Antenori: We Cut Gift to Science Foundation Arizona to Help Fund
Education
The story on Science Foundation Arizona (“Investment Issues,” Sept.
10) covers an important topic: economic development. However, the
article does not tell the whole story.
When I entered the Legislature in January, the state faced an
unprecedented budget crisis brought on by years of irresponsible
spending and a severe economic recession. The decline in tax revenue
was so rapid and significant that it required a midyear correction to
the 2009 budget. The Legislature is constitutionally obligated to
balance the budget. Facing a $2 billion deficit, we had to make some
very tough choices.
I am committed to protecting K-12 education funding, both as a
legislator and parent with two sons in Arizona’s public schools. There
were many programs, projects and spending measures that did not meet
the same priority as funding education, public safety and programs that
care for the state’s most vulnerable citizens. Science Foundation
Arizona was one of those nice-to-have extras that we were not able to
fund.
As stated in the article, there was no mechanism for a return on the
investment of the $60 million already channeled to Science Foundation
Arizona by Arizona taxpayers. In the business world, when you give
money to someone without expecting any of it back, it is called a gift.
During this budget crisis, I could not see turning over another $22
million in scarce taxpayer dollars to a program which, for the most
part, benefits private business. If we had not adjusted the gift of
taxpayer funds to Science Foundation Arizona, the result would have
been an equal reduction in dollars for K-12 education.
I support intelligent economic development, so I set out to find an
alternate and permanent funding source for Science Foundation Arizona,
one that did not come from the general fund and would provide a return
on investment to the state. I worked very hard on a win-win solution
modeled after similar successful programs in Texas and Pennsylvania.
Had it been implemented, it would have helped support research and
economic development in Arizona.
The crisis atmosphere at the Capitol simply did not provide me with
ample time to educate the various stakeholders on the benefits of the
proposed model and the huge potential return. I will continue to work
on a solution in the coming legislative session.
Jim Nintzel’s article also mentions the success the country of
Ireland has had implementing a similar system of economic development.
I agree: Ireland is an excellent example of the dramatic economic
prosperity that can result from lower taxes, reducing government
regulation and encouraging private investment, something I have
strongly supported and will continue to support.
As a program manager for a large manufacturer in the defense
industry, I’ve seen firsthand the negative impact that Arizona’s
current tax structure is having on business development. Arizona’s
economy must be diversified and geared toward the very competitive
global environment. The quickest way to do so is by reforming Arizona’s
corporate and personal income-tax system and limiting government
interference in the free market.
A friendlier economic environment will help Arizona’s businesses
expand, and it will attract new businesses and jobs to our state. More
jobs and economic activity will increase the tax revenue needed to pay
for a world-class educational system and help fund additional economic
development. We should all agree that would be good for Arizona.
Rep. Frank Antenori
Serraglio’s Views on Spraying Buffelgrass Do a Disservice to the
Desert
The recent article by Randy Serraglio (Sept. 3) is so stupid and
irresponsible that I have to comment.
Actually, the first half of it is fine in presenting the dire
situation our desert faces with the spread of buffelgrass. Then he
dismisses spraying the grass with such ignorance that I am surprised he
considers himself a friend of the desert and an environmentalist. Your
paper’s past articles on buffelgrass have been helpful informing
readers about the subject. But I fear that Serraglio’s histrionics and
defeatism concerning buffelgrass will discourage people from
volunteering, since he says it is a lost cause. He is wrong about
that.
I have been working with those at both Saguaro National Park and
Tucson Mountain Park for more than a year. All the volunteers I have
talked to (and we need more of them) support judicious spraying as part
of the eradication efforts. We don’t need wannabe writers like
Serraglio who are just naysayers with limited understanding. Pulling
buffelgrass requires going over the area for a few years to get the
last seedlings. It is not an impossibility.
The four county supervisors who voted for spraying were sensible and
responsible. No reasonable environmentalists, such as us volunteers,
“squirmed” about the decision. Only armchair-purist enviros would be
bothered by it. The “inflamed neighborhood activists” were mainly going
with the knee-jerk reaction of spraying = bad. They found out at the
meetings that helicopter spraying is very precise. Twelve one-acre
patches away from development have been selected for treatment.
I encourage your readers to go to buffelgrass.org to find out about
volunteer opportunities.
Brian Brainerd
Corrections
In Soundbites (Sept. 17), due to an editing error, we noted that
Justin Miller renamed Red Switch as The Red Switch; it was actually
Josh Levine who changed the name. We apologize for the mistake.
This article appears in Sep 24-30, 2009.
Antenori has it so wrong, I don’t even know where to begin.
(1) He isn’t committed to supporting public education. The Arizona Constitution (Article 11, Section 10) requires our legislators to provide for the “development and improvement” of our public schools, and to ensure that there is enough revenue available to do so. Frank has voted for EVERY education cut during his tenure…except for two measures this past summer to increase the amount of tax money we send to private schools.
(2) The state legislature allocated money to the Science Foundation…then they refused to pay it. That is quite different from deciding to cut a program before the money is spent. There are people who are waiting on paychecks from these programs…it is ethically abominable to say – ‘thanks for the work, but we don’t think you are worthy now and won’t pay you’.
Ethics aside, being known for not paying your bills is both bad for business and bad for your credit score. Credit rating agencies (S&P, Moody’s, etc.) have already taken note of our legislature’s financial dealings and have slashed Arizona’s credit ratings. What does that mean for the rest of us? Higher taxes simply to service our debt. In other words – we’ll pay more in tax for no additional services.
(3) Frank must have been sleeping during the Irish economics lesson. Ireland’s taxes are high: 20-41% income tax, 21% VAT (sales tax), 22% capital gains, etc. When you buy a car, you pay 21% VAT, 14-36% VRT (Vehicle Registration Tax) and you’ll pay a few extra quid per litre when you buy the petrol to fill it up (gas averages $4.00/gallon).
What he fails to mention is that Ireland spends a lot of that tax money on education. Every Irish citizen has access to a free college education, tech & trade training and further adult education. The Irish have a higher literacy rate than we do, and they recognize that the future of their economy and civic structure rests on their abilities of the future workforce.
Ireland also cleaned up their corporate tax structure — there is a flat 12.5% tax on sales and 25% tax on fixed assets. No loop holes, no tax credits. This corporate tax structure, combined with the national focus on education, is credited with the rapid growth of the ‘Celtic Tiger’ economy of the past decade.
Either Frank Antenori is being purposely obtuse or he is making judgements without having the facts in front of him. The ‘I a committed to protecting K-12 education funding’ appears to be a total fairy tale.
District 30 voters: heads up for 2010. We can do much better next time.