Written by If you were going to set up a bridge game at the Arizona State Senate, it probably wouldn’t occur to you to put Carolyn Allen, Pamela Gorman, Ron Gould, and Jay Tibshraeny at the same table. But that is the foursome that is blocking passage of the state’s budget, a number of tax cuts, and Governor Brewer’s sales tax referral. The House passed its version in the wee hours of the morning, but the Senate was unable to secure 16 votes for passage and adjourned without passing anything. The bad news for taxpayers is that means that property taxes are going to go back up, because the Property Equalization Tax repeal that was going to be made permanent will not be repealed in time. Also not passed are an additional $400 Million in corporate and personal income tax cuts that were to go into effect in 2011.
Allen and Tibshraeny are objecting to the tax cuts being “a done deal” while the sales tax appears doubtful. They want them tied together. Gorman and Gould are objecting to the sales tax referral, even if it is only a potential tax and their opposition comes at the expense of certain tax cuts.
Whatever their respective reasons, the four of them are more than enough votes to deny passage of the state budget, as well as the spending cuts and tax cuts contained therein.
Every Republican legislator from Southern Arizona has voted for or is supporting the final package. Judging by the floor speeches last night, none are happy with Governor Brewer’s insistence on the sales tax referral and all will likely publicly campaign against it. But each indicated that the deal was the best they could get, given that any bills passed were going to require the Governor’s signature.
So let me see if I get this right. These guys don’t want me to decide for myself if I want higher sales taxes on me, because higher taxes are bad. So to keep me from raising taxes on myself, they spike the bill and raise my property taxes instead?
How is that helping?
By the way, I don’t want higher sales taxes or higher any taxes, and I’ll vote no on the referral. Why? Because I HATE higher taxes. That includes higher property taxes too, so thanks for the tax hike guys, and we’ll see you next November.
Not sure what to make of Gorman. I was told they couldn’t even get her to come to the Capitol to vote yesterday and that she didn’t make it in until 10 at night or something. I think this quote from Gorman in the Capitol Times sums up her position quite nicely:
“I can’t even begin to tell you what’s wrong with this (proposal),” she said.
Genius.
Pachyderm rating for these four Republicans
Pamela Gorman = Pro-Freedom
Ron Gould = Pro-Freedom
Jay Tibshraeny = Bipartisan
Carolyn Allen = RINO
http://www.pachydermcoalition.com/LegislativeReports/tabid/105/Default.aspx
“Princess Pam” Gorman (as many senators refer to her) was either too good or too miffed to come to the capitol to “hurry up and wait” like her colleagues. Her Highness was nearby, but not at, the capitol until after most everyone else had been there at least 7-8 hours. Isn’t the job of the Majority Whip to lead with words and deeds? If she can’t/won’t do that, she should step down from leadership or her caucus should remove her.
Ron Gould also didn’t bother to show for the 1pm floor time, then had the nerve to be upset that “no one told me” about the Appropriations meeting. How exactly has his “unyielding conservatism” (or whatever) saved AZ taxpayers anything the past several years? It looks like his most recent “no” vote will cost plenty, perhaps over $1 billion.
Harper did show, since cameras were present and he could manage to draw attention to himself. It both frightens and amuses people that he earnestly harbors statewide aspirations. Conservative values are great when they are sincere and advanced in good faith. Harper had the nerve to demand, among other things, that “pork” (by his definition) be removed from the deal. Capitol insiders will recall that only a few years ago Harper demanded a road project in his district be accelerated. Conservative principles, to be sure.
Then there’s Tibshraeny, who was reported to be off, then on, then…finally, on 7 bills, but off the other three, one being the referral/tax cut bill. Naturally, he knew that anything less than being on all ten bills was not actually helpful. At about 4am, he loudly called Sylvia Allen a “jackass” and a few other rude names as she was asking him why we couldn’t be more supportive. He had left the capitol relatively early and had to be called back. At least his unreliability is predictable.
Then there’s Carolyn Allen. Despite her ultra-liberal record, at least she has a decent excuse for not being at the capitol, although some members thought she should have sucked it up and come in, Lucy Mason style. After all, they are trying to solve a legitimate crisis.
Poor communication and bruised egos among Senate leadership has caused the chamber to be dysfunctional all session. That dynamic has caused this stalemate every bit as much as the various senators’ ideologies. More cohesive leadership probably could have produced 16 votes by now, with less drama.
The bottom line is that this whole situation is a bungled opportunity for the GOP, at least so far. It can still be salvaged, but only if the Senate gets 16 votes Tuesday. After that, it will probably be too late and Brewer may be forced to deal with the Dems. That will be very, very costly to everyone, except the Dems.
All I know is that thanks to those four, my taxes just went up. And yes Governor Brewer, you’re also to blame because you’ve been insisting on these bad ideas as well. So that’s five of you.
I’ll stick up for Harper though. He held out until they agreed to cut pork and to eliminate state employees. That’s actually making government smaller.
The stupidity of Gould and Gorman is that they could have asked for other improvements as well. Instead, they stayed stupid and likely pushed control over the budget to the Democrats. Any idea how expensive that will be for Arizona’s taxpayers? Frickin’ idiots.
Posters,
You might try the truly novel approach of actually reading the proposed budget rather than just listening to the spin put out by novice Legislators as they try to justify their votes. They have brainwashed themselves in to the belief that passing an unbalanced budget and referring a tax increase to the ballot are Republican values. But wait they say, the referral is paired up with an income tax cut. A cut that will not occur for three years, that isn’t voter protected, so, when revenue is still down at that time, the Legislature will simply vote to postpone the tax cut.
But what about the suspension for Prop. 105? Then we can cut health care for the poor. Do you really think this Legislature has the stomach to cut health care for the poor? They could only agree on $400 million in permanent cuts out of $3.4 billion is possibilities.
So for not participating it this “Group Think”, you attack Gorman and you attack me, fine that is your right but, the next time you are at a P.C. meeting or a Republican club complaining about your elected officials not standing up, you might reflect on this moment in time.
Senator Ron Gould
Standing up against tax hikes and unbalanced budgets since 2002
Its not just an income tax cut Senator. There is a corporate tax cut as well, although you’ll dismiss that one as being three years away as well. To you, that means it is of little value, but to me, it is something to look forward to. You also ignore the $250 Million increase in property taxes that has now occurred because the Senate didn’t pass it out. My taxes just went up Senator, not three years from now, but NOW. You may not wish to discuss it, you may place all of the blame elsewhere, but that won’t help me pay my bills and neither will you.
It was my understanding that the tax cuts begin in 2011 and would have to be repealed in 2010 if the Legislature wished to do so. That doesn’t sound three years away to me, but maybe I was told wrong. Maybe I wasn’t. The numbers that folks were using on the House floor spoke of three years of property tax cuts (scored at $750M total) and two years of income and corporate tax cuts ($400M total for each of the two years). The liberals objected to nearly $1.6 Billion in tax cuts while at the same time the sales tax, if it passed) would generate around $1.75 Billion. Please check your numbers Senator.
As for cuts, I have no doubt that, should the sales tax referral fail (and I believe it will), the Legislature and even this Governor will get down to making very real cuts. They simply won’t have any other choices and the voters will have spoken clearly.
My taxes are higher this week than they were last week Senator, and you and Senator Gorman were a big part of making that happen. So were Senators Allen and Tibshraeny, but I expect that from them.
Time will tell if Senator Gould (and Gorman too) did the right thing by the taxpayers or not. If the final budget package that passes and gets signed is better than the one he voted No on, then he did the right thing. If the final package is worse, then he did the wrong thing.
What these Senators don’t appreciate is that their insistence on getting only a “good” deal and voting No on all the rest tips the balance of power to the big-spenders. Chrome Dome gets it right in #5 when he points out that conservatives can trade their votes for concessions that protect taxpayers, but when Gould tells the Senate leadership that he’s a No and they need to get his vote from a big-spending liberal, he doesn’t seem to have grasped that he is punishing the taxpayers. He knows the vote that replaces his will cost us all more and he doesn’t give a damn. He wants to stand up, act pure, claim that he never voted for a bad budget in his life, and go run for Congress.
Well I’ve got news for you Senator, you may never have voted for a bad budget in your life, but you sure helped pass a few.
Darn, I thought that I was supposed to stand up against taxes and spending. Now I got it, I am just supposed to eat the plate that is set before me.
So I should trade a Billion dollar sales tax increase for a $250 million property tax decrease, the promise of a future income tax cut that shifts corporate taxes onto the backs of consumers, a spending cap that is set too high and a suspension of voter protection initiative that the Legislature doesn’t have the guts to use.
You need to remember that all this is happening because the Legislature wont stand up to the Governor Brewer.
No Senator, you’re supposed to get the best deal possible for us, whatever that is. We can’t do it for ourselves because we don’t get a vote down there. So we have to count on you. If you think you can get the House and Senate majorities to pass a better package and you can get the Governor to sign it then go for it, we’ll back you all the way.
But telling us that the folks you serve with don’t have the backbone to get a better deal and that the Governor refuses to sign off on a better deal merely confirms that this is the best deal we’re going to get until such time as we improve the quality of folks down there. Now I’m all for that, but I can’t do that until 2010, so until then, we’re stuck with the group we’ve got. Pull your head out of the sand and get us the best deal you can, with the folks you’ve got. Deal in reality.
Or wash your hands and proclaim your innocence. Say “it wasn’t me!” while turning over the power and leverage to a group of Democrats or RINOs whose price will be much much higher for me and my family. Just know that you’re not innocent in that situation. You remain absolutely and personally responsible for the manner in which the power shifts from the right to the left.
I find it interesting that Gould concedes that Arizonans want higher sales taxes. I disagree with him, but the fact that he accepts as a done deal the passage of the sales tax should it appear on the ballot is informative. On one hand, it makes his No vote a bit more credible because he sees himself as a one-man bulwark against higher taxes. On the other hand, Gould’s form of representative democracy seems to include more than a touch of “I know what you want and you can’t have it. I know what’s best for you.”
I’m not so much a fan of those kinds of politicians, but I also think Gould is wrong about Arizona desiring higher taxes. And I’m speaking of all taxes. Dealing with the sales tax first, California is in equally terrible shape, its politics are well to the left of Arizona’s, the pro-tax groups outspent the anti-tax groups by more than 8 to 1, and the Democrats and liberal groups were out in force to pass the higher taxes. The result? A 2 to 1 drubbing and the higher taxes lost huge.
Here in Arizona, the Democrats are opposed to the sales tax referral, the anti-tax groups are already geared up to fight it, and our state is quite a bit more conservative than California. I think the sales tax loses, and I think Gould is paying way too much attention to the Realtor’s poll or Chuck Coughlin’s poll that may say otherwise.
I mentioned we’re opposed to higher taxes in every category. That includes the property taxes that just went up, and the income taxes that could have gone down. We quite likely could have come out of this with lower taxes and no sales tax increase. Then we could have made a whole lot of real cuts and we could have seriously dealt with the size of our state government. I only wish Senator Gould and his friends would have taken that deal and given us the opportunity.
I’ll put it another way. Carolyn Allen won’t vote for it because it has too many tax cuts and not enough spending. I can remember when that used to be a good thing.
Well, if I’m gonna comment, I might as well pick a nickname too.
Three questions for Senator Gould (and thanks for participating in the debate):
First, I get that you see your job as standing up against higher taxes and higher spending. Please explain to us how your No vote will get the taxpayers of Arizona a better deal given the current crop of elected officials?
Second, you say that you oppose “the promise of a future income tax cut that shifts corporate taxes onto the backs of consumers.” I’ve always believed that corporations don’t pay taxes, their customers do. Its built into the cost of their product. Its why we encourage our federal government to reduce or eliminate corporate taxes so that our goods can be cheaper and our companies more competitive around the globe. Your language sounds rather “Democrat”-ic, if you’ll forgive the unpleasant comparison. Pitting one group against another for tax cuts doesn’t sound right to me.
Three, even if I accept your premise that the sales tax would be approved by the voters (and I really don’t think that will happen), why not exchange permanent tax cuts for a three-year tax increase? Even if you only do the math over 4 or 5 years, the taxpayers still come out ahead. And that’s in the case that the sales tax passes. If it doesn’t, then the taxpayers come out very far ahead. How is that a bad deal for us?
Thanks.
Oops, I see that my second question isn’t really in the form of a question. I guess it would be whether or not you believe that lower corporate taxes benefit the consumers or just the corporations?
Gila, you’re on to something on the corporate taxes, but there is more to your argument.
1. Corporations ARE consumers too. Much of what counts as business is actually companies buying from other companies. Give the companies more of their own money to spend and they can spend it.
2. Many corporations are small businesses, owned by an individual or handful of individuals. The corporation’s income IS their income, so cutting their taxes directly benefits them as consumers.
3. Many larger corporations are publicly traded, which is to say that their entire ownership is made up of consumers. So again, cutting their corporate taxes also benefits them as consumers.
4. Cutting Arizona’s permanent tax rates will attract businesses and jobs. They aren’t going to get scared away by a three-year sales tax increase. And that’s assuming it passes, which it won’t.
What am I missing here? The Taxpayers Association scores the bill a net positive, ATR has it as a neutral, those Libertarian Republicans over at the Pacyderm Coalition score the package as a positive, even the tough crowd over at Arizona Free Enterprise Club lobbied for the bills passage because they like certain tax cuts over possible tax hikes, especially when the hike was temporary and the cuts were permanent.
So all the tax groups basically vote “Aye” and Gorman and Gould vote “Nay”? I guess they’re smarter than the specialists now? Smacks of arrogance, and I’d hate that to be the case because I’ve always liked both of them.
Here is the official statement from the Free Enterprise Club:
http://azfec.org/research/HB2015_Good_Trade_Off.pdf
Looking forward to Senator Gould’s response.
Okay, I need Gould’s help explaining this. I’ve read the post, and then Gould’s comments scolding us for not reading the bill before speaking up. The post says the tax cuts are in 2011 and Gould says they aren’t happening for three years, so let’s say middle of 2012. He says he has read it and we’re wrong.
So then I read the AZFEC press release and they confirm the original post that the tax cuts begin in 2011 and that the sum of the tax cuts exceeds the sales tax increase even as they agree that the sales tax increase in unlikely.
Senator Gould, did you read the bill? Did you vote against it because you were mistaken about its contents? Did you think the tax cuts weren’t coming until 18 months later than they actually were and that’s why you voted against them?
According to the AZFEC math, the taxpayers still got a net tax cut. Given the relatively weak-kneed legislature and the Governor’s insistence on a referral, how does the good Senator propose to improve on AND PASS a better budget?
It can’t be “we’ll stand firm and back the Governor down” because he’s already made it clear that the current Legislature doesn’t have what it takes to do that.
Waiting for answers Senator.
Crickets……..
Wherefore art thou Senator Gould?
Man…what a mess this GOP dominated legislature is. We are going to replace you!