’t have come at a better time.
While Arizona families and small businesses were struggling during covid shutdowns and trying to make ends meet, the tax collector was still busy collecting. And as all Arizonans were already being overtaxed, on the narrowest margin, Proposition 208 was passed threatening a 77% tax hike on many Arizonans and small businesses. The tax cuts in this year’s budget completely neutralize that threat.
The tax cut package will result in a tax cut for all Arizona taxpayers. At full implementation, the current four rates of 2.59%, 3.34%, 4.17%, and 4.5% (with a fifth Prop 208 rate of 8%) will be collapsed into one single rate of 2.5%.
But since Proposition 208 is voter protected, income above $250,000 ($500,000 for married filing jointly) would still be hit with the 3.5% “surcharge,” resulting in a top rate of 6%, leaving Arizona still uncompetitive. The tax cut package takes care of this, too, by capping the top rate any taxpayer will shoulder at 4.5%, or the current top marginal rate.
Finally, holding the Red4Ed Prop 208 proponents to the promise that their tax hike “legally” could not affect small businesses, SB1783 will create an optional alternative small business tax which will have a rate beginning at 3.5% this year, ratcheting down to match the new single individual income rate of 2.5%. This means that small businesses can bifurcate their business income from their personal income, filing it under the alternative small business tax and paying a rate of 2.5% instead of the capped 4.5% rate. To reiterate, this is small business income that by Prop 208 advocates own words was never supposed to be subject to the surcharge. SB1783 codifies that intent…
>>> READ MORE >>>
by Terri Jo Neff | Jul 6, 2021 | Education, News
By Terri Jo Neff |
The Fiscal Year 2022 K-12 Education bill signed last week by Gov. Doug Ducey contains several provisions which could vastly change school transportation options for students during the 2021-2022 school year, especially those who live in rural areas or outside a district’s boundaries.
House Bill 2898 contains In Lieu of Transportation Grants (ILT Grants) which among other things allows a school district to use a portion of the district’s transportation funding to provide ILT Grants to parents of students who attend the school district.
The grants, which require a plan submission to the Arizona Department of Education, also permit charter schools to use a portion of its Charter Additional Assistance funding for the same purpose.
Among the offerings which can be included in an ILT Grant plan is financial support for an individual parent or a neighborhood carpool which transports students to school. The legislation also includes a provision protecting a school district which seeks to offer ILT Grants for its students from having its transportation funding allocations reduced.
Charter schools which use CAA funding for transportation awards to parents must report such expenditures to the Department of Education.
HB2898 also establishes a Public School Transportation Modernization Grants Program (PSTMG Program) through the Arizona Department of Administration. The program, which would end in 2025, would select a third-party administrator to distribute grants to school districts, charter schools, or other eligible entities based on demand and the most innovative solutions.
The administrator, who would be permitted to retain up to five percent of the appropriations each year, must award at least 25 percent of the grants to rural and remote proposals if a sufficient number of qualified remote and rural proposals are submitted.
In another effort to ensure parents understand transportation options, HB2898 included language which now requires a school district to include transportation resource information in its open enrollment policies.
And for non-resident students with disabilities, a district will be required to provide transportation of no more than 30 miles (up from 20 miles) if the students’ individual education program specifies that transportation is necessary.
Meanwhile, school districts will have the option in 2021-2022 to provide transportation for nonresident students up to 30 miles if the student is deemed eligible for the Free or Reduced Price Lunch program. The current limit is 20 miles.
The school transportation legislation was signed by Ducey as districts across Arizona ramp up efforts to recruit drivers for the new school year. Some districts have reported needing to hire several dozen drivers, many who will be assigned to rural routes which often have only a handful of student riders.
by AZ Free Enterprise Club | Jul 2, 2021 | Opinion
By the Free Enterprise Club |
They’re still trying to scare us. Apparently, some people in our country just don’t like seeing businesses reopen, people unmasked, and a return to normalcy. So, as the threat to COVID largely dwindles, it should come as no surprise that the media is now pushing a new threat: the Delta variant.
Of course, the messaging is predictable:
-
- More contagious (CNN)
- Exploded in the UK (CNBC)
- Worst and scariest variant yet (MSNBC)
It will be interesting to see how state and local governments across the country respond to this so-called “latest threat.” As you’ll recall, it didn’t go so well the first time around with most seizing the opportunity to abuse emergency powers, even here in Arizona. And although Arizona’s COVID response puts it ahead of most other states in the country, there’s still work to be done.
Thankfully, our state lawmakers haven’t ignored the problem. And with various provisions in a series of Budget Reconciliation Bills, they have taken important steps to protect Arizona from more COVID mandates and government overreach.
>> READ MORE >>>
by AZ Free News | Jul 2, 2021 | News
On Thursday, the National Federation of Independent Business released its monthly Jobs Report, which found that Arizona is well-positioned to beat its neighbors to full economic recovery.
“Early legislative action this year to enact COVID-19 liability protection for businesses followed by recently adopted, historic tax reforms for income and property taxpayers will feed the flames of optimism and build confidence in business owners–leading to more investment, hiring and growth of small businesses in Arizona,” said Chad Heinrich, Arizona state director for National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB). “While small-business owners remain in a struggle to fill open jobs, in Arizona our small businesses are seeing the support that comes from having a pro-small-business Legislature as our elected officials wrap up business at the State Capitol.”
According to NFIB’s report, 46% of small business owners reported job openings they could not fill in the current period, down two points from May but still above the 48-year historical average of 22%. Small business owners continue to struggle to find qualified workers for their open positions while raising compensation at a record high level.
A net 39% (seasonally adjusted) of owners reported raising compensation (up five points), a record high. A net 26% plan to raise compensation in the next three months (up four points), according to the report.
“In the busy summer season, many firms haven’t been able to hire enough workers to efficiently run their businesses, which has restricted sales and output,” said NFIB Chief Economist Bill Dunkelberg. “In June, we saw a record high percent of owners raising compensation to help attract needed employees and job creation plans also remain at record highs. Owners are doing everything they can to get back to a full, productive staff.”
According to NFIB, “the Jobs Report is a national snapshot not broken down by state. The results were based on 592 respondents to the June survey of a random sample of NFIB’s member firms, surveyed through 6/28/2021.”
by Terri Jo Neff | Jul 1, 2021 | News
By Terri Jo Neff |
In a 6-3 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Arizona election laws were not “enacted with a racially discriminatory purpose.”
The Court also found that “Arizona law generally makes it very easy to vote. Voters may cast their ballots on election day in person at a traditional precinct or a ‘voting center’ in their county of residence.”
Justice Samuel Alito authored the 44-page opinion for the majority on two cases which were ruled on together. Justice Neil Gorsuch, with Justice Clarence Thomas joining, concurred with Alito’s opinion but tagged on a one-paragraph notation about an issue involving the Voting Rights Act of 1965 which was assumed in the majority opinion but had not been decided in the Arizona cases.
Justice Elena Kagan wrote a dissent on behalf of herself and Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.
The case involved Arizona’s election laws related to ballot harvesting and to out-of-precinct voting. Specifically, the justices ruled on a law passed by the Legislature in 2016 which makes it illegal for organizations to “harvest” or collect voters’ mail-in ballots and then deliver them to election officials.
The other law requires election officials to invalidate, or not count, ballots that are cast by voters outside their registered precinct.
Gov. Doug Ducey called the ruling “big victory for Arizona voters, the rule of law and the integrity of our elections.”
As reported by AFN earlier this month:
Two Yuma County women charged by the Arizona Attorney General’s Office with ballot fraud are scheduled to be back in court next month, two local election integrity watchdogs say the problem in their county runs much deeper, and it has garnered the attention of the FBI.
Gary Garcia Snyder and David Lara revealed in a radio interview with Sergio Arellano that they utilized hidden cameras to record ballot harvesting incidents at two San Luis polling stations on Aug. 4, 2020, which was primary election day. The city of 33,000 is in the far southwest corner of Arizona on the Mexico border.
RELATED ARTICLE: Concerned Citizens Provided FBI With Videos Of Ballot Abuse, Harvesting In Yuma County
The Court on Thursday found:
Arizona law generally makes it very easy to vote. Voters may cast their ballots on election day in person at a traditional precinct or a “voting center” in their county of residence. Ariz. Rev. Stat. §16–411(B)(4). Arizonans also may cast an “early ballot” by mail up to 27 days before an election, §§16–541, 16–542(C), and they also may vote in person at an early voting location in each county, §§16–542(A), (E). These cases involve challenges under §2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) to aspects of the State’s regulations governing precinct-based election day voting and early mail-in voting. First, Arizonans who vote in person on election day in a county that uses the precinct system must vote in the precinct to which they are assigned based on their address. If a voter votes in the wrong precinct, the vote is not counted.
Second, for Arizonans who vote early by mail, Arizona House Bill 2023 (HB 2023) makes it a crime for any person other than a postal worker, an elections official, or a voter’s caregiver, family member, or household member to knowingly collect an early ballot— either before or after it has been completed. §§16–1005(H)–(I).
[View Court’s Opinion Here]
The Democratic National Committee and certain affiliates filed suit, alleging that both the State’s refusal to count ballots cast in the wrong precinct and its ballot-collection restriction had an adverse and disparate effect on the State’s American Indian, Hispanic, and African-American citizens in violation of §2 of the VRA. Additionally, they alleged that the ballot-collection restriction was “enacted with discriminatory intent” and thus violated both §2 of the VRA and the Fifteenth Amendment. The District Court rejected all of the plaintiffs’ claims. The court found that the out-of-precinct policy had no “meaningfully disparate impact” on minority voters’ opportunities to elect representatives of their choice. Turning to the ballot-collection restriction, the court found that it was unlikely to cause “a meaningful inequality” in minority voters’ electoral opportunities and that it had not been enacted with discriminatory intent. A divided panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed, but the en banc court reversed. It first concluded that both the out-of-precinct policy and the ballot-collection restriction imposed a disparate burden on minority voters because they were more likely to be adversely affected by those rules. The en banc court also held that the District Court had committed clear error in finding that the ballot-collection law was not enacted with discriminatory intent.
