Is this a Joke?

Surely this is a hoax.

Napolitano: State could sell lottery to raise money

While plans are still underway to increase the lottery’s advertising budget in an effort to increase sales, Napolitano said Oct. 1 that selling or leasing it is one other option that could be considered.

What's next?  Sell off a few buildings?  Maybe we could sell the Supreme Court Building to Saudi investors and then lease it back.

Seriously, the budget that the Governor and her Democratic allies passed a few months ago, spends $10.7 billion and the projected ongoing revenue is $8.7 billion.  Instead of adjusting spending so that it falls within the revenue projections, the Governor has been INCREASING spending and resorting to an ever more desperate series of gimmicks.

First she delayed paying the schools so that $600 million wouldn't be counted until the next budget.  Then she tried to raise $90 million with new photo radar, then she drained the rainy day fund and took money from the boards and agencies that bank with the state; she took $30 million from the cities.  Then she bonded against future lottery revenue and used the money to construct new buildings for the universities.  Last week, in an impotent gesture, she sent the federal government a bill for $500 million for the expenses associated with illegal aliens. 

Then in increasing desperation, she proposed selling the state's share of the tobacco settlement. Now she wants to sell the lottery?  Wouldn't that be the same lottery that she bonded against a few months ago?

What we are seeing is an unbelievable collapse in leadership. 

Let's ignore the fact that it was multi-year double-digit spending that got us into this mess and just look at what has happened since the crisis became obvious.  The governor's steadfast refusal to scale back ANY spending means that the structural deficit now must be cut in one big lump.  She should have started scaling back spending two years ago. 

By insisting on increasing spending, papering over the losses with one-time gimmicks and gambling that revenues would come roaring back, Janet Napolitano has wagered the state's future and lost. 

The Governor is working on her 7th state budget and is so short of cash and bereft of ideas that she is planning to sell the lottery. That is truly unbelievable.

Her only hope is that Obama wins so that she can hand this impossible mess to Jan Brewer and bolt to Washington. 

People ask me if the Governor would resign if she was offered the job of Attorney General.  Now that the Governor has bet the farm on an economic recovery and lost, I think she would resign if she was offered the job of Deputy Assistant Director of Farm Pricing in the Agriculture Department.  Anything to avoid the upcoming train wreck.   

Comments

[RepGroe]

I believe the Speaker mentioned this as one of his options to address the budget also. States around the nation are choosing this option, according to a magazine for state legislators. Me, I am not a fan.

[ron]

Rep Groe, So Jimmy says we should sell the lottery??? Why not tax payday loans???

[John]

Rep. Groe is not much of a fan of the Speaker these days, so sadly, we have to take her quotes with a grain of salt. They will likely offer comfort to Democrats and the Speaker's opponents, but they serve little practical value otherwise.

[RepGroe]

Many university capital projects are to be funded by lottery revenue...part of the SPEED package passed last year. At last week's JCCR meeting it was noted that if the universities move forward with these projects(and they will) and lottery revenues continue to decline, the universities will be on the hook for the monies. They desire to make interest only payments on the bonds.

[RepGroe]

My feelings towards the Speaker aside, this is one of the options on the table at this juncture. The economic forecast for Arizona is not good. A discussion on the sale of the Arizona lottery is prudent, keeping in mind that the idea is not one soley being discussed by the Governor. That is my point. Let us attempt to put partisan politics aside and make decisions, based on sound policy, that benefit all Arizonans.

[Commander in Chief]

"What we are seeing is an unbelievable collapse in leadership."

Let's lay off the triple strength espresso and read the news a bit. In California, Governor Terminator just asked the federal treasury to float him a little seven billion dollar loan to pay the bills in the next few months. How about Washington state? 2.7 billion shortfall projected. Take a look at these two stories from stateline.org:

http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=344538

http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=328252

"The drumbeat of bad fiscal news from statehouses is intensifying. States collectively faced deficits of $40.3 billion in writing their current budgets — triple the $13 billion shortfall states weathered the previous year, a new report released July 23 shows."

Now that's an impressive collapse of leadership on Janet's part. She's not only collapsed the state of Arizona, she's taken down every other state in the union, from Florida to Maine to Washington to California, to the tune of 40 billion dollars. Some collapse.
Maybe what's in order here is a little more common sense, a little less espresso, and a lot less sour grapes over Janet winning two elections. Just about every other state in the country is struggling with budget issues right now. It happens every time the economy takes a sharp turn downhill. Blaming Janet is just more sour grapes.
If a resignation is order, perhaps the architects of this collapse should resign. Bush. Cheney. The entire Republican membership of the Congress. President Pelosi could start cleaning up the mess before Obama is sworn in.
As to Janet's term as Attorney General, I do have some questions: How aggressively will Attorney General Napolitano pursue the investigation and prosecution of criminal activities in the Bush regime? The Cheney-Libby-Rove conspiracy to reveal the identity of a covert CIA operative, for instance? The unauthorized and illegal spying on American citizens in their own country? False and misleading statements to induce the Congress into authorizing a war? The firing of United States attorneys, with the concomitant blatant disrespect for the rule of law and the powers granted to the Congress to oversee the executive branch? The authorization and encouragement of torture?
Janet's going to be very, very busy next year.

[Dewey]

Nice job, Commander, penetrating straight to the heart of the issue. From AZ budget shortfall to BDS in two short steps.

I see that you took literally Greg's advice to ignore the "multi-year, double-digit spending that got us into this mess" (BTW: I think I know which of the ten are the operable double digits) and leapt straight to the obvious brilliant solution to the problem, that being the installation of Nancy Pelosi as President.

It seems to me that if states really wanted to be able to pay their own bills, they would contain their impulses to do things like spend such amounts as $3 billion on such things as stem cell research, in advance of attempting to confiscate money from the taxpayers of the other 49 states as a way to pay for their own mistakes.

I find it unconvincing for the profligate spenders in state government, or their defenders, to blame the culture by way of excuse.

[Sam]

Which is more ghastly -- CiC's Obama worshipping, his Bush Derangement Syndrome, or his belief that Pelosi really could be an effective President? Of course, this is the same idiot who uses "acting President Obama" on occasion, where "acting Senator" would be more appropriate.

In CiC's Mein Kampf, the word "Jew" was replaced by "Republican."

[nick]

Twas the good times and good times never end so janet said spend, spend, spend and have no worry about an economic mess!

[Dave K.]

CIC: Are you sure you aren't a comedian in the "real world"? Some of your comments hereabouts are really too out there to be believed at times ...

So are all the world's ills the fault of GWB? Since he, according to you at least, engineered the market collapse that those of us who don't live in fantasy land have seen coming for years, why do you suppose he did so, and how did he manage to pull it off? Must have been quite a trick, getting all those banks, mortgage companies, credit card issuers, investors, etc., to play along. Not to mention all the consumers who squandered overinflated home equity on cars, big screen TVs, and other assorted bling rather than saving for the inevitable rainy days that result from the cyclical nature of all markets throughout human history.

Don't think the profligate spending by JNo and her minions had anything to do with the budget crunch we here in AZ are in now, do you? This because pols in other states, of both parties, made the same mistakes? Is that supposed to be a reason, an excuse, what? Anyone who relies on continuously rosy economic forecasts that fly in the face of all known reality, despite being told by outside obervers that said forecasts are indeed unrealistic, is just as guilty for the mess we're in as anyone on Wall St. or in DC.

Even if JNo, by some miracle, manages to sqeak her way in to the AG's office, I seriously doubt she'd be investigating any US Attorney firings. That is, after all, how Bill Clinton got her career started. Or have you forgotten? Perhaps your rather obsessive hatred of GWB has blocked of portions of your memory?

[Aaron]

I can't believe this, but I am defending the Speaker and Rep. Groe at the same time. This is an economic mess, and I think we should have done rebates as opposed to permanent $500 million tax cuts...Having said that,we all have to work together to make tough choices for future budgets or special sessions. You can decry the Republican legislative objectives or the Democratic budget that passed for fiscal 2009, but they are moot points right now. We need solutions and fast!

[nick]

jam it gave us plenty of solutions in the last budget.
The problem is they were bad solutions.

[Rep. Rick Murphy]

Actually, taxpayers are very fortunate that the tax relief enacted in 2006 was a permanent cut rather than the rebate Governor Napolitano preferred - for multiple reasons.

First, does anyone really believe any of that money would have been "left on the table" at the time? Of course not! The governor would have demanded to spend most or all of it. Some might have been one-time items, but much of it would have been ongoing commitments. That means our current deficit would be even larger than it is now.

Second, the economic stimulus that results from rebates is negligible. Yes, individuals and companies spend some or all of their rebate. But few purchase anything substantial since they know the money is a one-time event. Companies won't even consider re-investing that rebate to create jobs since they can't be sure they can afford to keep those new employees very long. This principle explains why the 3-year property tax suspension (enacted the same year) has done little to create jobs - companies have to plan on the tax coming back, even if it won't, just in case it does.

As for how much the cut "cost," the $500-600 million figure was a projection based on the same faulty population and economic growth projections that resulted in our current revenue shortfall. While I don't have a hard number, I would be surprised if the forgone revenue was more than $300 million, not counting any dynamic effects.

Finally, the peak of an up-cycle is the PERFECT time to enact a permanent tax cut. By definition, that peak is the beginning of a down-cycle. A cut not only limits the spending of revenues that will soon evaporate, it also leaves the economy with more resources to weather the storm, to some degree mitigating the depth of the down-cycle. If you think it's bad now, imagine if spending were $500 million higher and the revenue gap was larger, as well.

The truth is that Arizona's current budget disaster was mainly caused by massive overspending at the behest of the governor. Some of that spending was grudgingly approved by conservative Republican legislators in exchange for solid conservative policies (tax cuts, school choice, etc.) in 2005 & 2006. Most was approved by mostly-Democrat coalition "majorities" in 2003, 2004, 2007 & 2008. Elections have consequences...no signature, no budget.

Anyone who pays attention to economic history should have known by early 2007 that a downturn was coming within 1-3 years. Quite simply, regardless of specific policies, we were due. Specific policies can speed up (worsen) or slow down (mitigate) the inevitable, but can never prevent it altogether.

Several legislators (myself included) argued in vain for much lower revenue projections as early as March 2007. We were correct in saying that too much of the FY2007 surplus had been labeled "ongoing" when it was really "one-time" revenue. We made few real cuts while using up just about all of our easy solutions (rainy day fund, accounting gimmicks, fund sweeps, etc.) in the FY 2008 & FY2009 budgets. Now, we are paying the piper.

We must make significant cuts in revising FY2009 (inevitable) & for FY2010 if we want to avoid raising taxes. Spending mandated by ballot measures makes it difficult, if not impossible, to cut enough. However, a tax increase should be out of the question, as it would only make matters worse in the long run.

Hopefully, the election will yield enough legislators with sufficient political courage for the task at hand. If not, our children will be paying for our mistakes for years to come.

[Sen. Ron Gould]

Hey Rick,
Maybe we can get our leadership to play to win this year.

[todd]

Rep. Rick Murphy,
You claim the government can't cut enough due to mandated spending and tax increases should not be used, so where are you thinking to cut spending?

[Dave K.]

Thank you, Rep. Murphy. At last, a voice of reason in a sea of left wing insanity ...

[Chad]

Rep. Murphy is spot on with his analysis. We just need to convince 31 of his House colleagues of the reality of big spending and budgeting gimmickry.

[Gretchen]

Any recommendations for cuts? What programs?

[todd]

Gretchen,
Maybe Rep Murphy lacks the political courage for the task of answering your question.

[Special Agent Johnny Utah]

I think we'd get a lot more money for the Grand Canyon than for the lottery.

Or maybe we package it this way: "We'll sell you the lottery, but you have to take the Cardinals and Steve Benson, too. It's a package deal."

[Aaron]

I disagree with Rep. Murphy but he really answered in a classy way. I applaud that. We should all stick to the issues and be a little better to each other!