Arizona lawmakers are advancing a series of bills aimed at increasing transparency, accountability, and taxpayer protection. These measures tackle issues ranging from government spending on elections to school board meetings and travel, with a focus on ensuring that public funds are used responsibly and efficiently. With strong support from various groups, these bills reflect ongoing concerns about how taxpayer money is spent and how local government actions are conducted.
One of the most significant pieces of proposed legislation, HB2722, is backed by the Arizona Free Enterprise Club and sponored by Rep. Neal Carter (R-LD15). The bill seeks to prevent taxpayers from indirectly subsidizing private businesses through government gifts. Specifically, it targets “gift clauses” in state and local government contracts, which some argue allow for inappropriate use of taxpayer funds to benefit private entities.
The Arizona Free Enterprise Club has been vocal about the need for stronger protections against such expenditures. The organization has stated that this bill is necessary to curb the growing trend of government spending on private corporations without clear public benefit.
“Taxpayers should not be used as a backdoor financing mechanism for private companies,” said Arizona Free Enterprise Club officials. “This bill is about ensuring that public dollars are spent in a way that directly benefits the public, not private interests.” If passed, this bill would create stricter guidelines on how public funds can be spent and would allow taxpayers to hold officials accountable when misused funds are discovered.
Another bill making its way through the Arizona legislature is SB1036, supported by the Goldwater Institute and sponosred by Sen. John Kavanagh (R-LD3). This bill targets government spending on influencing elections, a topic that has sparked considerable debate in recent years. SB1036 would create a private right of action for taxpayers, allowing individuals to sue if they believe government funds are being spent on efforts that influence an election. This would make it easier for citizens to challenge the use of taxpayer money in elections, particularly when the spending appears to be partisan or otherwise improper.
The Goldwater Institute has argued that taxpayers have a right to ensure their money isn’t used to sway political outcomes. According to a recent report by the organization, there have been multiple instances of local governments spending taxpayer funds to advocate for policies that align with political interests, which has raised concerns about government overreach.
“Governments should not be using taxpayer money to influence the political process,” said Goldwater Institute officials. “This bill provides taxpayers with the ability to stand up for their rights and ensure public resources are not misused.”
Another bill, HB2169, which was introduced by Representative Matthew Gress (R-LD4), seeks to address transparency within Arizona’s public school districts. The bill would require school board meetings to be held in public facilities within the district, ensuring that they are easily accessible to the communities they serve. Additionally, the bill mandates that school boards must receive public approval before engaging in out-of-state travel, making it more difficult for administrators to make costly decisions without community oversight.
This legislation gained near-unanimous support, with proponents arguing that it ensures greater accountability for how public schools operate and how funds are spent. Critics of the current system have pointed to examples of school board members using taxpayer money for luxury travel without clear, public approval or benefit. A notable incident involved a local school district that faced backlash after spending taxpayer funds on extravagant trips while simultaneously requesting additional funding from voters for educational needs.
“Public education is about serving the community,” said Representative Gress in a statement. “We need to make sure that the actions of school boards are always in the public interest. This bill strengthens public trust in our school systems.”
Jonathan Eberle is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
When electric vehicle subsidies were introduced around 2010, they were sold as a short-term fix to allow the undeveloped EV market to get its legs and compete with Internal Combustion Engines (ICE). The subsidies were justified on the basis that EVs, emitting no tail pipe emissions, would reduce global warming, later to be known as climate change.
Fifteen years later, far longer than any normal probation period, the experiment has clearly not worked. According to the Expedia Automotive Trend Report, only 7.9% of new car registrations in 2024 were for EVs. Just 9.3% of the 286 million cars on the road were EVs, paltry numbers indeed considering the strenuous efforts of the federal government to stoke their success.
Purchasers of new EVs are provided with a $7,500 federal subsidy, plus state subsidies where available. Used cars can pull down up to $4,000 in purchasing aid. Commercial vehicles over 14,000 pounds can receive $40,000. Home chargers are eligible for $1,000.
Even though the fuels of ICE cars are heavily taxed, the charging stations for EVs are subsidized too. Battery factories get subsidized. Then there is the whole sorry history of boondoggle giveaways subsidizing EV production and failed loans beginning with the notorious Solyndra debacle.
Canoo lost $900 million and produced 122 cars. Taxpayers got stuck with hundreds of millions of dollars in failed loans from Lordstown Motors, which manufactured 56 vehicles total.
EV drivers don’t have to chip in for road construction and maintenance costs, since they don’t pay gas tax or any fuel-based funding source. On the contrary, theirs is heavily subsidized. Their out-of-pocket cost is equivalent to $1.21 per gallon, but direct and indirect subsidies from government and utilities push the true cost to $17.33 per gallon, according to the Heritage Foundation.
EVs require a lot of juice to operate. Even though the EV market has failed to develop as expected, many major utility companies are already struggling to meet the increased demand. They warn that future EV mandates will require greatly expanded infrastructure for electricity generation and charging stations.
The Texas Public Policy Foundation calculates EV cars would cost $48,688 more without the production and purchase subsidies alone. Maybe all this public expense would be justified if EVs substantially reduced hydrocarbon emissions, but they don’t.
These calculations are tricky because net operating emissions obviously depend on the fuels used to produce the electricity. The disappointing failure of solar and wind to supply abundant, reliable energy and our still-limited access to nuclear energy have resulted in fossil fuels producing most of the electricity used to propel these “emission free” cars.
Moreover, the battery manufacturing and disposal processes are intensely energy consuming. Most studies show little, if any, overall benefit from switching to EVs. Yet the overwhelming evidence that EVs cost a ton and do’’t do much good have so far not deterred the ambitions of government and the enviros to force all or most Americans into them.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s greenhouse gas emission standards still require that 32% of new automobile sales be EVs or hybrid by 2027, a fourfold increase in two years from now! By 2032, 70% of sales must be electric. By 2050, we must be emitting no carbon at all.
Here’s a newsflash. That is’’t going to happen. The world’s biggest polluters (China and India) aren’t on board and even in the West, citizens are clearly not willing to crater their economy for a dubious ideological goal with better solutions available.
Meanwhile, government continues mandating that car companies sell EVs to customers who simply do’’t want them even with the massive incentives. What could go wrong?
Companies that can are fleeing the market. Ford projects that it will lose $5.5 billion on EVs this year, which they are forced to produce to meet the EV fleet mandates. That’s $60,000 per car sold, an amount they seemingly anticipate will eventually be bailed out by government.
Look, it’s America. EVs are actually cool and fun to drive. People who want them and can afford them should have them. But there is no reason that the rest of us, who derive no benefit, should have to pay for them.
Let the bubble burst.
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.
Two Arizona lawmakers are seeking to terminate a state commission at the end of this year.
State Representative Quang Nguyen, a Republican, recently posted a statement in support of one of the proposals this year at the Arizona Legislature, writing, “Government should work for the people – not against them. HB 2702 will cut red tape, eliminate waste, and prevent fraud & abuse. Taxpayers deserve accountability, efficiency, and results. Let’s make government work smarter.”
Government should work for the people—not against them. HB2702 will cut red tape, eliminate waste, and prevent fraud & abuse. Taxpayers deserve accountability, efficiency, and results. Let’s make government work smarter. #HB2702#GoodGovernance” pic.twitter.com/HHw3cvqy3w
This bill seeks to terminate the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission on December 31, 2025. This commission was created by the state legislature in 1982 and charged to “monitor the progress and implementation of new and continuing criminal justice legislation, facilitat[e] research among criminal justice agencies and help the legislature make data driven criminal justice policy.”
However, the bill states that “the current operations and practices of the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission have not aligned with and are contradictory to the legislative purposes underlying the legislature’s creation of the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission, jeopardizing the constitutional rights and civil liberties that every Arizonan deserves under the United States Constitution and Constitution of Arizona.”
Those operations and practices include, according to the legislation, “lobb[ying], using taxpayer money, for surveillance and data collection practices on citizens that have not committed any crimes… and lobb[ying] for the creation of a database targeting lawful concealed carry weapon permit holders.”
HB 2702 opines that “It is troubling that taxpayer dollars are being used for intrusive and ultra vires lobbying efforts. State resources cannot be diverted to lobbying activities that contradict both the legislature’s mission and the criminal justice system in Arizona. The misuse of state monies for lobbying activities burdens taxpayers and creates the potential for the expansion of government power that could further jeopardize individual liberties and freedoms. Such unchecked governmental oversight expands the power of the state and is a threat to freedom.”
The bill was sponsored by Representative Alexander Kolodin, also a Republican.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Donald Trump’s renewed pledge to “Make America Great Again” requires nothing less than reigniting economic growth and prosperity. Wealth creation is essential. Yet as Congress prepares to extend and expand upon Trump’s landmark Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, he can take matters into his own hands by issuing an executive order to index capital gains for inflation.
Taxing inflationary “phantom” capital gains is an unfair and ill-advised policy that punishes risk and success.
Consider this: You invest $1,000, and after four years of Joe Biden in the White House, you sell that investment for $1,100. But since inflation raged during Biden’s tenure, the $1,100 you receive will be worth less in real terms than the $1,000 you invested. And yet, under current law, you will pay a tax on your $100 capital “gain.”
Talk about perverse!
“As has been well documented,” writes Alan Auerbach, University of California economist, “realized capital gains may be subject to tax rates that easily exceed 100% of real gains in the presence of inflation.”
But it’s the law. And not only would eliminating it be the fair thing to do for investors, it would ignite a surge of American prosperity.
Eight years ago, the late Treasury economist Gary Robbins estimated that indexing capital gains for inflation would, by 2025, create an additional 400,000 jobs, grow the U.S. capital stock by $1.1 trillion and boost GDP by roughly $500 billion. Because capital gains were never indexed, average household income today is $3,600 lower than it could have been otherwise.
However, it’s never too late to start doing the right thing.
Congress has repeatedly toyed with indexing capital gains. In fact, indexing capital gains used to be a bipartisan issue. In the early 1990s, congressional Democrats touted indexing as an effective way to boost economic growth and benefit workers.
“If we really want to increase growth,” said a youthful Chuck Schumer, the then-future Senate minority leader, “there are proposals that we can do. I would be for indexing all capital gains, savings and borrowings.”
Having mastered the ways of the D.C. swamp, Schumer now opposes indexing capital gains. Listen to Congressman Schumer, not Senator Swamp.
Indeed, as Trump emphasized in 2019, “Indexing is something that a lot of people have liked for a long time. It’s something that would be very easy to do. It’s something that I am certainly thinking about.”
Looking forward, the Congressional Budget Office estimated last month that federal capital gains tax receipts will total $2.8 trillion over the decade ahead. If only one-fourth of those tax receipts—a conservative estimate—are due to taxing phantom gains, American taxpayers will pay $700 billion in taxes on income that doesn’t exist.
Opponents of capital gains indexation say the subsequent revenue loss would be too great. But inasmuch as inflationary gains should not have been taxed in the first place, a revenue loss is a good thing. It represents the correction of a tax injustice.
The second-order effects that Robbins documents should remove any reservations based on revenue loss. Without the federal tax on inflationary gains, asset prices will adjust until they reach a new, higher equilibrium. Investors will see their portfolios appreciate bigly.
It’s a safe bet that millions of American investors and pensioners would choose a Dow Jones average of 50,000 with indexation over a Dow Jones average of 44,500 without indexation.
As taxpayers realize real capital gains, the federal government will collect billions of dollars in new tax revenue. Federal tax revenue may ultimately be higher with indexation, not lower.
There is the question of whether Trump has the legal authority to issue an executive order instructing the Treasury secretary to issue new regulations indexing the capital gains cost basis for inflation. It comes down to whether the governing Internal Revenue Code section covering the definition of the word “cost” is sufficiently ambiguous to allow regulatory reinterpretation. Congress never specifically mandated that “cost” was to be determined in nominal terms, nor did it prohibit the use of real valuation.
According to a watershed 2012 paper by Charles Cooper and Vincent Colatriano in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, “jurisprudential developments over the last two decades have confirmed . . . that Treasury has regulatory authority to index capital gains for inflation.” With that justification, Trump has little reason to hold back.
James Carter is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation and a principal with Navigators Global. He previously headed President Donald Trump’s tax team during the 2016-17 transition and served as a deputy assistant secretary of the Treasury for then-President George W. Bush.
One of the highest priorities for the incoming Trump administration should be to end the Democrats’ weaponization of powerful government agencies against taxpayers and businesses they don’t like. Nowhere has this mission been more pernicious than the party-line vote to fund the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) with nearly $80 billion and hire tens of thousands of new tax snoops.
By the way, according to the IRS press office, the additional audits have so far raised less than $2 billion, far less than the additional expenditures. So how is this program “paying for itself”?
This was never about seeking tax fairness as liberals claimed. It was about unleashing an aggressive, permanent and unchecked enforcement assault on U.S. taxpayers to rake in more tax dollars to pay for liberals’ political agenda. The American people voted to end such madness, and the IRS should now act accordingly and immediately by ignoring the Biden administration’s 11th-hour efforts to ram through a slew of costly new rules and regulations as they now head toward the exit.
Progressive leaders made wildly erroneous claims that a supersized IRS would raise nearly $1 trillion over 10 years from stepped-up enforcement against higher-income earners and businesses. And they attempted to justify their proposals by broadly portraying entrepreneurs, small businesses, family-owned private enterprises and the wealthy as tax cheats.
The entire exercise was designed to harass lawful taxpayers and threaten them as guilty parties until they could prove themselves innocent.
Fortunately, most voters saw their efforts for what they were: a liberal fantasy grab of other peoples’ money and an attempt to assert greater control over their livelihoods. Democrat leaders did not help themselves by immediately oversteering the car. This included efforts to have the IRS spy on personal bank accounts and require income reporting for basic Venmo payments among friends, as well as punitive measures on those whose incomes are derived from tips or numerous other types of transactions.
Another target for IRS harassment has been business partnerships. Such businesses are one of the most common and practical ways to structure private enterprises of all sizes. A simple analogy might be when one party owns an available tractor and another has available land, and they go into business together to farm the land.
All told, there are an estimated 4.5 million business partnerships in America. Collectively, these partnerships generate more than $12 trillion in revenue and employ millions of U.S. workers.
Yet the IRS, before President-elect Donald Trump returns to office, is now stealthily attempting to implement new rules that threaten the future viability of such partnerships. These proposed changes to the tax code impact what is known as “basis shifting” — a routine and legal practice that business partners use to adjust the tax basis of their respective assets. In short, the proposed rules would deliberately embed uncertainty and subjective IRS interpretations of how taxable assets are treated when one transfers or sells their interest in a business partnership. Basically, the opposite of tax fairness.
Meanwhile, the multibillion-dollar bounty the Biden administration claimed their newly armed IRS would secure through added enforcement and new tax rules has completely failed to materialize. The IRS recently disclosed that just $1 billion had been recovered since their aggressive campaign went into effect two years ago, and there is no way of knowing if that would have occurred with or without it.
How ironic and sad is it for taxpayers to learn that the vast amount of the $80 billion Democrats awarded to the IRS to recover or find new “savings” is instead on pace to serve as a massive cost to the U.S. Treasury?
The last thing voters now want is for the IRS to impose any more costly last-minute tax changes that will make problems even worse for taxpayers, workers and employers. Accordingly, the Biden team and the IRS should put down their pencils.
And if they persist with these fourth-quarter rule changes, the Trump team should be prepared to immediately repeal them in January.
Stephen Moore is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation and a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation. His new book, coauthored with Arthur Laffer, is “The Trump Economic Miracle.”
