A liberal Democrat is attempting to maintain her representation of a middle-of-the-road Phoenix-area legislative district for another term in office.
State Senator Eva Burch of Arizona Legislative District 9 is seeking to make a return to the chamber for the next term of office, running for reelection in the upcoming November General Election.
The incumbent Democrat proudly displays several endorsements from left-leaning organizations on her campaign website, including Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona, Save Our Schools Arizona, Moms Demand Action, Climate Cabinet PAC, Emily’s List, Human Rights Campaign in Arizona, Arizona List, End Citizens United, and Sierra Club.
Burch is staunchly in the camp of her open-borders colleagues in the legislature – as her voting record indicates. Last year (2023), Burch voted no on HCM 2007, which expressed the legislative desire that Congress enact the State Immigration Enforcement Act, which would allow states or political subdivisions of states, to enact, implement, and enforce criminal penalties that are prohibited in the criminal provisions of immigration laws.
This past legislative session (2024), Burch voted against SB 1231, which would have made it unlawful for a person who is an alien (unlawful immigrant) to enter Arizona from a foreign nation at any location other than a lawful port of entry. She also opposed SCR 1042, which proclaimed the Legislature’s support for the people and governor of the state of Texas in its efforts to secure our nation’s southern border. Additionally, she voted no on HB 2157, which would have prohibited a court from using a defendant’s deportation as the sole reason for early termination of probation or intensive probation.
More recently, Burch refused to support a legislative effort to refer a border security measure to the ballot in this November’s General Election – HCR 2060, voting against the bill when it was considered by her chamber. The proposal, if passed by voters in the fall, would empower local law enforcement to better secure their communities from the increasing calamities from the border crisis. A recent poll from Noble Predictive Insights showed that over fifty percent of Democrat respondents support the measure.
The Democrat lawmaker has also established a clear voting record for opposing bills that seek to lower taxes and reduce burdensome red tape for Arizona businesses. In 2023, she voted no on SCR 1018, which was a resolution restricting counties, cities, towns, municipal corporations, and political subdivisions from imposing a tax, rule, or law based on vehicle miles traveled. Burch also voted against SB 1156 that year, which would have increased the amount of the individual income tax subtraction for unreimbursed adoption expenses.
In the 2024 legislative session, Burch returned to her anti-small government ways, voting against SB 1056, which would have prohibited city councils or county board of supervisors from increasing an assessment, tax or fee without a two-thirds vote. Also, she voted no on SB 1153, which would have prohibited a proposed rule from becoming effective if the proposed rule is estimated to increase regulatory costs by more than $500,000 within five years.
Burch is also a soft-on-crime legislator. Over the past two years, she has opposed several bills that would strengthen Arizona statutes against crime and increase penalties for lawbreakers and those who seek to perpetrate harm on innocent men, women, and children. In 2024, she voted no on SB 1414, which would require a person who is convicted of a third or subsequent organized retail theft offense to be sentenced as a category two repetitive offender. She also voted against HB 2591, which would have prohibited a public power entity or public service corporation from entering into a contract with a person or company that uses forced labor or oppressive child labor.
Last legislative session, Burch voted no on SB 1583, which would have mandated that a level one sex offender who commits specified sexual offenses is required to register on the internet sex offender website if the offender was sentenced for a dangerous crime against children. Additionally, she opposed SB 1323, which would have made an employee or independent contractor of a public school who refers students to or uses any sexually explicit material in violation of existing statute criminally liable for a class 5 felony.
Arizona Legislative District 9 is one of the most competitive in the state, with a 2.6% vote spread between Democrats and Republicans over the past nine statewide elections, according to the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. Out of those nine contests, Democrats have won five compared to four for the Republicans.
Burch ran unopposed in the July 30 primary election. She is facing off against the winner of the Republican primary, Robert Scantlebury. In the 2022 General Election, Burch defeated Scantlebury by more than 3,000 votes to assume her seat.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
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.
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.
Another one of Arizona’s middle-of-the-road legislative districts may be represented by a liberal after November’s General Election if enough Democrats and left-leaning independents have their say.
Judy Schwiebert, a Democrat, is running for the Arizona State Senate in Legislative District 2. Schwiebert currently serves as a State Representative for the district. She announced for the seat in June 2023, saying that “we need people who will work together to focus on the toughest challenges facing Arizonans including our teacher, affordable housing, and water shortage crises.”
Schwiebert posted more than 1,600 signatures at the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office earlier this spring to qualify for the ballot.
The Democrat legislator has been endorsed by several left-leaning organizations, including National Organization for Women Arizona PAC, Arizona Education Association, Moms Demand Action, Save Our Schools Arizona, Arizona List, Jane Fonda Climate PAC, the Grand Canyon Chapter of the Sierra Club, Emily’s List, Moms Fed Up, and Human Rights Campaign PAC.
Schwiebert has been a vote for her party’s efforts to stand against border security measures. In 2021, she voted against HCR 2029, which commended the courage of the United States Border Patrol and recognized the role they play in safeguarding Arizona and the U.S. She also co-sponsored HB 2604 in 2023, which would permit the Arizona Department of Transportation to issue a driver’s license or nonoperating ID to a person without legal status in the United States.
This year, she voted against SCR 1042, which proclaimed the legislature’s support for the people and government of Texas in its effort to secure our nation’s southern border.” More recently, Schwiebert refused to support a legislative effort to refer a border security measure to the ballot in this November’s General Election – HCR 2060, voting against the bill when it was considered by her chamber. The proposal, if passed by voters in the fall, would empower local law enforcement to better secure their communities from the increasing calamities from the border crisis.
It’s not just border issues where Schwiebert is showing her true, liberal colors; it’s also the economy where she is demonstrating an inability to moderate to her district’s desires. In 2021, Schwiebert voted no on HB 2113, which would have increased the 25% of allowed charitable deductions in accordance with the average annual change in the metropolitan Phoenix CPI. In 2022, she voted against HCM 2004, which urged Congress to oppose the reporting requirements included in the Biden administration tax increase proposal.
Also in 2022, Schwiebert opposed HB 2389 as one of nine members to vote against changing the time period from one year to six months for an agency that the legislature has granted a one-time rulemaking exemption to review a rule adopted by an agency to determine whether the rule should be amended or repealed. That same year, she voted against creating a TPT exemption for the sale of all machinery and equipment, including off-highway vehicles, utilized for commercial agricultural purposes.
This year, Schwiebert opposed SB 1370, which was coined “the lemonade stand bill.” This legislation exempted a minor or a person who has not graduated from high school from the requirement to obtain a TPT license and pay TPT, use tax, and local excise taxes, if the person’s business gross proceeds of sales or gross income is less than $10,000 per calendar year.
Schwiebert’s leftist leanings didn’t stop with the border and economy. She has a number of votes and bill sponsorships that show her being in lockstep with the Democrats on some of their most radical ideas. In 2023, she co-sponsored HB 2653, which would have established that “restaurants and other food service establishments in the state may only serve water and disposable straws to customers on request.” She also co-sponsored HB 2068, which would have repealed the designation of school sports by biological sex.
Additionally in 2023, Schwiebert voted no on SB 1028, which would have prohibited a person or business from engaging in an adult cabaret performance on public property or in a location where the performance could be viewed by a minor. In this most-recent legislative session (2024), she voted against HB 2591, which would have prohibited a public power entity or public service corporation from entering into contract with a person or company that uses forced labor or oppressive child labor.
Arizona Legislative District 2 is one of the most competitive in the state, with a 3.8% vote spread in the past nine statewide elections. It is very winnable for Republicans, however, as the party has emerged victorious in six out of those nine elections. The district covers a large portion of northcentral Phoenix.
Schwiebert ran unopposed in the July primary election for Democrats. She is facing off against the winner of the district’s Republican primary contest for state senator, incumbent Shawnna Bolick.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
Our federal system is aptly called the laboratory of democracy. Rather than learning everything from the school of hard knocks, states can look to the experience of others with initiatives like charter schools, right-to-work laws, and taxation levels. Unfortunately, there are some slow learners out there.
The IRS recently released its annual report of the net migration of people and money between states. Once again, the high tax-and-spend states lost out. California was the biggest income loser ($23.8 billion) in 2022, followed by New York (14.2), Illinois (9.8), New Jersey (5.3), and Massachusetts (3.9).
Florida gained $36 billion in migrating revenues. Texas realized $10.1 billion, followed by South Carolina, Tennessee, and North Carolina. Arizona gained $3.7 billion in gross adjusted income (AGI), mostly from the 57,857 people who migrated from California, compared to 25,677 moving from Arizona to California.
Who knew people prefer to live where housing is affordable, power is reliably available, and crime is taken seriously by authorities? California not only fails on these tests, but its gas taxes are the highest in the nation, which means gasoline costs $1 to $2 a gallon more and electricity bills are 2 to 3 times higher than states without California’s climate mandates. Temperatures don’t seem to be coming down much so far.
California’s median priced home is about double that of most states and the state tax on middle income earners is 9.3%, more than most states assess their millionaires. Governor Gavin Newsom can prattle on about the “California Dream” but Californians aren’t feeling it. They’re leaving if they can.
Moreover, it’s getting worse. California lost nearly 3 times as much income to other states in 2022 as it did in pre-COVID 2019. Even though housing costs discouraged many from moving, New York lost 1.8% of the total state AGI, 3.1% in 2021, and 2.5% in 2020.
Florida and Texas were among the beneficiaries, seeing 150 to 200% more income being transferred from high spending states than before the pandemic.
California, New York, Illinois, and other states have created a “doom loop” by their foolhardy fiscal policies. Fewer workers and less total income result in lower tax revenues. The tax-and-spenders must raise tax rates to maintain their social programs and promises to unions and to finance their rising debt. Rinse and repeat.
Most enterprises, faced with falling revenues and climbing expenses, would update their business model. But the high-tax states aren’t interested in changing their ways. California is moving forward with yet more climate mandates and boondoggles like the infamous “train to nowhere.” Illinois rejected fiscal discipline and instead passed a budget with $1.1 billion in tax increases. New Jersey, hemorrhaging jobs, went ahead anyway with reimposing a 2.5% surtax on corporate incomes.
Rather than pursuing modest reforms or spending cuts, the blue states are instead trying to force other states to help them pay for their high taxes. They love the state and local tax (SALT) deduction, which requires taxpayers from Florida, Arizona, and other frugal states to pay part of the state tax bill for high earners from high-tax states. They are insistent that Congress remove the $10,000 cap on the deduction, which would further incentivize their excessive spending.
The cap raises about $80 billion a year of relief for federal taxpayers. The Brookings Institution found that if the SALT cap were eliminated, 57% of the benefit would go to the top 1% of earners. Still, the tax-and-spenders claim Congress “screwed” them by instituting the cap, thereby supposedly creating much of their fiscal woes.
States have become more careless in managing their pension fund obligations also. Raising benefit levels is popular, while funding can be deferred. Unsurprisingly, the result is chronic underfunding. New York has assets that would fund only 48% of future legal obligations according to standard accounting procedures and New Jersey is at 29%.
Future shortfalls will eventually result in public bankruptcies and destitute pensioners. Still states resist reforms, apparently assuming the feds would not ultimately deny requests for bailouts in such desperate circumstances.
States must be accountable for their own actions. They should not be allowed to exploit each other to cover for their moral and financial shortcomings.
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.
