Sweet Talk
Ducey boasts about his accomplishments during a Tucson visit
Here’s a big difference between Ducey and his predecessor, Jan Brewer: Ducey has real stage presence and an ability to sell his message. Brewer could force her agenda through the Legislature—as she did with the Medicare expansion that provided health insurance to anyone below 138 percent of the federal poverty level—but on the stump, she struggled to hit the right notes in her speeches and her debate performances were atrocious.
Ducey, by contrast, gives a good speech—and he rattled through his accomplishments at the Tucson Hispanic Chamber of Commerce luncheon. He pointed out the breakthroughs in reducing regulations for businesses—Uber is legal, microbreweries can make more beer, people can now get their own medical blood tests without physician approval—and wins like getting Apple to open a data center in Arizona.
And he even boasted about how he had done “in the shortest legislative session in Arizona history since the moon landing” by working with Senate President Andy Biggs and House Speaker David Gowan behind closed doors on their “shared values”—or, as he put it, “when there’s an issue, rather than fighting it out in the press, we had a conversation.”
It’s true that the press did not get much of a chance to cover the hearings at the Legislature on issues like the budget—because it was rammed through in three days without any significant public input that the press could cover. And check out the “shared values” that were found in that budget: Massive cuts to K-12 education programs, reductions to programs like Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, a $99 million hit to the universities, which just raised tuition again to make up for the cuts in state funding. And all that came while taxes were cut for Arizona’s wealthiest citizens, corporations and other special interests.
While Ducey said that he and legislative leaders “owned the (budget) problem” they had no trouble passing the buck to the counties on numerous expenses that were traditionally the responsibility of the state, including new costs for schools, incarceration and next year’s presidential primary. As a result, Pima County is looking at increasing property taxes to cover the bills that the state doesn’t want to pay anymore.
Ducey acknowledged that he and Republican lawmakers made “difficult and hard decisions that affected everyone in this room” and assured the crowd that he “did not take it lightly.” He pushed back against the idea that he doesn’t value education. He praised the UA’s “absolutely incredible campus” and noted that “Southern Arizona is really the key to our economic vitality for the entire state and in so many ways, this university is the epicenter.”
Ducey boasted, again, that the state will spend more money on education than it ever has—but all that spending was required by formula because there are more kids than ever in Arizona schools. (And there’s still a court case that could increase the state’s education bill by more than $300 million if the courts rule in favor of the schools.) But specific programs—such as the vocational education opportunities found in Joint Technical Education Districts—took big hits.
While Ducey said that that the budget problems have been solved and the state is on solid financial footing, he doesn’t appear to have much of an idea of how to take care of the major infrastructure problems facing the state. Asked about his vision for improving Arizona’s highways, Ducey sidestepped the question with a general suggestion that the money will be there: “By making the difficult decisions, we put the state on firm financial footing on which to grow and allow us to invest in the infrastructure the dollars that you pay in gas taxes so we can not only maintain our infrastructure but improve it and expand it.”
Ducey said he believed that budget cuts had to made to “leave this state and this country in a better place for our children than we found it”—which will certainly be comforting to the poor families who can’t afford a decent meal for their kids, or the children who won’t experience exposure to the arts because their schools had to cancel those programs, or the middle-class family that is seeing college tuition rise.
Break a Leg!
The city wants to remake public access for the 21st century: Fewer resources, more responsibility!
So here’s what’s going on with the city’s dwindling interest in support a public access TV station afloat: City staff has released a Request for Proposals to create what it calls a Community Media Center that will manage the public-access channel, offer classes in media production, broadcast the Tucson City Council meetings, and create nice propaganda pieces about Tucson’s vibrant business environment and its vital role in U.S.-Mexico trade.
There’s not much money to create a robust program. The winning bidder can get $300,000 annually for the next two years to handle transition costs from Access Tucson and Tucson 12, but the funding will drop after that—as the RFP explains, the city is seeking “an entrepreneurial business model that eventually results in a self-sustaining organization whereby the City only pays for services directly received.”
And it appears that whatever entity wins the Community Media Center contract, it shouldn’t get too comfortable in the city-owned building on Broadway near Sixth Avenue that has housed Access Tucson for more than a quarter century. The contract notes that the city “anticipates this property being available for use by the CMC for up to one year.” So that means that in addition to getting the new organization off the ground, the lucky winners will have to move two functional studios and all the related gear to the new home.
So: Higher rent, more responsibilities, less money. Sounds like a great opportunity!
“Zona Politics with Jim Nintzel” airs every Sunday at 9:30 a.m. on KGUN-9. This week’s are Tucson Hispanic Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Lea Marquez-Peterson and attorney Jeff Rogers, the former chair of the Pima County Democratic Party.
This article appears in May 7-13, 2015.
How much more of he tax burden should the successful pay? You make it sound as though they were under taxed. What metric do you use to figure out how much someone else “should” pay?
Why not let them figure your tax rate?
Won’t someone think of the poor, beleaguered one percent, amirite, Rat? It’s not like thirty plus years of paying historically low rates while hoovering up the lion’s share of profits has been fair to those “successful” people.
“Why not let them figure your tax rate?”
They already do- after decades of the failed supply side joke known as trickle down economics, the ultra rich have made so much money that they now can afford to buy their very own pet politicians and favored legislation, which is why capital gains are taxed at a fraction of what working stiffs pay on the fruits of their labor and why abominations like the carried interest exemption and second home mortgage deduction and all the other sweetheart tax advantages exist, while the majority of the burden of funding this country has been shifted to the backs of the the middle class.
But by all means, keep lighting those candles for the poor, put upon billionaires…
Historically low rates? And historically, no astronomically higher spending. The tax rate or debt load is forced upon us by bleeding hearts and power hungry liberals that can’t control spending.
Trickle down economics? Let’s contrast and compare. Punish success, add luxury taxes, take away deductions…and the middle class lose jobs.
Too bad the middle class doesn’t ask you WTH is going on.
Better yet, make yourself rich, if it’s that easy and shower the poor with money.
Watch how long that works.
Pete, Pete Pete. For Pete’s sake, “60 percent of those who don’t pay income tax are still working…” Washington Post article
And then it goes on with facts that support…..”Many low-income workers don’t pay federal income taxes thanks, in part, to a series of tax cuts endorsed by Republicans over the years.”
Who tricked you into believing something different?
“The number of people who don’t pay federal income taxes tends to jump every time there’s a big tax cut bill, as after the 1986 tax reform or the 2001 Bush tax cuts. There’s a reason why George W. Bush was boasting, in 2004, about moving 5 million taxpayers “off the rolls.”-(direct quote from former President George W Bush) So it simply isn’t true that taxes are forced onto the backs of the poor and middle class workers. And now you can add in free health care.
And last but not least if it were simply a misguided interpretation of the Bible, I searched for a passage that called for believers to encourage their governments to forcibly take money from those that God blessed with success, and give it directly to the poor.
In fact it says just the opposite. WE are to help the poor. Not our government. We’ve got work to do Pete.
Sigh, yes Rat, historically low rates. And no, not astronomically higher spending. Did you sleep through the austerity policies of the last few years? Did you sleep through the sequester? I deal in real facts, Rat, not conservafacts. Our current Commie, Socialist in chief has slashed the deficit by 2/3 while in office. The last time that happened was (surprise) the last “big spending” Dem, Bill Clinton. In contrast, Saint Ronnie tripled the debt and your hero W doubled it, because neither of them understood that the flip side to spending in the budget equation is revenue- in fact the quote “deficits don’t matter” comes to mind.
And just like all the one percent apologists, you put on your magic wingnut blinders and pretend that federal income tax is the only tax that anyone pays. In fact, payroll taxes are now roughly on par with the federal income tax as sources of revenue in the US. And unlike the income tax, payroll taxes are quite regressive, hitting middle class tax payers far more than the rich. You also ignore the corporate income tax, which in the 1950’s used to account for 33% of the nation’s revenue, but has been slashed to about 10%. Who do you think makes up that difference, Rat? Here’s a hint, since the top marginal rate for individual income tax is far below the rates in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s, it’s (surprise) the middle class. You also ignore the explosion in other revenue sources, such as excise taxes and usage fees, that are also predominately regressive. And lastly, you ignore the skyrocketing state, county and municipal taxes and fees, all of which are wildly regressive- needed to make up for the lack of funds from the feds that were instead given away to corporations and your BFF’s in the one percent who run them (and own the lion’s share of stocks in them).
Trickle down, supply side economics has been a demonstrable failure. We have the results from the last thirty years, it’s too bad that you guys are as stubborn as you are stupid. Now we’re watching yet more doomed to fail experiments in this voodoo economics at the state level in places like Kansas, Wisconsin and now, here in AZ. Why you guys persist in trying the same thing and expecting different results is beyond me- I guess it has to do with the conservative belief that ideology trumps reality. Unfortunately, the sad truth is that it doesn’t, and real people get hurt by your stubborn obsessions. All those tax cuts at the top haven’t generated jobs as promised- take a look at job creation numbers by president. Neither Reagan nor Bush can touch Clinton or Obama- today’s job report cited a 5.4% unemployment number, far lower than when he took office or the peak shortly after, yet before his policies were implemented. Or, you can look at the GOP alternative from the Boehner led House, whose idea of tax reform is to eliminate the estate tax- something that benefits the top .02% only, or their ridiculous budget, which has a 2 trillion dollar hole in it, unless you embrace their idiotic GOP magic fairy dust math.
But I guess you slept through your history class and didn’t notice the superior economic numbers, superior employment numbers and higher revenues under Dem presidents (and please spare me the wingnut mantra that no Dem ever gets credit for anything good on his watch and gets blame for everything bad, while a GOP president ALWAYS gets complete credit for anything good and none of the blame for the bad- that disingenuous crock is too tiresome to even refute- just pick a standard and stick with it). I guess you also slept through your civics class, which is why you started babbling about the Bible, conveniently forgetting the the United States is a secular constitutional democratic republic, not a theocracy. I assume you also slept through the part of your history class the day they covered what is was like to be poor before the advent of the social safety net. We tried it your way- for decades. Private charity failed miserably at handling the needs of the poor. Churches were overwhelmed and unable to deal with the poor, either. While there is certainly nothing wrong with either of those, it wasn’t until the safety net that we finally got rid of the pernicious problems like poor houses and debtor’s prisons and seniors unable to survive and people starving in the street. Newsflash Rat, we ARE the government. Using the power of the federal government to fix problems is how it’s supposed to work- it’s more effective, more efficient and ultimately more humane than the GOP alternative. It just requires not irrationally hating the federal government to the point of sabotaging it at every turn, then yelling “see? it’s broken!”
Oh Peetie. Rest well.
Why argue with Rat? It’s hopeless. Just let his comments fly into the truthiness cyberspace where they can cohabitate with Russell Pearce guest opinions and Dick Cheney appearances on Sunday Shows.