« Texas Fold'em--updated | Main | Hypocrisy flows Downhill »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Hold the phone - the editorial page of the WSJ is coming out against a tax. Why that is really big news and a clear indication that there is a real problem here.

"Losing" their homes, I think you mean.

There is the age old question, "Is it better to be lucky or good?"

Janet has given the impression she is very good at some things (not always good things to be good at but.....) and has been the recipient of huge good luck.

It seems to me that her luck has run dry and she has expended her list of qualities revealing for all to see her true make-up.

It is sort of a reversal of fortunes with the people of Arizona being on the receiving end. Now that many will see her for what she truly is, no more smoke and mirrors, it is our turn to be lucky and good.

She is termed out. The chances of her getting a job in the Obama White House just went the Wright way. She will have huge scrutiny and some pretty heavy baggage to carry into any other race.

Could it be that the “veto” that was her strength will also be her swan song?

related letters to the editor at:

http://online.wsj.com/public/page/letters.html?mod=2_0048

No embedded html allowed?

Ann,

You're correct about Napolitano's luck so far. She took credit for earlier economic good times, but did nothing to make them happen or to make sure the state was prepared for the eventual down turn - you know, the one that ALWAYS happens due to the ebb and flow of a free market. It is so discouraging to watch Democrats take credit for ecomonic success when they never do anything to bring it about.

THE GAME. VETO BY JAN.
BALLOT MEASURE.
I NULLIFY JAN WITH YES VOTE.

In regards to the WSJ letters in response to Napolitano's op-ed:
Of course Napolitano wishes to place the blame on others even though she is partly responsible for failing to address or bring exposure to some of the long term problems the state is facing and also for going along with some irresponsible fiscal policies. That being said, I think the response from the Goldwater Institute is laughable. State running a deficit - cut taxes! State running a surplus - cut taxes. Well, I guess they get points for being consistent in their solution to every situation. Having the "historic" growth over the past 5 years as justification for cutting taxes is an interesting argument - thankfully we didn't entirely set our fiscal policy based on the growth in the midst of the housing bubble and to the extent we did it is partially the cause of the current budget woes.

OK, so where do I sign up to join the revolution?

In the middle of this discussion by Stephen Morse he mentions 'rising mortgage costs'. Whoa, hold it - the government has to bail out people who have college degrees but no common sense about what they can afford when it comes to buying a house? Where do I sign up to revolt against stupidity?

Ultimately the analysis by WSJ is wrong. They are saying that this tax, the State Equalization Rate, is a substantial increase to homeowner property tax liability. It is not. This tax costs the average homeowner between $5 and $8 per month. Small businesses in Arizona pay an average of less than $300 annually for this tax. This is and has alwasy been about the largest companies in the state like APS. In the end our legislature chose to repeal this tax in the interest of Arizona's richest corporations at the expense of kids. Now, Napolitano has had a rash of good luck and the media is continually kind to her in the face of many mistakes but, the continuation of the State Equalization Rate is no cause for a revolt.

Thank you John, finally someone gets at the truth. $8 a month, thats two cups of coffee at Starbucks. If we seriously can't afford that in order to balance our budget and continue to maintain the infrastructure that allows this state to grow then we are in some serious trouble.

Some of you seem to have forgotten that property tax on businesses is almost 2 and 1/2 times the tax on homes. My business was revalued by the assessor recently at $2,650,000. When it was valued at $2,100,000 I paid $50,000 a year in property tax. Rather than wait and see what my new tax is, making my business undesirable by any buyer with common sense, I am selling it for $2 million. Put your thinking caps on and remember that ALL taxes are passed through to the customer. The veto will have a REAL impact on all our wallets.

Jean,

Your arguement is clear, correct and easy to understand. Please don't expect tax hungry Democrats to understand, admit or agree with you. They just won't.

I am happy to see that finally we hear from the millionaire crowd. I am glad you are looking out for the other 99.9% of us.

Actually ALL taxes are not in the end passed on to consumers but businesses have been using this argument to shift the tax burden from themselves to the rest of us over the past three decades. Also, while the property tax on business may be higher, the income tax is much lower and with all the accounting tricks many businesses to pay even less. This has caused a regressive tax structure through increases in sales and use taxes. Businesses benefit heavily from the public infrastructure and public services so why shouldn't they have to pay the same as the rest of us.

The comments to this entry are closed.