by Matthew Holloway | Jul 8, 2025 | Economy, News
By Matthew Holloway |
Although the causes are attributed to various factors by different sources, largely dependent on political leanings, one irrefutable fact emerged on Monday. During Governor Katie Hobbs’ tenure, Arizona has plunged from a ranking of 4th place in the nation in job growth, to 47th.
On Monday, Russ Wiles, writing for the Arizona Republic noted, “AZ no longer ranks near the top for job creation,” and asked rhetorically, “What went wrong?”
Citing figures from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Republic reported that Arizona now ranks in 47th place among the fifty states, just ahead of Massachusetts, West Virginia, and Iowa. The report cited a net loss of 1,900 jobs year-to-date in 2025.
In 2020, at the height of the first Trump Administration and under former Gov. Doug Ducey’s tenure, Arizona ranked third in the nation for economic momentum.
In 2019, the Phoenix Metro area even beat out the largest cities in California, Texas, and Florida to take the #1 slot for job growth.
More recently, in a March 2024 statement, Hobbs touted that Arizona ranked 4th in job growth, and tripled the national average in workforce growth. In the pronouncement, which has aged quite poorly, the governor even dubbed herself “Governor Katie Jobbs,” and credited the “81,800 jobs created,” to “investments in housing, healthcare, infrastructure, childcare, and education.”
Meanwhile, a Goldwater Institute op-ed in January, predicting an acrimonious budget battle that materialized over the next five months, pointed out Hobbs’ askew priorities. While the beleaguered Democrat focused on defeating Arizona’s popular Empowerment Scholarship Account program (ESA) and presided over a surge in crime, her failure to account for $800 million in statutorily required Medicaid spending and an affordable housing crisis represented “fiscal mismanagement at its worst.”
AZCentral’s Russ Wiles, in working to answer “What went wrong?” addressed one factor in the decline as “slowing migration, with fewer people moving here from other states,” which dovetails with the affordable housing issue and the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) rule cracking down on new developments.
Lee McPheters, director of the Economic Outlook Center for Arizona State University’s W. P. Carey School of Business, noted to the outlet, “With domestic migration trending down and international migration dropping off a cliff in 2025, the impetus for population growth has diminished and undoubtedly plays a role here.”
In May, Goldwater launched a legal battle against the Hobbs administration over the ADWR’s controversial new rule imposing the requirement of a 100-year “unmet demand” groundwater supply rule across wide swaths of the state, essentially choking out new housing development.
In addition, as Wiles notes, construction employment has been further weakened by rising material costs, with overall job growth stunted by tariff uncertainty and high interest rates.
Large scale layoffs, such as Nikola Corp.’s 855 jobs lost to its February bankruptcy and Joann Fabrics’ layoffs of 374 employees in January, also factored in heavily. While not directly attributable to Hobbs’ actions, the losses drew a spotlight to a lack of decisive action from Hobbs to attract new employers to Arizona in the short term.
Another factor, unmarked by AZCentral however, has been the $1.6 billion deficit under Hobbs which forced budget cuts, including Department of Economic Security layoffs that directly contributed to the 1,900 net job loss. As Common Sense Institute of Arizona (CSIAZ) explained in June, rather than being caused by Arizona’s flat tax, the shortfall was caused by a massive increase in spending under Hobbs.
“If spending had followed historical trends, Arizona would have had a $4.3 billion surplus rather than a $1.6 billion cash shortfall last year,” CSIAZ wrote.
Hobbs’ vetoes could present the most egregious contribution she’s made. By vetoing 178 total bills in 2025, 73 in 2024, and 143 in 2023, totaling 424 to date, or approximately a third of all bills sent to her desk, Hobbs has prevented the implementation of a comprehensive policy for economic growth from either her administration or Republican leaders in the state legislature from materializing.
Ultimately, Hobbs’ unwillingness to work productively with Republican lawmakers and her active obstruction of legislation to reduce tax burdens, ease regulation, and stimulate job growth may have proven to be as prominent in Arizona economics as it has been in politics. And as prominent Democratic President Harry Truman famously said, “The buck stops here.”
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by Matthew Holloway | Jul 6, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
Arizona State Representative and U.S. Army Command Sergeant Major (ret.) John Gillette (R-LD30) offered a public rebuke of Attorney General Kris Mayes in a July 2nd post to X. Gillette offered a stern correction to Mayes after the Democrat AG announced a lawsuit against the federal government and accused the Trump administration of “violating privacy protections with its decision to share Medicaid data with DHS, which houses ICE.” Mayes claimed the administrative data sharing is an “illegal transfer of Arizonans’ private, personally identifiable health data.”
In a statement announcing the lawsuit, Mayes’ office wrote, “Arizonans accessing Medicaid services do so with the assurance that their data would be confidential. While administering AHCCCS and other healthcare programs, Arizona has relied on the federal government’s assurances that it will follow the law and protect confidentiality. It appears the federal government has broken their promise.”
In his post to X Gillette wrote, “Administrative data sharing with DHS, DOJ, HHS is lawful. The state agreed to the terms when they took the matching funds. 42 CFR 431 privacy act, every service member knows this is only protected from non govt use.” According to 42 CFR §431.300 the law “requires agencies to exchange information to verify the income and eligibility of applicants and beneficiaries.” It further defines under § 431.302 that “Purposes directly related to plan administration include—
(a) Establishing eligibility;
(b) Determining the amount of medical assistance;
(c) Providing services for beneficiaries; and
(d) Conducting or assisting an investigation, prosecution, or civil or criminal proceeding related to the administration of the plan.”
Under these terms, the sharing of information between the State of Arizona and the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, and Health and Human Services aren’t merely lawful, but are mandatory. Any extrajudicial attempts to disrupt this information sharing by Arizona would likely be grounds for the Federal government to similarly take legal action against Arizona at the taxpayers’ expense.
Strict limitations are also placed on the federal agencies requiring that they safeguard the information shared regarding program participants, provide “conditions for release and use of information about applicants and beneficiaries,” and restrict access to the information “to persons or agency representatives who are subject to standards of confidentiality that are comparable to those of the agency.”
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by Dr. Thomas Patterson | Apr 25, 2025 | Opinion
By Dr. Thomas Patterson |
Like a cruise ship steaming toward an iceberg, America’s economy is headed for disaster.
The federal government reports an interest-bearing debt of $37 trillion. However, the actual unfunded obligations of the government, according to the Medicare and Social Security Trustees’ reports, is an unfathomable $158.6 trillion.
Yet the band plays on. In the latest game of chicken to avoid the dreaded but largely imaginary “government shut down,” Democrats stood fast on the theory that their electoral success depends on shipping the maximum number of dollars out the door. Republicans once again proved an inadequate bulwark. Those taking a principled stand against business as usual were denominated “far-right obstructionists” and run over.
The current Republican plan combines a $4.5 trillion tax cut with doubtful spending reductions of $2 trillion, a plan the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects will eventually raise the interest-bearing debt to $60 trillion. Reminder: the Rs are the cost-cutting party.
Trump’s deficit-busting credentials are suspect. During his first term, he added debt at twice the annual rate than Barack Obama did. Nevertheless, he has unleashed a dramatic program of mass firings, contract canceling, and agency reduction/elimination.
Serious cost cutters know that the most effective strategy is to cut where the fiscal impact is high relative to the resistance produced. The DOGE strategy is the exact opposite, already producing highly publicized and resented cuts with no possibility, even if fully implemented, of resolving our debt crisis.
The elimination of all federal civilian employees, no matter how useless and overpaid many are, would save only 3% of the federal budget. To save money, you have to go where the money is. By far the largest “bucket” of federal spending is transfer payments, which are $3.19 trillion of the $6.7 trillion total budget in 2023.
Federal subsidies to states, including Medicaid, cost $1.15 trillion, while debt interest of $.9 trillion is not available for cutting. Purchases of supplies and salaries, which fund the military and all other governmental functions, cost a combined $1.4 trillion, yet provide relatively scant opportunity for significant reductions.
Meanwhile, the two parties dare each other to actually cut transfer payments and “push granny over the cliff.” Trump’s response is to adamantly repeat that he will never in any way “cut Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid benefits.”
This war of words has the unfortunate effect of handcuffing those legitimately trying to plan for the total depletion of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, scheduled to occur within the decade. It also rules out some of the non-draconian solutions available like work requirements for the able-bodied and gradually raising the retirement age.
When and if we get serious about cost-cutting and generational fraud, a good place to start would be Medicaid, the most abused and inefficient welfare program. Spending on Medicaid has grown an inflation-adjusted 671% since 1990. In fact, as Senator Phil Graham recently pointed out in the Wall Street Journal, the real purchasing power of total government transfer payments is 20 times greater than when the War on Poverty began in 1990, while the official poverty rate remains at 11.6%.
How can that be? Gramm provides the key insight. Eligibility standards for means-tested programs including Medicaid are based on the Census Bureau’s calculations. But the Census vastly overstates the extent of poverty because it doesn’t count as income 88% of the transfer payments, including food stamps, refundable tax credits, and Medicaid itself. This incoherent bias in calculating income eligibility has led to massive waste, far exceeding DOGE’s projected savings.
Interestingly, the CBO in January developed a new metric for determining “poverty” in the traditional sense of not having enough resources to meet basic needs. When transfer payments were deemed income, which they obviously are, the actual poverty rate fell to 0.8%.
This is an opportunity to save substantial sums without harming those actually poor. $1.48 trillion in welfare benefits annually go to families not actually qualifying as poor, using the CBO’s calculation of counting transfer payments as income. Simply using the CBO methodology, combined with work requirements and limiting welfare benefits to those truly in need, would generate meaningful savings if we have the political courage to do so.
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 Staff Reporter | Mar 19, 2025 | News
By Staff Reporter |
Senator Mark Kelly defended the foreign terrorist sympathizer deported recently by the Trump administration: Dr. Rasha Alawieh, a Lebanese kidney transplant specialist and Brown University professor.
Kelly described Alawieh to constituents as a “talented transplant doctor” and a “lawful H1B visa holder” during a town hall on Monday. Kelly failed to mention Alawieh was deported for attending the funeral of terrorist Hassan Nasrallah — Hezbollah’s late longtime leader — and defending the terrorist to immigration agents. Instead, Kelly alleged her deportation had no justification.
“She was tossed out of the country because she visited some relatives in, I think, Lebanon, or somewhere. So, thrown out without cause, without due process. So we’re up against an administration that does not follow the rules, I think it’s very fair to say, and in some cases breaking laws,” said Kelly.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) explained Alawieh was deported for openly admitting her support of Nassrallah to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers. Alawieh was in the country as a kidney transplant specialist.
“A visa is a privilege not a right—glorifying and supporting terrorists who kill Americans is grounds for visa issuance to be denied. This is commonsense security,” stated DHS.
Court documents revealed Alawieh had photos supportive of Nasrallah along with Iran’s leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, on her phone. Alawieh’s legal counsel withdrew recently from her case, citing “further diligence” as their cause for dropping her as a client.
“Dr. Alawieh stated that Nasrallah is the leader of Hezbollah and as a Shia Muslim, he is highly regarded in the Shia community as a religious figure,” stated the prosecutors. “According to Dr. Alawieh, she follows him for his religious and spiritual teachings and not his politics.”
Kelly made the remarks during a town hall with fellow Senator Ruben Gallego on Monday.
The pair came home this week to disseminate their Democratic leadership’s talking points criticizing the House Republican-led budget as a threat to Medicaid.
House Republicans’ proposed budget (HCR 14) looks to reduce spending by $880 billion. The House approved the plan last month. In response, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries claimed the budget plan would issue “the largest cut to Medicaid in American history,” since the committee charged by the proposed budget to find cuts, the House Energy and Commerce Committee, mainly oversees Medicaid funding (93 percent of its oversight, per the Congressional Budget Office).
House Republicans contested the Democrats’ claim, arguing the budget plan doesn’t mention Medicaid.
While Kelly admitted the mass cancellations of Medicaid hadn’t occurred yet, he said it was a “high probability.” Kelly said Trump’s “giant tax cut” benefited “millionaires and billionaires” mainly.
“All of this stuff you’re hearing every single day is so they give a big giant tax cut to people who don’t need a tax cut. We can raise the taxes of billionaires, and they will still be billionaires, and that’s what we should be doing, we shouldn’t be cutting these services” said Kelly.
Kelly predicted the Trump administration’s changes to Medicaid and Medicare would include additional red tape that would prevent people from getting on or staying on Medicaid, and possibly cutting the match funding number for states.
With reduced or eliminated Medicaid and Medicare, Kelly predicted people would “get sicker” and come to rely on emergency room visits as their primary form of health care, consequently driving up health care costs. Gallego echoed this assessment.
“You will see these emergency rooms become the primary care doctors,” said Gallego.
“This hasn’t happened yet, and it’s possible we can prevent it from happening,” said Kelly.
Kelly proposed expanding access to Medicaid and Medicare as well as increasing taxes on the wealthy as the remedies for reducing health care costs.
According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Arizona has about 780,000 individuals enrolled in Medicare and over 483,000 enrolled in a prescription drug plan only out of over 1.5 million individuals recorded as Medicare eligible in the state.
“There’s no way they can get to those tax cuts without Medicaid. The math doesn’t math,” said Gallego.
Gallego said he thought Republicans were “dumb enough” to go after Medicaid, but perhaps not Medicare.
“In order for them to cut $850 billion from a very narrow slice, that means they’re going to have to go deep,” said Gallego.
Kelly disagreed, saying Republicans were “dumb enough” to go after Medicare.
Gallego predicted certain working families above the federal poverty line but still within Arizona eligibility levels would be cut from Medicaid.
Gallego and Kelly encouraged a mass grassroots response to oppose the Trump administration.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Dr. Thomas Patterson | May 12, 2023 | Opinion
By Dr. Thomas Patterson |
There is a bitter fight brewing in Congress over work requirements for welfare recipients.
President Biden labeled “wacko” the Republican proposal in the debt ceiling bill to require able-bodied childless beneficiaries to either work, obtain job training, or do volunteer work. Our great uniter claimed, “Republicans are cutting benefits for folks they don’t seem to care much about.”
The welfare industry chimed in, saying poor people have no transportation options and job training was not available in some areas. Welfare recipients will be thrown into abject poverty if required to work, because apparently, they are incapable of self-sufficiency.
Reform advocates countered that not working is a choice and most people, including low-income people, have more satisfying lives when working and providing for their families.
So which side is correct? They can’t both be, and the answer is important to get right for the future of our nation.
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could run an experiment, mandating work requirements in welfare programs to see what happens? Good news – that’s already been done.
In the 1990s, the Newt Gingrich-led Congress passed, and President Clinton, after extensive urging, signed a comprehensive welfare reform bill. The law required able-bodied adults to work or be in a job training program to receive benefits. It also placed lifetime limits on welfare.
By the 1990s, the War on Poverty had been waged for three decades. Many Americans were becoming disillusioned as they saw that poverty was winning.
LBJ’s welfare programs to wipe out poverty had been horrendously expensive and yet poverty levels hadn’t been dented. Instead, millions of low-income Americans had adopted welfare as a way of life, to be passed on through generations.
When the reforms were implemented, welfare recipients weren’t cast into the streets, as Senator Ted Kennedy had predicted. In fact, it was a stunning policy success. Welfare caseloads declined by 60 percent. 70 percent of those leaving began working.
There’s more. Government savings were $100 billion in today’s dollars. Best of all, the child poverty rate plummeted every year from 1994 to 2000. For people leaving the welfare plantation, income increases soon easily exceeded welfare benefits. Moreover, people with jobs enjoyed healthier lives, better marriages, and vastly improved financial futures than those stuck on welfare.
So, welfare reformers declared victory and moved on, unfortunately leaving the same entrenched bureaucracy as before to manage the system. Before long, clients were again being evaluated for program eligibility, not work readiness. Workarounds were offered for those who preferred not to work.
As the bureaucracy oozed back into control, work mandates weakened. Many states quietly removed them altogether, as Arizona did for its Medicaid program.
With the onset of the COVID pandemic, the Biden administration took the opportunity to eviscerate work requirements altogether in federal welfare programs. Thankfully, grocery clerks, truck drivers and cops stayed on the job, but not teachers or welfare recipients.
Now that the pandemic has officially ended, work requirements still have not been reinstated as promised. In fact, Biden refuses to consider such a proposal in the debt ceiling negotiations.
The ending of the pandemic and work requirements have been a boon for the welfare industry. In response to COVID, Congress also increased the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps) benefit amount and banned states from removing people who were no longer eligible from the Medicaid roles.
As a result, welfare has become more pervasive than ever. 40 million people are now receiving food stamps, even though it’s common knowledge that taxpayers are funding a lot of chips and soda. Medicaid enrollment has soared to 85 million, now that it has been expanded to include working age men above the poverty line.
There are up to 4 million employable adults not working while 10 million job openings are available. This is a great opportunity to get more Americans back to work, yet Democrats seem more interested in keeping Americans dependent on government than in reducing poverty.
We should absolutely have a working safety net, but not a welfare system that keeps Americans mired in poverty. Why not learn from our own history and return again to prioritizing work over welfare?
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.
