roymilleraz

Since most of us assume that business people are conservative, that is, they prefer smaller government and lower taxes, one might logically ask why any business people would be supporting Prop 104, the 31 billion dollar transit tax increase. To answer that question one need only look to the year 1946 when Leonard Read formed the first-market think tank in the United States. At that time Leonard was the president of the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce and he had become frustrated with his members because they all stated strong support for conservative principles,….except when some new government program would benefit their business. Leonard decided that more education in free-market principles was needed and he left the chamber to start the Foundation for Economic Education-FEE-which is still in existence today. The fact that business people support Prop 104 in Phoenix would suggest that such education in the value of free markets is needed just as much today.

There is one more reason why pork barrel projects like Prop 104 escape public scrutiny. That is something generally referred to as the principle of concentrated benefits and dispersed costs. It is simply the notion that, whenever the government spreads around billions of dollars on construction projects, there are a few business who will benefit greatly and a very large number of taxpayers who will only get hurt by a small amount. Therefore, the favored businesses have a large monetary incentive to promote the project (look at supporters of Prop 104) and the taxpayers have insufficient incentive to oppose it.

Even though Prop 104 is an extremely wasteful project (mostly because of the billions of dollars going into light rail), it is quite likely that it will pass. The fact that City Council rushed the measure onto an off-election year ballot in August in Phoenix is also a reason. Phoenix voters should be mindful of the fact that this measure brings our sales tax up to a level so high that it probably cannot be raised again, even if a worthy cause should arise.

President Obama and many others on both sides of the political isle are fretting over whether the negotiated free trade deals, known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, will be approved by Congress. This is needless worry because we should simply abandon all barriers to trade unilaterally rather than wait for a “deal’ from other countries. Free trade benefits everyone except the few special interests that are protected by the trade barriers.
Let’s stop looking for deals and simply remove our barriers. It’s called leadership.

On August 25 the voters of Phoenix can give themselves a 928 million dollar tax cut by simply voting NO on ballot Proposition 101. Way back in 1980 Arizona passed legislation which limits spending for sub-units of government like the City of Phoenix. However…..there was a big loophole that allowed Phoenix to set its own limit (which means no limit) if they took the issue to a vote of the people. Phoenix big spenders have chosen to do this approximately every four years ever since 1980. Let’s stop the runaway spending now. Vote NO on Prop 101 and reestablish fiscal sanity.

I was on the Citizens Commission of the Future of Phoenix Transportation. I voted NO on the Commission recommendation for allocating 30 billion dollars to a wasteful shopping list of transportation schemes. The most wasteful is the $160 million per mile that the Commission voted to extend light rail. Passenger rail is a 19th Century solution to a 21st Century problem. The future of transportation is NOT mass transit but rather individual transit. This includes small automobiles, autonomous vehicles, on-demand services such as Uber or Lyft, and a number of other transportation innovations. These ideas received little attention in our committee. How did this happen? The chair of our committee essentially let the City of Phoenix transportation staff run the meetings. Their presentations of various spending needs took up most of every meeting. There was very little time for discussion and no overall plan to vote on until the last meeting. As a matter of fact, there was not a single vote taken by the whole commission on anything until the end. There is no way that such a process could have produced anything resembling a comprehensive, long-term plan. And, consequently, there wasn’t one; just the 30 billion dollar shopping list that was hurriedly rushed to voters. Influential big spenders wanted an off-election year vote and the election held at an odd time because that is how the special interests gain the upper hand. The special interests are the ones who will be at the receiving end of the 30 billion dollars. I suggest that you vote NO and decide for yourself how to so spend those dollars.

With respect to the Arizona Corporation Commission the age old question of whether it should be an appointed body or elected is once again in the news. This is a meaningless debate. I served at the Corporation Commission over 40 years ago and the same debate raged at that time. There were numerous studies that showed no difference in whether these regulatory bodies were elected or appointed. About half were elected and half appointed at that time.
However, there have been significant changes in the environment surrounding power generation that have occurred over these 40 years: we have many more competitive sources of energy and we have vastly improved communication vehicles. The bottom line is that the ACC is now worse than irrelevant; it is harmful because it is preventing new sources of energy from competing with the current model of the regulated utility. This simply gives consumers unnecessarily higher prices because we still have to pay for the utilities to argue with the regulators. We pay for the utility lawyers with through our electricity rates and we pay for the Commission lawyers through our taxes.
Instead of debating whether the ACC should be elected or appointed, let’s just abolish it and let market creativity bring us new ideas and cheaper power.

On Wednesday evening (April 22) I will be watching the DVD entitled “The Tillman Story.” April 22 is the 11th anniversary of the friendly fire killing of Cpl Pat Tillman and the 11th anniversary of what I consider to be egregious acts of dishonor by senior military officials. Their attempt to cover up the friendly fire nature of the killing was likely intended to preserve the Army’s ability to use Tillman, an Arizona State University and NFL superstar, as a recruiting vehicle and war hero. The dishonorable actors included several four star generals and probably even the commander in chief (my opinion–based on the movie and Jon Krakauer’s book “Where Men Win Glory: The Odyssey of Pat Tillman”). The most egregious of the dishonorable actors was General Stanley McChrystal when he approved the awarding of the Silver Star. For a four star general to bring discredit on one of our nation’s highest military decorations is inexcusable. Obviously, I feel strongly about the issue of honor in our military and I think the Tillman incident should be remembered so we can learn from it.

Significantly, I know of no changes that have occurred in the military as a result of this incident and, therefore, it seems logical to assume that the same dishonorable practices are occurring today.

Occasionally people will wonder why print media like the Arizona Republic are experiencing a decline in subscriptions. Most assume that it is simply due to increased use of electronic media. However, there is this thing called “customer service” that might also be a factor.
This is just one example: The Republic has published regional inserts for many years and one of them is called the “Phoenix Republic.” Presumably, this is intended for subscribers who live in the central Phoenix region. My zip code is 85007 and it would be hard to imagine a more “central” location. However, in spite of living in central Phoenix, I have had increasing difficulty getting this insert. I started calling various people at the Republic about six years ago and these calls did result in my receiving the insert on a sporadic basis.
But recently the Republic staffers have become less responsive. One senior staff person in circulation said that this insert is not delivered in my zip code (85007). There was no other explanation but, somewhat cynically, I imagine that it has something to do with the desires of advertisers. She said that she could not ask the carrier to deliver this especially for me, even though it has been done on an irregular basis for six years. (It prompted me to wonder who the carriers work for.) I offered to pay extra for the insert, like I do for the special insertion of the TV Guide, but she said that cannot be done. I also offered to pay the carrier directly an extra amount for this insert. I even offered to drive to the place where the insert is produced but she explained that they would not let me in. Finally, I also offered to pay extra to have it delivered in whatever manner is possible, such as by USPS.
Can anyone imagine a company, other than a dying monopoly, offering such unresponsive service. The bottom line here is that increased use of electronic media is not the only reason that monopoly print publications like the Arizona Republic are dying.

Yesterday Arizona Republic columnist Doug MacEachern hit two home runs. First he recognized the absurdity of the federal government (FCC) attempting to regulate the Internet (so-called Net Neutrality). Such a move could easily grow to be the biggest and most intrusive of all the alphabet regulatory agencies. We should leave the Internet alone. Sure, there will be some “unfairness” but this is infinitely preferable to the leviathan that the FCC wants to create.
On the same editorial page MacEachern suggested that the legislature stop trying to ban photo radar. Come on folks, we know this is pure political pandering. No one likes to get traffic tickets but, think about it, if you owned the road and were responsible for the liability of accidents, wouldn’t you use photo radar. Of course you would. Frankly, I am in favor of private roads but, as long as they are owned by various government entities, we should let them control safety by the most economical methods.

A Phoenix Council subcommittee decided yesterday (Feb 11) that taxpayers should pay more than 30 billion dollars to raise taxes to extend light rail and add more buses. OK, yes, there were some other items in the recommendation that the sub-committee accepted from the Citizens Commission on the Future of Phoenix Transportation (I was a member and voted “no” on the recommendation) but trains and buses comprise the vast majority of the 30 billion. Two council members, Bill Gates and Thelda Williams questioned the revenue projections in the proposed tax and the relatively small amount budgeted for street improvements but the new taxes appear headed for the ballot.
In the meantime, some of us think that Phoenix should be thinking twice about raising taxes and, instead, paying more attention to important issues such as filling our shortage of 300-500 police officers. Further, some of us think that the “future of Phoenix transportation” does not lie in 19th century solutions like rail but rather in individual modes of transportation such as on-demand, point-to-point services like Uber and Lyft and autonomous vehicles. Concepts like time of use pricing would help enable these ventures and allow market forces to address transportation congestion.
Let’s realize that we are in the 21st Century and save taxpayers 30 billion by allowing the free market to respond.

Your Phoenix City Council voted yesterday (Feb 11) to circumvent the state spending limits. This will cost Phoenix taxpayers approximately one billion dollars. (Yes that is billion with a “b”) The council did this by refusing to adhere to spending limits that were crafted by the Arizona legislature in the late 1970s, mostly under the leadership of Senator Ray Rottas. I had the good fortune to work with Senator Rottas on this issue and I believe that the limits that were placed on sub-units of governments in Arizona were very reasonable, essentially allowing governments to grow at the rate of population and inflation. In order to spend more the various governmental entities would have to get a vote of the people, at least every four years. I am sure it is no surprise to supporters of smaller government that Phoenix is one of the government units that has consistently voted every four years since 1979 to exceed the spending limits.
I have testified at several of these hearings in past years and was I frequently the only person testifying to respect the state limits. That was the case yesterday when this issue came up again. In fairness I should mention that two councilmen (Sal DiCiccio and Jim Waring) moved to substitute another limit (possibly more reasonable and less draconian) but it was voted down 7-2. So, by a similar vote of 7-2 the majority of the council essentially said “trust us” and let us make the limit whatever we decide to put in our budget.
It is worth noting that, in spite of all the financial difficulties of recent years and despite all the speeches about lack of sufficient funds, the City of Phoenix will likely spend more money in the coming year than at any time in its history.