It's only a 1% difference, but: Vote "No" on Tucson Proposition 400

To avoid imposing on Tucson a drastic all-at-once budget cut, I was going to recommend a "Yes" vote on Proposition 400, the extension of "home rule" budgeting for Tucson, until I read the city's own numbers. The expected difference that would be made by failure of Proposition 400 is 1% or less of the city budget!

Turn to page 3 of the City's information packet on the ballot question. In each year 2011-2014 the difference between the projected city expenditure and the state-imposed limit is 1%. For example, in 2011, the state-imposed limit is projected to be $1,337,883,920, and expected revenues are $1,345,876,320. The difference between the two is 0.5%; repeating the calculation for the 2014 figures, the difference is 0.8%.

Endorsers of the proposition, such as the Arizona Daily Star, are being a bit disingenuous or naïve about the tax implications of passage. Yes, passage of the proposition would not directly raise taxes, and failure of the proposition directly lower them. But with the city required to bank excess revenues, there would be no rationale for taxes to be any higher than necessary to meet the state-imposed limit; we can expect lower taxes in the long run were Proposition 400 to fail.

Article 9 Section 20 of the Arizona Constitution sets forth a recipe for fiscal restraint, adjusting 1979-1980 expenditure for population growth and inflation of the currency. Subsection 9 permits cities to avoid this restriction by holding special elections, hence Proposition 400.

Remember that earlier this year the City Council was contemplating imposing a double tax on renters to balance its budget. Nicety after nicety was added during the housing boom, and when revenues decreased the Council couldn't find the integrity or the moxie to cut back the scope of government spending to pre-boom levels. Article 9 Section 20 limits, which tie spending growth to population growth, would prevent such irresponsibility in the future; by re-imposing these limits on Tucson, defeat of Proposition 400 would put the city back on the fiscal straight-and-narrow path in the long run.

Governor Brewer: Welcome, and good luck.

Yes, we must keep our tax and regulatory burdens low, something I have stood for throughout my 26 years in public life. We must make sure that beleaguered businesses in California and other such overtaxed places hear the music of our commerce and our culture and see brighter prospects in the cities and towns across Arizona.

But that is not nearly enough. In every way we can, we must make our people free.

Free to work and earn a living, to build a business, to build a life. Free to find and speak the truth about their government, and those who would lead it. Free from crime and violence and lawlessness of all kinds.

As most eyes have been on Washington over the past few days, it's likely that readers missed Governor Brewer's inaugural address.

To compare it to President Obama's is an interesting study in contrasts. Obama's skill as a politician has been to invite the listener and the reader to fill in the blanks with his own ideas and values. Brewer is not a charmer of this participatory sort. Obama is prone to lofty talk lapsing into vague appeals to tradition, to the future, to history: Brewer is concrete. In this she is somehow less inspiring, but certainly far more exciting.

Perhaps a decade from now, we will look to Jan Brewer's address as more important than Obama's. The ideas are bigger even if the language is considerably more modest. The State can overcome its financial crisis and its people can overcome these hard times not through heroism of elected officials but through embrace of liberty. Hope is not a longing for a handsome man with a warm smile to guide us to "jobs at a decent wage" and "care [we] can afford". Hope is us: it is made more than a wish by our human and social capital, by our entrepreneurial ability as individuals alone and acting in common cause, so long as the government provides an environment in which we can flourish. A governor who "encourages" this entrepreneurial drive, who reminds us that we are capable instead of reassuring us that if we fail, somebody cares, will contribute positively to our culture and only facilitate recovery and progress. We can and will stand as a light to the several States and to the world, showing the direction that leads to prosperity and proving once and for all that choice, competition, and initiative bring out the best in Man and enable us to lead happier existences by finding better ways to help others do the same.

Yes, my friends and colleagues, this is still the Goldwater State. Bigoted goons like Russell Pearce and Roy Warden, narrow minded culture warriors like Tim Bee, and socialist schemers like Phil Lopes may more often catch our attention, but the classical-liberal substratum did not disappear with the death of the man in whose honor this 'blog was named, nor with the departure of Jim Kolbe from office, nor with the influx of so many who support out of habit a government that does for people what they could do better for themselves. Nor is Congressman Jeff Flake the sole holder of liberal values in office. With the succession of Jan Brewer to the governorship comes not merely worry that the legislature's knuckle-dragging goons will be indulged; Jan Brewer brings hope for liberal renewal.

Government billboards.

Driving back to Tucson from the Phoenix Symphony tonight, I spotted a billboard in Phoenix's arts and entertainment district boasting that the University of Arizona is #1 in Astronomy.

A very true claim, yes, but just how many Astronomy, Astrophysics, or Planetary Science majors does the U of A expect to recruit with such a billboard? The likely "real" purpose of the advertisement falls outside of legitimate University expenditure; it is an attempt to convince affluent Phoenicians to "support" the U, not by making donations--that's done by direct mail to alumni--but rather by requesting that their legislators fund it and otherwise grant its wishes, a perhaps cheaper supplement to its outright lobbying. (The legislature has talked about forbidding the University and other organs of the government to lobby for years but never has had the sense to pass such a bill.)

In their excellent >100 Ideas for 100 Days the Goldwater Institute proposes forbidding all state-funded billboards or advertising that include a politician's name or face. That's a capital idea, but it can be made broader still: forbid the State government, any local government, or any organ of the state or local government to purchase any advertising whatsoever aside from that required by statute.