Can’t live with them, can’t live without them.  There are two certainties, death and taxes.

When a candidate wants to endear voters, it’s easy.  Just promise to reduce taxes and everyone in the audience will cheer.  But, isn’t it disingenuous for a candidate to promise something that he/she has no intention or ability to deliver?  Personally, I don’t vote for a candidate that blows untrue smoke at me just because it is a talking point that will give me a warm fuzzy feeling.  Rather, I find it insulting.  Here is my position on taxation.

Make absolutely no mistake, I am a believer in small government in step with Reagan philosophy.  Big “government is the problem”.  It is also un-American.   Now, there are certain functions which serve the necessities of the citizenry and the organization of society that can only be effectively delivered by government.  For example, when I dial 911, I want a policeman and a paramedic to show up.  I want children to be educated.  I also recognize a responsibility to help people who truly weren’t blessed with the ability to take care of themselves as I was blessed.  I want a road that goes from points A to B.  Beyond that, it is the private sector that has made this country great.  Government should enable the private sector to work it’s magic rather than impede it.  Just provide the framework of rules of engagement and then stand back while the people make it happen.

That having been said, all of us other than pure anarchists can agree that there needs to be some presence and activity of government.  That requires a specific budgeted dollar amount of money that is revenue generated in the form of taxes.  That dollar amount is designated by and received from the citizens.  It is then the obligation of government to obtain the maximum value for each and every dollar contributed by the people. 

So what exactly should be the dollar amount deemed appropriate for revenue generated by the State via taxation?  Given efficient spending, that number should correspond precisely to the costs of the services that the citizens of Arizona wish to purchase (currently about 10 billion dollars per year).  Though there will not be a uniform consensus of opinion on what the State should provide, it is the responsibility of our elected leaders to constantly measure the pulse of the population.  They are then obligated to right-size the government to provide the best possible match with the will of the people.  My vote is for small and competitive government.  That means lean, efficient and effective.  Unfortunately, these characteristics are neither objectives nor traits found among professional politicians.  In contrast, those of us in the private sector understand that these qualities are a cold-blooded matter of survival.

Back to Arizona, why is our budget so upside-down?  We currently have a tremendous budget shortfall where our expenses greatly exceed our revenue (about 6.4 billion dollars per year).  I suspect that your household is like mine in that this situation doesn’t work.  Saving the topic of expenses for another page, let’s focus here on revenue. 

Simply put, our current revenue problem is not a consequence of taxes being too high or too low although they are much lower now than they were in the mid-1990’s as a share of income.  Rather, it results from a fundamentally flawed structural tax system.  This is not a secret and is well discussed in academic and media circles.  Unfortunately, the power bases behind the political establishments are very content to keep it this way.  The three primary forms of tax bases (sales, income and property) are imbalanced such that the total revenue generated fluctuates dramatically.  In other words, when times were good, the taxes were lowered and would-be surpluses were squandered.  At that time, surpluses should have been generated and saved in a rainy-day fund.  Rather, we were on a cash high and went on a spending spree.  Now that economic times are very unfavorable, tax revenue generated for operating the State has dropped like a rock.  Hence, we are way in the red at a time when support for economically-challenged citizens is increasing.  It sounds a lot like the family down the street that, instead of saving, lived a high lifestyle on a relatively low income a few years ago.  Today, it isn’t working out so well for that family.  It isn’t working out well for the State either.  A cure for this imbalance that will result in long-term stability, as well as jobs creation, will involve raising some taxes and lowering others.

There are two distinct problems that, by law, must be solved.  One, we have to balance our current budget and get out of this financial hole.  Second, we must remedy the tax code so that we have a reliably constant revenue stream, whatever the citizens deem the appropriate level to be. 

On our current budget shortfall, there are a couple facts that all agree on.  Namely, our deficit can not possibly be cured by cutting expenses alone, no matter how extreme the cuts.  Considering that many of our expenses are required by voter mandate and other law, they are legally off limits.  Also, no amount of conceivable tax increases alone can possibly cure the current deficit.  What to do?  The current Governor and State Legislature have spent nearly a year in a very public circus of deadlock.   Most recently, they conceded defeat with that critical year completely wasted.  In general, Republicans are opposed to tax increases but are willing to dramatically cut expenses.  Democrats are opposed to spending cuts but want to drastically increase taxes.  Though the Republican-controlled State government has made a substantial dose of spending cuts, they are at a hopeless stalemate.  The only movement on the horizon is the Governor’s wish to institute a temporary 1% sales tax increase.  Don’t like it?  Well, neither does this Tea Party attendee but let’s face reality.  Why does the issue need to go to the voters?  Because of the paralysis of partisan politics that the current leadership is unable to surmount.

As your next Governor, this Independent candidate is not partisan and will work with integrity with both parties to enact solutions to both of our budget problems.   Being not obligated to either party establishment, I do not respond to either party ideology.  Hence, I am in a unique non-partisan position to defy the ideology of both parties and meet in the middle ground.  Regarding the current deficit, again, four facts;

• We are required by law to balance the budget, it will be done.
• It can only be solved by both spending cuts and enough of a temporary tax increase to return the State revenue to near pre-recession levels.
• Only a non-partisan Governor has any hope of enacting the only solution, that is, by compromising the ideological positions of both parties.  Everybody has to give ground, a lot of ground, period.
• Balancing the budget will be painful but let’s spread the pain among all stakeholders fairly.

For a solution of our long-term budget deficiency, all states will have to face a new reality.  That is, the current reductions of states’ revenues are not a passing economic speed bump, they are likely permanent.  Hence, while we have limped along in the past with cycles of wealth and poverty, we will no longer have the luxury of making this work.  We do indeed face permanent downsizing of both the size and scope of State government and consequently permanent spending cuts.  This needs to be done just as would be done in private industry, smartly, efficiently and methodically.  Louisiana is way ahead of the curve in this regard and is a good model to follow.  We also face a revised look at our structure of taxation which must become structurally resistant to economic fluctuation.  For example, there appears to be great merit in instituting a flat tax system among many other intriguing out-of-the-box improvement options.  The solutions are no mystery as brilliant economists have formulated the cures as published by a variety of independent civic groups such as the Goldwater institute, the Thomas Brown Foundation, etc.  All that remains is the non-partisanship leadership and strong will to enact the solutions.  This candidate is certainly non-partisan and has absolutely no shortage of willpower.