Pamela Gorman for Congress

Trust Americans to be Savvy Consumers with their Healthcare Dollars

noreply@blogger.com (Pamela Gorman) — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 18:46:00 +0000

Governor Mitch Daniels (IN) details the success his state has had with giving state employees the option to utilize a Health Savings Account vs. the traditional PPO model of healthcare. The results are astounding and represent a good example of how costs are reigned in when the consumer has motivation to be a better steward over their healthcare decisions. My favorite quote from Governor Daniels, "Americans can make sound, thrifty decisions about their own health. If national policy trusted and encouraged them to do so, our skyrocketing health-care costs would decelerate." And how!

The free market solutions to the national healthcare issue are not only philosophically appealing to me, they are not only viable, but they are proving themselves every day across America where brave politicians have stepped up and given them chance.

Read Governor Daniels full article here: http://bit.ly/d01UJQ

The Road this Country is Following Leads to Nowhere... Just ask the Greeks

noreply@blogger.com (Pamela Gorman) — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 22:22:00 +0000

In this article, from Mark Steyn at the Orange County Register, a brilliant observation of the absolute dead end that results from a growing entitlement-addicted electorate and the political infrastructure that refuses to stand up and say "No." If you have just 2 minutes today, read this article. http://bit.ly/cvWEgn

Pamela Gorman Endorsed by Concerned Women PAC!

noreply@blogger.com (Pamela Gorman) — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 02:40:00 +0000

February 23, 2010Concerned Women Political Action Committee Endorses Former Arizona State Senator Pamela Gorman for Congress in Arizona’s 3rd Congressional District

Pamela is the candidate with a proven conservative record.

Washington, D.C. – Concerned Women Political Action Committee (CWPAC) has announced its endorsement of Pamela Gorman for Congress in Arizona’s 3rd Congressional District.

Concerned Women PAC, established in 2002 by Founder and Chairman Beverly LaHaye, is affiliated with Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee, the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization with more than 500,000 grassroots members nationwide.

The third district congressional seat became an open seat when current Congressman John Shadegg chose to retire at the end of this term.

Former State Senator Pamela Gorman has been a leader in the Arizona Legislature for conservative values.

“On the issue of life, the traditional family and fiscal conservatism, Pamela Gorman’s record in the House of Representatives has been exemplary,” said Penny Nance, CEO of Concerned Women PAC.

“Concerned Women Political Action Committee endorses Pamela Gorman for Congress because of her strong leadership in the state legislature. I am convinced Pamela will be a strong principled leader in the U.S. Congress.”

Mrs. Penny Nance and Concerned Women Political Action Committee’s mission is to elect solid pro-family, pro-life conservatives to Congress. Concerned Women PAC sends out a monthly letter to members encouraging them to financially support candidates like Pamela Gorman. For more information on this race or to set up an interview with Mrs. Nance, please contact Mike Mears at 202-408-4941.

Mike Mears
Executive Director
Concerned Women Political Action Committee
202-408-4941 Direct
202-380-5494 Cell

Pamela Gorman for Congress- 1st campaign materials are here... thanks to our early donors for making this possible!

noreply@blogger.com (Pamela Gorman) — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 01:51:00 +0000

Pamela Gorman for Congress palm card (side one):

Pamela Gorman for Congress palm card (side two)

Want to help us produce more materials to get our conservative solutions message to the voters?

Click HERE to contribute online by credit card.

You can send your check in any amount (up to $2400 per person) to:

"Pamela Gorman for Congress"

PO Box 75341

Phoenix, AZ, 85087

Small donations welcome and appreciated!

Grover Norquist to Host Fundraiser For Pamela Gorman's Congressional Campaign: Feb 5th in Phoenix

noreply@blogger.com (Pamela Gorman) — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 21:54:00 +0000

Please Join our Host Committee:

Grover Norquist

Bryan and Carrie Rauch * Wesley Harris

Shane Wikfors * Ron Pacioni * Steele Coddington

for a fundraising luncheon in honor of

Pamela Gorman

Candidate for U.S. House of Representatives, District 3

with special guest

GROVER NORQUIST

President of Americans for Tax Reform

Grover Norquist is president of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), a coalition of taxpayer groups, individuals and businesses opposed to higher taxes at the federal, state and local level. Mr. Norquist is also on the board of the National Rifle Association. In the words of Newt Gingrich, Grover Norquist is “the person who I regard as the most innovative, creative, courageous and entrepreneurial leader of the anti-tax efforts and of conservative grassroots activism in America. He has truly made a difference and truly changed American history.”

Friday, February 5th

at the University Club

39 E. Monte Vista Rd. Phoenix, Arizona

11:30 am - 1:00pm

$200 minimum donation

(Special photo opportunity with Grover Norquist with $500 min. donation)

RSVP by contacting Carrie Rauch at 623-202-8313 or rauchgop@aol.com

Significance of “Climategate” Deciphered

noreply@blogger.com (Pamela Gorman) — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 18:57:00 +0000

Significance of “Climategate” Deciphered
By Senator Pamela Gorman

The story is everywhere on the web and social media. Most who read it are either annoyed to have to deal with it (those in the cap-n-trade camp) or intrigued by it. But, unless you have been following the spoof of science that is the whole global warming debate (now called “climate change”… when it got colder, they had to change the name of the movement), the significance of these pages and pages of emails and document files recently uncovered by hackers may not be apparent.

It all boils down to this.

In order to use the theories of global warming to substantiate sweeping public policy decisions that are unpopular and economy crushing, one must accept one premise to be true. Namely, you must accept that humans in the post-industrial age are to blame for the earth’s changes. Why? Because only in accepting humans are causing it can you possibly extrapolate a theory that humans can fix it. The religion of global warming is based on the idea that it is unethical to NOT fix it, since they “know” we can…(if we would just give up our way of life and prevent 3rd world countries from modernizing, etc.)

So what is all the excitement with the documents that hackers pulled off the computers of the scientists who published the data on which global warming theories are based? The short answer is: the data was corrupt, mismanaged, and manipulated. The bigger issue, though, is the idea that the core people working to prove man-made global warming KNEW this to be true and toiled in their emails to one another about what to do about the fact that the research data was not supporting their theories. That, my friends, is the big deal here. Because if this is all more than just bad science or a hoax, but actually a coordinated effort to deceive millions of people, then the public policy that has followed is an unnecessary burden on the inhabitants of this planet and some very big shot people have a lot of explaining to do.

The bottom line is this.

The naysayers of Gore’s broken science theories have contended from the start that there is no argument that the planet’s climate is, has always, and will continue to change. So, the key for the global warming zealots was to “prove” that man’s contribution to the naturally-occurring warming and cooling periods is so significant that a correlation can be drawn between changing our behavior and stopping the cycle. With this latest exposure of the embarrassing truth that the “movement” got so married to their theories that they falsified the results to support them, then it takes them back to square one with only a theory and nothing more. But, it goes further. Because the real research shows a never-ending cycle of climate change in our earth’s history (the current flux being mild compared to some before industrialization), it would appear our current human lifestyles are not, in fact, “causing it.” If the humans didn’t cause it, and trying to stop it would increase human suffering (likely without any benefit towards stopping what has gone on for millenniums), then no public policy should ever be brought forth based on the old theories of climate change. Ouch.

Time for Take Out

noreply@blogger.com (Pamela Gorman) — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 20:09:00 +0000

Time for Take Out
By Senator Pamela Gorman

I love to experiment with new recipes and improvised combinations of ingredients when I cook. But, one of the important rules I follow is that if it tastes bad, I order take out quickly and without hesitation.

In the last couple of elections, Americans wanted to try something new, too. So, they voted for a bunch of new congressmen and a new president. Fair enough. After eight years with W, a Republican-held Congress that didn’t honor their “Contract with America,” and a constant daily beating on both by the press, who could blame them for believing they needed to try something new?

But, I think it is time for any thinking American to acknowledge that this new “recipe” is a complete and utter failure. Let’s see, where should we start on examples of how the new federal government offends our senses? For starters, there’s the lining of corporate pockets through the bank bailouts (fail) and the Cash-for-Clunkers program (fail). Then there’s the stimulus plan which forced us deeper into debt with foreign entities but produced no real measurable new jobs, left our economy decidedly un-stimulated, and acted to further hamstring state governments through an avalanche of new mandates (fail). Add to this the crushing Cap and Trade policy (fail), Healthcare policy (fail), and preferential treatment of terrorists (fail), and we have a new America that quite frankly leaves a nasty taste in the mouths of many.

This is not to slam the Americans who voted in this new group of federal politicians. But, I think it is time to recognize that this little test has failed. It is now time for a big order of take out.

Army Psychiatrists Failed to Report Hasan’s Behavior?

noreply@blogger.com (Pamela Gorman) — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 01:31:00 +0000

Army Psychiatrists Failed to Report Hasan’s Behavior?

Ok. I’ll admit that we have all had bad days and I have occasionally shot my mouth off without thinking it through. So, when first reports came out that the Ft. Hood Killer had said strange anti-American things to people, I paused but didn’t read too much into it. Maybe he was just scared to go to war and made some off-the-cuff comments about that, I imagined... But, now other Doctors (psychiatrists to be exact) have come out and told of the killer’s rant during a meeting about how “infidels should have their throats cut and hot oil poured down their throats” when Major Hasan was supposed to be giving a presentation on some medical matter. Wait. What?! I think that is pretty clear indication, and should have been to this room full of psychiatrists, that Hasan was more than just a little stressed in his job. When asked why they didn’t report him, one Doctor said they were worried about appearing to be discriminating against a Muslim psychiatrist. (http://bit.ly/3SRTRF)

Ok, so who are the “infidels?” Apparently, that includes all non-believers.

I would like to suggest to our military that they drop the Political Correctness doctrine before they get more of our soldiers killed. If one of your own goes berserk with homicidal suggestions in front of a room of psychiatrists, can we at least agree that the soldier needs some serious evaluation (and probably a padded cell until you could work out the details)? I mean, you ARE head doctors, right? What do we pay you for?!

If anyone yells “Fire” in a crowded theater or even jokes about bombs when in an airport, everyday Americans will see their rights to free speech gone faster than you can say, “Off with the heads of all infidels.” So, WHY would an Army Muslim psychiatrist be extended greater freedoms than the rest of us? Because of the killer’s religion and politically correct behavior by fellow Army colleagues? Seriously?!

When people choose to enlist in our armed forces, they give up many rights. It is part of the commitment. Our armed forces personnel sign away rights to all kinds of things and they heroically go out and risk their lives to fight for the freedoms of those of us who didn’t sign away those rights. One of the things Army personnel should NOT retain a right to do is to openly threaten to kill other Army personnel strictly on the basis of their religion (or lack thereof, as the case with the whole infidel thing). These soldiers can’t even take over-the-counter meds that aren’t approved by the military, but this Hasan character can stay in active ARMED duty - on base - after making the public comments he did? Something stinks here.

Also, the news coverage of the day when 13 were killed and 30 wounded by Major Hasan included an interview with the guy’s brother. I about choked when they aired him saying, “He is a good guy.” NO, he is NOT a good guy! Good guys don’t murder innocent people in cold blood and try to blame it on some goofy interpretation of their religion. He may have been a good guy at one time, maybe in his childhood, but he became a monster at some point and is certainly, most definitely, NOT a good guy.

Too many people knew about his "issues" and did nothing to stop Major Hasan before he went on his holy killing rampage against his fellow soldiers. Good psychiatrists don’t ignore major warning signs and fail to report when another life is in danger. Political correctness has no place in our armed forces. The guy was a ticking bomb.

Fiscal Policy Nudging Freedom

noreply@blogger.com (Pamela Gorman) — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:37:00 +0000

Fiscal Policy Nudging Freedom
By Senator Pamela Gorman, Arizona State Senate

It is commonly said that tax policy is a form of social engineering. I don’t disagree. But, I believe that statement needs to be expanded to say that all fiscal policy is social engineering. The ways we spend the money we take away from Americans matter, but are often overlooked when considering how the populace will behave.

It all comes down to motivations. What motivates a man to work, to handle his finances responsibly, and yes, to give generously of his time and treasure? It is my long-held belief that the left has a different core belief on this, and while we may all want the same things for the country in general terms (i.e. happy, fed, safe people), we disagree on the path to get there.

As an example, consider a smart man who is working fewer hours than he could. Does he work an extra shift each week so that he can pay more taxes by being bumped into a higher tax bracket? Or, consider an entrepreneur. Does he open a new business in a state that skims off his profits through high taxation? Probably not, as that would be the opposite of smart. Rather, the tax policies guide a thinking man’s behavior and create the government-engineered circumstances that have a negative ripple effect in the economy.

As for spending as a way to engineer society, we need only look as far as recent actions by our federal government for a great example. Congress took our money and spent it on subsidies to new car buyers. So, people bought new cars. Normally, in an economic crisis, people don’t put buying a new car at the top of their “needs” list. But, the behavior was changed by the nudge of the opportunity to get a new car at least partially paid for by other Americans.

In the same way, does a smart man buy health insurance from a private company to offset his healthcare cost risk if he can get better benefits for less through a government subsidized plan? No. That would be the opposite of smart. So the behavior is steered, not by tax policy but by spending policy. The decision to spend money to subsidize healthcare plans has a very direct and destructive effect on the industry. In Arizona, this is already going on with our own state-subsidized Healthcare Group plan and the full blown state-paid healthcare system of AHCCCS. If Obama has his way, we will see this all across the United States.

As the policies of the Obama administration and our current Congress reach further into the realm of possibilities for social engineering through the combined “power tools” of taxation and spending policies, our choices for how we will live our own lives are being limited a little more with each passing day. The reason is that as behaviors are changed to accommodate the path of least resistance to the most basic needs of man, the market for previously desired products, activities, and services shrinks. Eventually, they will just go away entirely.

Indeed, the danger of the social engineering being engaged by our current Democrat-controlled Congress and President Obama may appear at first blush to be mostly about growing national debt and over-bearing government intrusions into our daily lives. But, the sleeper issue that keeps me up at night is the loss of our freedom to choose once infrastructures and industries have re-tooled to adapt to the rush of behavioral changes that evolve from the left’s current and proposed policies. When we lose our choices, our freedom isn’t far behind.

Balloon Boy, Universal Healthcare Inevitability, and other Hoaxes

noreply@blogger.com (Pamela Gorman) — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 22:25:00 +0000

Balloon Boy, Universal Healthcare Inevitability, and other Hoaxes
By Senator Pamela Gorman, (R-AZ)

I will admit it. I watched the silver saucer balloon in horror for an hour. I prayed. I worried. I squinted at the still image with the smudge hanging below the balloon to see if it looked like a falling object. I monitored the Twitter public feed for updated news… Then, I caught wind of some cracks in the story with this thing and started doing some research online while I waited to see if the little boy would be safe when the balloon landed. I discovered the family’s rather unusual behaviors captured on video and uploaded to YouTube (by them?). The characters involved here subjected themselves and their children to being contestants in a reality show, they chose “Wife Swap” as their chance to shine for all of America, they produced a profanity-rich rap video with the six year old lost boy and his brothers, they host a fringe pseudo-science TV show, and they chase deadly storms as a fun family hobby. Ozzie and Harriet, they are not. My cynical instinct told me that there is a good chance the kid was never in the belly of the backyard science project. I start to think that this is possibly a rouse, but more likely a very common kid thing and “Falcon” is likely fine and either hiding or hanging out somewhere completely unaware of his new fame. I am not so far gone in my cynicism, however, that I immediately thought it was a publicity stunt hoax.

Yet the mainstream press ignored all of this weirdness that Internet users were easily discovering and passing around through social media in real time… They droned on and on, continuing to build the hype that there was a 6 year old boy in peril, high above the Colorado landscape. They talked about random and distantly related things, but never invited their viewers to stray far from the story of their choosing and the video feed of a balloon in the air (only slightly less exciting to watch than a white Ford Bronco driving on a freeway). In fact, even when the boy was found alive and hiding in his own home, CNN didn’t interrupt ‘ol Wolfe Blitzer’s banter to inform their viewers. No, I learned that bit of breaking news on Twitter’s public feed first. Roughly 250 strangers “told me” the truth before CNN got around to admitting the kid was fine and was never in harms way and that this part of the ratings-boosting storyline was over. Later, we learned the little boy did it because his screwball parents had told him to do it “for the show” (the kid blurted out the admittance on national TV- oops- from the mouths of babes, as they say). It was a total hoax.

Hoaxes are interesting. They work. They are created to capture our attention and cause us to take interest in and believe in something we otherwise would not. I am surprised there aren’t more big ones like this to point to in history. Mostly they are for fun or for garnering 15 minutes of fame or to kick off a promotion with a big splashy marketing campaign. But, what if there was a hoax created to change your behavior and attitudes about current events? What if one side of a major policy change created the hoax?

I believe the current message of “Olympia Snowe voted with the Democrats for the Healthcare bill, now they will have their 60 votes to push it through on the floor, it is over, go home, nice try, thanks for coming” is a hoax.

Folks, this is not the time to admit defeat and start cutting your losses and spending time doing evaluations of what went wrong in your activism attempt so you can do better next time. On the contrary, THIS IS GO TIME and you should be stepping up your efforts as this bill makes its way through conference committee and then possibly to the floor for a final vote. The press is all talking about how it is all over but the shouting. Where do you think they are getting that message? Why, in the world, would intelligent engaged people who have seen the Obama machine work the press with skillful finesse for years, suddenly start believing the message? Admittedly, even impressive insiders in Washington seem to have lost their faith. But, maybe they really just don’t have faith in the likelihood of the American people to turn it up a notch here in the final seconds of the game clock…

Picture this. A bunch of political strategists are sitting around a table strewn with soda cans and coffee cups among the stacks of polling data and focus group reports. One particularly agitated team member cuts through the chatter with, “Ok, people. We need to focus here. We are losing this damn healthcare debate and we shouldn’t be. We have the press. We have Hollywood. We have the bully pulpits everywhere it matters in federal government. We are losing because of otherwise disengaged Americans who suddenly have decided to put down their fish sticks and Xbox controls and pay attention to public policy. They are playing this game with us using the internet, a technology we CAN’T control (yet), and we have no way to make them stop. What are we going to do to get these people off the backs of our weaker Democrats so we can get this thing done?!” Then, the generally-quiet-but-often-profound PR genius says, “These people just need to decide to stop trying. They need to believe it is pointless and a waste of their time. They will go back to doing whatever it was they did before they started paying attention to public policy debates and that will be that.” Bada-bing. A hoax is born. The hoax is the false reality that” you have lost this battle because it is all over anyway because of one Senate Committee vote. Go home. Nothing to see here, folks.”

I implore you, do not be duped. It isn’t hopeless until the ink is dry on the bill on the president’s desk after the bill has gone a long way from where it is now. You should definitely be sensing an urgency, though, and fighting louder and harder! This is like 22 seconds on game the clock, you are 4th and goal, and you need a touchdown followed by the recovery of an on-side kick, followed by a field goal … It isn’t easy, maybe statistically unlikely, but there is a chance! It is your game to lose, at this point. You still have the ball. Are you going to try and score? Or are you going to accept defeat before the game ends and just start shaking hands with the other team and thinking about what you are going to order for take out on the way home from the game? I think you should stay and fight for the score. But, that’s just me. This actually matters to me a great deal. How much does your freedom matter to you?

This game isn’t over. The idea that it is somehow “over” is little more than a hoax created by a historically proven very savvy group of White House strategists. Or, perhaps it is just a mirage, unintentionally created, but benefitting the Obama administration nonetheless. In any case, don’t fall for it. The “balloon boy” hoax was a nuisance and a huge waste of our time. But the “go home and give up hoax” is much more dangerous for America’s future. That is because when THIS feel-good-yes-we-can-free-healthcare-for-all balloon finally hits the ground, America will gasp when they realize once again that the thing they were hoping to find inside was never really there. And, the joke will be on us. All of us.

"Free" Roads

noreply@blogger.com (Pamela Gorman) — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:00:00 +0000

I heard a funny comment in debate the other day. An otherwise intelligent person said they prefer "free" roads over those paid for and maintained through user fees (i.e. the dreaded toll). First I stifled my laugh at the ridiculous nature of this comment, then, I pondered how frighteningly common it is for folks to assume that anything they aren't paying for right now, with cash, is somehow "free." There are no "free" roads.

It costs a lot of money to build a highway. It costs a lot of money to maintain that same highway to keep it safe for travel. That money will come to the builders and maintainers of the roadways in one of two ways. Either the money will be taken from you in the form of widespread taxation, or it will be collected from you locally when you use the road. The obvious difference is that in the second case, the person actually benefiting from the road is going to fork out the cash (yes, including winter visitors).

In Arizona, we were already struggling just to maintain our roadways with our current funding streams (read: taxes that you already pay) and that was before recession. The idea of being able to pay for enough new roadways to keep up with the growth in population is so far out in fantasy thought that few even seem to want to think about it, much less collaborate and talk about it.

The question is... How do we want to pay for them and who should decide where they go and what incentive should there be to plan, build, and maintain roads well? Ok, to be fair, that is really several questions. But one answer that has become fashionable is to allow private companies to figure it out and compete for our business as savvy driving shoppers. Roads built privately will pop up where they are needed most (that is called "demand") and will be the most pleasant to drive on (that is called "competitive advantage"). In order to attract us to cough up our 75 cents, the private road will have to give us a smooth, fast, safe driving experience that we consider to be a good value.

And, remember, there are no "free" roads.

Napolitano wants to be Your Big Brother... err, Big Sister

noreply@blogger.com (Pamela Gorman) — Sun, 21 Jan 2007 18:17:00 +0000

Napolitano wants to be Your Big Brother… err, Big Sister

In the Gov’s State of the State address, there were many fantastical ideas thrown about.  Most will never see the light of day because they are just that, a fantasy.  Some of them we are happy to know will remain in the 9th floor chuckles archive titled “Can you believe they fall for this stuff?”  But, at least one of her ideas mentioned has already quietly taken flight through the previously appropriated budget for her Department of Public Safety (DPS).  It is the license plate recognition program.  The Gov pitched it as a way she plans to crack down on car thieves and catch criminals on our roads.  What she didn’t mention is the enormous sacrifice law-abiding citizens will make of their privacy and that the State of Arizona has effectively become your Big Brother.

I caught wind of this during a meeting with DPS regarding a completely different issue over the interim.  The agency representative was apparently excited by the idea that they would be taking a picture of every passing vehicle at various locations around the state and keeping that data for future review.  I suggested immediately that they may have trouble with this program, seeing as how many of us down at the legislature still believe in the American citizen’s constitutionally-protected right to privacy…

Fast forward to post-election and the introduction of the “One Arizona” by the Gov. and this frightening idea is now moved beyond a little pilot project by an agency without oversight.  Now this “government is watching you” program has been jettisoned into the heady atmosphere of the Governor’s priority programs, specifically mentioned in her State of the State address.

This is why I recently introduced a bill that would prohibit your state and local governments from recording and then storing information on the whereabouts of law-abiding citizens (which in America, you are all presumed to be, least ‘til proven otherwise).  My bill allows law enforcement agencies to view passing vehicles via their cameras, as I understand they need to find criminals. But they cannot store the image or the data collected there beyond 24 hours if they do not have information showing it is a stolen vehicle or was used in a crime.

I realize it sounds easier to find criminals by requiring each of us to report our whereabouts hourly, give a drop of blood for DNA testing to the government, have cameras with facial recognition software installed throughout the state in public and private locations, submit identifying information every time you complete a financial transaction, etc.  But at what cost?  How “free” would you really be, even as a law-abiding citizen?  If in trying to track down the miniscule percentage of people that make trouble, all people must live under the constant scrutiny of “Big Brother” government and her ongoing political agenda, we have given up far too much.

Our freedom is the core of what makes us Americans, after all.

The Games We Play

noreply@blogger.com (Pamela Gorman) — Fri, 09 Dec 2005 15:55:00 +0000

You may have read with interest the many news stories about a $750 million dollar "surplus" in our state coffers. I was very interested in this, as well. To that end, I spent a good deal of time this summer exploring our budget history and the various "techniques" (read: gimmicks) used by prior legislative bodies before my time. Dismayed is not a strong enough word to describe how our Budget Reform Working Group felt when we went through page after page of accounting tricks previously used to create what you all would believe to be a balanced budget.

As you know, a balanced budget is required in Arizona, and state debt cannot exceed $350,000 by our constitutional law. News flash, folks... We have routinely ignored both through a series of accounting tricks and the creation of new words to describe what would, by anyone's estimation, be considered "debt" in a real household. I believe it is time we get real with how we handle your money down at the capitol, and anything left that we don't absolutely need should be yours to keep. I would like to reduce your personal income taxes and let you decide what to do with the money you earn, if it is truly above what is needed to provide basic government services.

You may wonder what this has to do with the surplus. Fair enough. Let's look specifically at one gimmick used last year that helped to create an appearance of a surplus. Ever heard of a "fund sweep?" This is a process by where you pay a fee for a specific purpose, to support a specific function of government, but in order to make our books look better we have to transfer or "sweep" the fees paid by you all into the general fund. Essentially, this is legal but probably not all that ethical in the long run. This practice leaves the agency or fund low, sometimes triggering fee increases to you all but always leaving the fund in a predicament of how to continue to offer the services you paid for with your fees. Ever heard of the State Highway Fund? Probably not. But, you have probably driven on roads in the state that are built and maintained with money in this fund that is partially funded through the Vehicle License Tax fund, which was robbed of $118,000,000.00 last year. That's right... The state took $118 million designated for roads, put it in the state's coffers and then announces it has a "surplus" of revenues. If you live in an area that needs road improvement, this should really hit home with you.

When we sweep funds to create a better bottom line in the general fund, we have essentially tricked the system into looking like we have a surplus when the tax revenues roll in beyond our expectations. However, we still need to pay back the "sweep" in order to hold these agencies and funds (and by extension, the taxpayers who utilize those services) harmless in the long run. I am about to disclose some raw data that may seem shocking, so turn away if government deception is nauseating to you... Our total fund sweeps, starting in 2002 through last year totaled $545,817,600.00.

Then, there are other gimmicks like the use of "Contracts of Purchase" which would be considered something like a mortgage in your real world. In government world? They are nothing more than a paper agreement and therefore we conveniently don't call them "debt"... even though they are committing future revenues to pay for goodies we just couldn't wait for. I heard a number the other day about this outstanding debt-that-we-can't-legally-call-debt and it was in the hundreds of millions (far beyond the afore-mentioned $350 thousand limit set in our constitution). So, if we are honest about that surplus, we would have to immediately reduce it by the amount we "borrowed" from around the state and by these outstanding amounts, right?

You see, the "surplus" is not extra money above what it costs to maintain your state government at current levels. Rather, it is the amount of tax revenue that came in above what we had expected when we created the budget. By use of various methods of debt (the governor likes to just skip payments or "take holidays" from them, which sounds so much nicer), we make our budget look balanced. Simply not paying your bills and then having money left over when you get your next paycheck would never be considered a "surplus" in your home, would it? No. And I don't believe you can look at our state budgeting process any differently, if you are to be intellectually honest.

True, it's not that much fun at home to get a bonus then have to spend it on credit card bills. We kind of feel the same down at the capitol. But, that is called being responsible adults. Bummer.

Representative Gorman joins Heartland Institute Advisory Board

noreply@blogger.com (Pamela Gorman) — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 23:34:00 +0000

State Representative Pamela Gorman (R-6) has accepted a position on the Legislative Advisory Board of The Heartland Institute, a 21-year-old national nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank headquartered in Chicago Illinois.

Rep. Gorman will advise Heartland on topics to address and serve as a source for the think tank’s scholars and reporters. Heartland Legislative Advisors also submit essays and news reports for Heartland publications, meet with counterparts from other states at seminars and conferences, and receive priority treatment of their research requests.

“I am honored to be able to represent the concerns of my constituents by working with The Heartland Institute and my colleagues from other states,” Rep. Gorman said. For more information about The Heartland Institute, visit its Web site at www.heartland.org.

Portable Power

noreply@blogger.com (Pamela Gorman) — Thu, 02 Jun 2005 16:08:00 +0000

There are generally two competing ideas on how centralized or localized our government should be. The "left" likes things centralized and the "right" prefers things are handled locally. If you have spent any time reading here, you may have surmised that I am to the right on most (if not all) issues. This one is no different.

When you move towards centralizing government, it means you are essentially placing more and more of the decision making power in the hands of a small group of folks at the top. When you localize government, you are diversifying and delegating that decision-making to the smaller local jurisdictions (i.e. city councils, county governments, school districts, etc.).

When the decision making is local, the average citizen has a great amount of input and the potential for impact on those decisions. Also, there are a whole lot more minds working on the problems and the solutions are locally based and specific for a community. When the decision making is centralized, there are only a handful of people making decisions who can't possibly spread themselves around to all of the citizens whose lives are affected by their decisions at the top. The biggest problem I see with this, though, is the idea that only a few folks hold the reigns for the whole population. That leaves an awful lot of power in those hands and creates a real risk for abuse and/or simply stupid ideas being thrust upon the common man.

It may seem like a good idea to let one or two key people who are known to be moral, honorable, intelligent, and magnanimous to come up with solutions to all of society's ills. After all, their decision making would be quality and therefore good. The problem is, that if you do centralize to these good folks, the power you have given them is huge and they can easily be replaced by folks who are not as good either personally or professionally. This is what I like to call "portable power." Once all of the decision-making power is bundled up to the central authority, and none of the messy local decision-making any longer encumbers the process, it becomes a real danger for the population that sits under that central authority. There could come a time when people of ill repute manage to seize that power and then all of the decisions for all of our lives will be made by these ill-equipped or ill-mannered new leaders.

So, when you hear people say that the state should be in charge of something through some new state office, be wary. One size does not fit all in Arizona's varied communities. But, more importantly, you will be at the mercy of the quality and the agenda of the person appointed to that state office. Today's appointment might be brilliant and good. The next replacement, however, could be a disaster. If the power is made portable through centralization, we would be at the mercy of the new power keepers in one swift shift of personnel. Portable power is dangerous. A bad local decision affects a few people. A bad statewide decision affects us all.

Say "NO" to a balanced budget? What?!

noreply@blogger.com (Pamela Gorman) — Mon, 21 Mar 2005 03:30:00 +0000

I sat in disbelief as I watched a bill go down that would have made it illegal for the legislature to pass an unbalanced budget. The bill was actually not a normal bill, it was a referendum. This means that if successful in the house and senate, then it would be up to the voters to decide at the next election if they wanted to approve this new law. And, this bill had lost before and was up for a reconsideration. So, to lose a second time meant it was deep dead. Gone until next year at the earliest.

The reason this bill was being reconsidered was because many people had "said" they voted against it the first time around out of confusion. They said they thought it was TABOR (Taxpayers Bill of Rights), which is arguably one of the most aggressive pieces of fiscally conservative legislation out there these days. In actuality, though, this bill was all of the really obviously good things about TABOR without all of the "out there" super conservative stuff. So, someone made a motion to hear it again. Naturally, everyone expected it to pass the second time now that everyone understood that this was more of a "TABOR-lite" (my own pet term for it).

In other words, this was a very reasonable piece of legislation that the voters should have had a chance to vote on. I was shocked to see that we couldn't find 31 Republicans willing to even give the voters the chance to insist we give them a balanced budget. What is so bad about letting the voters choose to have a balanced budget?! Shocking. Discouraging. Sad. Borderline disgusting, to be honest.

Making a Difference

noreply@blogger.com (Pamela Gorman) — Thu, 24 Feb 2005 04:28:00 +0000

Today we heard a variety of bills in our Appropriations committee. It was refreshing to hear two bills that had already been amended to remove tax increases before we were asked to vote on them in our committee. In some small way, I sensed that there is a mood emerging where it is evident that bills will have trouble making it through if they are asking for tax increases. That is great for all of us who pay those taxes!

I think people would be surprised to hear all of the different ways people, who are total strangers to you, approach us and ask us for access to your billfold. Sometimes it is quite creative, and ALWAYS is accompanied by a "sky is falling" warning of what will happen if we don't crack open your wallet just a little further.