Watch out taxpayers, we are about to get skinned again. The East Valley Tribune (Sunday, ‘This year, lawmakers have more money to fight over'), reports that the state anticipates having "$416 million to $650 million left over" this fiscal year. And already legislators are salivating over the spending possibilities that gleam in their eyes.
But what a glorious opportunity to pay down that extravagant debt the state has been amassing, considering debt is illegal under the Arizona Constitution anyway. Showers of adulation should go to Gov. Jan Brewer for boldly stating a fundamental principle of government when she says, "Government ought not be in debt."
Yet Yuma Sen. Don Shooter thinks her arcane idea goes against the drift of modern governing. This bogus concept assumes whatever money can be collected, mortgaged, or borrowed/stolen from other funds ought to be spent as fast as it can. No need to budget, no need to economize, no need to be honest and frugal stewards of the public purse. My goodness, we don't want to even start thinking about being responsible adults here. Shooter's position is that the debt is only costing us a mere 3 percent, so let's rejoice, borrow more, maybe, and luxuriate in the lavishness of self-indulgence, sanity be damned!
The prudent approach was voiced by Fountain Hills Rep. John Kavanaugh, who wisely proposed that we bank the excess in order to avoid the "financial cliff" that looms before the state. If Shooter and his ilk would care to check it, the only reason the state is facing a so-called surplus is that it passed a "temporary" sales tax hike, not that we've been prudent holding back on spending. However, if we had managed, when the budget crisis was in full bloom last year, to permanently streamline government, eliminate a bevy of wasteful offices, bureaus and departments, and restore government to its essential role of protecting our rights - not providing products and services - we'd be on our way to sensible fiscal recovery.
Peter J. O'Malley
Mesa
Rich posted at 9:46 pm on Thu, Jan 12, 2012.
It isn't that much broken down to how much of it is (or was) mine. However it does rather offend me that the thieves who stole it in the first place get to argue how to spend it. If you overcharged me for the government I got last year, I'm entitled to a refund.
Dale Whiting posted at 2:46 am on Fri, Jan 13, 2012.
Rich,
Explain this to me. I know our editors are poor at chosing headlines. And once again "erase debt" is yet another fine example. But why didn't someone think about borrowing the money you complain about, using the Capital as collateral. Then at least we'd have some debt to erase. Now we have to pay rent and Brewer is "thinking" [I use the term generously] about buying it back. There is every reason to believe that we cannot, at least not for any reasonable price. Wonder if Bain capital was behind this deal?
Brewer and our neo-con legislators do it again, and again, and again!
Dale Whiting posted at 2:48 am on Fri, Jan 13, 2012.
Good letter, Peter. How about we bank it in a trust fund, one with a prohibition on withdrawals by less than a 3/4's majority.
wdgnas posted at 7:49 am on Fri, Jan 13, 2012.
dale, your not referring to 'lock box' are you?
VofReason posted at 1:22 pm on Fri, Jan 13, 2012.
Definitly need to put some of that "surplus" to the side. After all, there are lots of undocumented Democrates (er workers) to pay for. And they can be quite expensive for Education, Healthcare, food and shelter and all.
Cerulean posted at 8:33 pm on Fri, Jan 13, 2012.
Brewer said the “Government ought not be in debt.” She is correct of course. Yet she signed a deal that forces tax payers to lay down $25,ooo,ooo guaranteed interest on a one $billion loan. (No one knows whom the financiers are that put up the cash to buy the state capitol.) In other words, even if we could afford to buy back the state capitol we will have to continue to pay rent for a long, long time.
Dale, your supposition about Bain Capital is a good one!