A Vision for Arizona

On Sunday, January 24, the Arizona Republic began running a multi-part series looking at Arizona 2020, intended to be "a framework for the next decade" for our state. The first set of articles and editorials, which can be found at www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/arizona2020/visiondex.html, focuses on vision and includes steps forward from leaders in education, industry, and government from around the state.

If you have read my blogs and visited my website at www.electkriekard.com, you will see that there is a great deal of consistency in the ideas I have proposed about priorities for education and business to make our state flourish. For example, the writers believe, as do I, that education is fundamental and foundational and is one of the key factors that attract businesses to Arizona and keep them here.

There are many other factors, of course, and all are intertwined. The best solutions to our state's current challenges will address these multiple factors and balance them to produce optimal results. Unfortunately, the work coming from our legislative leaders at present seems considerably unbalanced from the weight of stand-alone bills and political posturing.

We need real solutions and true leadership to get Arizona moving forward. That is why I am running for the Legislature and I hope you will help me get there by helping turn out the vote this fall.

Cleaning Up Clean Elections?

As has been rumored and expected for some time, U.S. District Court Judge Roslyn Silver appears ready to nullify the Clean Elections matching funds provision. I have conflicting thoughts over this action.

First of all, I like the idea of Clean Elections because it requires candidates to meet with and listen to the voters, to ask for support in person rather than spend time raising money from large donors to finance an impersonal mail and media campaign. I am participating as a Clean Elections candidate because I want to meet people, not consume hours daily "dialing for dollars." Shifting the realm of influence held by large donors, including PACs and lobbyists, and replacing it with a truly grassroots effort and interchange is a good thing for our state. The matching funds provision helps level the playing field between the "clean" candidate and one who is running on a traditional financing effort.

On the other hand, it is clear that the state could better use the money than finance campaigns. If a candidate raises $2 million in campaign funds and is running against a "clean" candidate, should the state match the $2 million? During this economic crisis, I believe the money dedicated to Clean Elections -- which comes from fees added to court and other fines, as well as voluntary contributions -- could be put to better use reducing some of the proposed cuts to education, health care, and children's services.

I made the decision to run "clean" even though I was aware that the matching funds might be eliminated. I am prepared to match the funds my opponents raise with my time and efforts meeting voters and the help of a lot of work by volunteers.

Balancing Cuts for Growth

I was interested in the tax cut plan unveiled on January 5 by House Speaker Kirk Adams because it contains some elements that I have been proposing to stimulate our economy. However, it misses some important features that would sustain growth for our future.

As proposed in the plan, tax benefits for businesses remain important to attract new employment opportunities; this could encompass growth in existing Arizona companies as well as businesses that would relocate to Arizona. I also agree that there should be a focus on research and high-tech industries, as I have stated previously. The gain in employment of residents, coupled with employee taxes and, more importantly, spending, should offset the tax benefits given the company.

However, I take issue with the portion of the plan that calls for reductions in personal income and property taxes, especially if done at the same time. To significantly reduce state revenues before we balance the budget is too risky and short-sighted. Even though the plan, if passed, would not start phasing in until 2011, it would commit us to cuts regardless of the state of the recovery. I believe we need to support the business incentives, but no other further cuts to the revenue stream at this time.

Another piece lacking from this plan: any acknowledgment that a critical factor in attracting businesses to relocate to Arizona is the support of public education in our state. Companies are concerned about the available skilled labor source as well as the quality of life for their managers and their families who would be moving here. Increasing support of public education is an investment that also should be part of the incentive plan.