Americans are a hard-working bunch and should keep what they earn. Our ideas for tax reform reduce the burden of taxes while ensuring governments have the resources to focus on core responsibilities.
Arizona's pre-eminent child-welfare activist of 18 years, Carol Kamin, is moving to her native Massachusetts.
So, just for old time's sake, perhaps, her ideological nemesis over much of that time, the conservo-libertarian Goldwater Institute, has published a sort of parting gift: a study that finds Massachusetts is far less "nice to children" than Arizona, which the former Children's Action Alliance director often judged to be pretty brutish that way.
Art Laffer, propounder of the theory that lowering taxes generally raises government tax revenues, has repeatedly been vindicated, even if his supply side ideas (and name) made him the butt of liberals jokes. The latest evidence comes in a study released Nov. 14 by Arizona's Goldwater Institute that shows states with low tax rates from 1990 to 2000 were more successful at reducing general and childhood poverty than states with high tax rates.
Fourteen years ago, I supported the Taxpayers Bill of Rights and I still support it today.
When it passed in 1992, it was a revolutionary measure in Colorado to ensure that the state's budget didn't grow too big or too fast. It worked then, and it still works today.
In her Jan. 31 column ("Colo. found danger of skating on bill's too thin ice"), transplanted Colorado columnist Billie Stanton lectured Arizonans about the supposedly dire consequences of forcing legislators to live within a budget.
Maricopa County residents appear ready and willing to keep taxing themselves for improved transportation, according to The Arizona Republic Poll. But simmering questions over the value of light rail could still threaten the $15.8 billion plan.
"Basically, I have no objection to a tax for transportation," said Scottsdale resident William Eikner, 72. "I have an objection to some of the parts of the plan. The light rail is really a boondoggle."
Eikner isn't alone.
Independence Day weekend is a good time to assess just how far we've come since the colonists finally had it up to here with Mother England's tyrannical tax policies. This also happens to be the first weekend of the state's new fiscal year, and tyranny is in the offing once again - only it goes by the name "tax reform."
The Goldwater Institute wants to replace the state's existing tax code-including its progressive income tax-with a flat tax.
The economically conservative think tank released a new study June 9 advocating a trio of possible 3 percent flat taxes to replace current state taxes on income and consumption.
Stephen Slivinski, a Goldwater economist and author of the report, will take his flat-tax message to lawmakers and a blue-ribbon gubernatorial commission considering tax reform proposals that could come up in 2004.
What do a couple hundred Arizona conservatives do for fun on a Friday night-well, besides watch the Fox News Channel?
On March 28, they were at the Scottsdale Plaza Resort rallying for the elimination of federal income taxes.
A good bit of the state's conservative Republican establishment attended a dinner and fund-raiser supporting Americans for Fair Taxation. The Houston-based group lobbies for eliminating progressive federal income taxes and replacing them with a flat 23 percent national sales tax. The proposal would give those under the poverty line tax rebates.
Under the Dome
PHOENIX - A report prepared for a Phoenix think tank that opposes Proposition 303 concluded Monday that a 60 percent increase in taxes on cigarettes would lead to an increase in smuggling and would drain police resources.
Robert Levy, a scholar with the Washington, D.C.-based Cato Institute, argues in his analysis of the measure that the tobacco tax would encourage black markets and keep the Department of Public Safety busy combing the back roads of Arizona looking for contraband cigarettes.
The numbers cited by Marty Latz to justify higher cigarette taxes ("Yes on Prop. 303: Make Smokers Pay Their Share," Sept. 13) are grossly misleading.
Latz states that "it costs Arizona $8.35 per pack" for smoking-related health costs. He compares that number with the current 58-cent per pack cigarette tax, then concludes that nonsmokers are paying most of smokers' health costs.
Latz fails to distinguish between private and public outlays; he treats all costs as if they were incurred by the state.