Let’s stipulate that no one is going to confuse California’s progressive Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, with more conservative governors like Arizona’s Doug Ducey. But even Newsom understands the danger that a dramatic income tax increase can mean for a state’s competitiveness.

In announcing his support of a ballot proposition to create a “split rollâ€� property tax system that will treat residential and commercial properties differently for tax purposes (itself a bad idea), Newsom also said he will an effort to raise the top state income tax rate and impose a wealth tax. 

What’s happening in California is instructive to the debate over Arizona’s Proposition 208, which would catapult Arizona’s top income tax rate into the top-10-highest in the nation by raising it 77.7%, from the current 4.5% to 8%.  

“In a global, mobile economy, now is not the time for the kind of state tax increases on income we saw proposed at the end of this legislative session and I will not sign such proposals into law,� Newsom .

Even Newsom gets it: In the freest country on the planet, individuals and businesses of all sizes can move to more welcoming tax environments when their current jurisdiction becomes overtaxed and overregulated.

At an August , Newsom was cool to higher tax proposals, saying California has to “consider the impacts of those decisions on your ability to retain and attract talent, individuals, companies, and your competitiveness. Everything needs to be considered in that light. And I would encourage those that are making proposals in this space to consider those impacts in relationship to what may or may not be happening in other parts of this nation.�

Granted, California already has the highest income tax rate in the country at 13.3% (on income over $1 million), but the principal that certain taxes are particularly damaging to economic expansion holds.  

When a big income tax increase during the middle of pandemic is too extreme even for Gavin Newsom, that should tell us all we need to know about the wisdom of Proposition 208. 

Glenn Hamer is president and CEO of the Arizona Â鶹´«Ã½Ó³»­ of Commerce and Industry. 

The post Income tax rates matter, even to Gavin Newsom appeared first on Â鶹´«Ã½Ó³»­.

With another move attacking Arizona Public Service, it appears California billionaire and now presidential candidate Tom Steyer cannot seem to quit Arizona.

Steyer’s attacks against the Â鶹´«Ã½Ó³»­tility date back to the 2018 election cycle when his attempt to mandate onerous new renewable energy standards was rejected by voters in a 2 to 1 margin.

Now, Steyer is using a digital ad to accuse the company of corruption. This is the second time in recent months that Steyer has inserted himself into Arizona issues.

Many observers attribute his behavior to a desperate attempt to increase his name ID in the state and salvage his reputation after and painful and expensive loss in the fall.

“California billionaire Tom Steyer can’t stop meddling in Arizona politics,� Arizonans for Affordable Electricity spokesperson Matt Benson said. “It was just last year that Arizona voters overwhelmingly rejected Steyer’s Prop 127, which would have added $1,000/year to the typical family’s electricity bill. Now he’s back – this time as a self-described ‘ratepayer advocate.’

“You’re not fooling anybody, Tom.â€�

The California billionaire, who made millions investing in fossil fuels, is inserting himself in Arizona policy conversations claiming the state is being misguided by corporations and elected leaders. But the state’s economy has been booming for the past year with local economists touting the diversity in job and industry growth.

Arizona’s economy continues to grow at one of the fastest rates in the nation, ranking fourth in the U.S. for GDP growth last year and second in the country for personal income growth.

More than 300,000 new jobs have been added since 2015 and Arizona is projected to add another 165,000 new jobs by 2020.

Also, the greater Phoenix metropolitan area has officially eclipsed its pre-recession job peaks in almost every industry.

“Arizona is open for business and our economy is booming,� said Governor Doug Ducey in a statement. “It’s not by accident: Arizona’s pro-business policies, low taxes and light regulations are delivering more job opportunities and bigger paychecks for Arizona workers.�

Business community advocates say Steyer’s latest advertisements are likely to prove as unsuccessful as his previous political activities in the state.

“This guy apparently can’t take a hint,â€� Arizona Â鶹´«Ã½Ó³»­ of Commerce and Industry spokesperson Garrick Taylor said. “Arizonans have rejected over and over Steyer’s job-killing agenda, but yet he keeps coming back here. Arizona’s economy is doing just fine without Steyer, thank you very much, in large part because lawmakers and the governor have studiously avoided the sort of policies he advocates.â€�

Steyer’s efforts in Arizona began in 2018 when his progressive political action committee, NextGen Climate Action, launched an effort to mandate that utilities provide half their annual retail sales from renewable energy sources by 2030 “irrespective of cost to consumers.� The effort excluded zero-emission nuclear energy from the definition of renewable energy.

Then in May, Steyer portrayed himself as a ratepayer advocate by engaging in an APS rate case before the Arizona Corporation Commission. Many were quick to point out that his 2018 energy mandate, known as Proposition 127, would have increased costs on Arizona residents, including low-income families and small businesses. Estimates revealed the typical Arizona family would see its utility bills increase by $1,000 or more over the course of a year.

In addition to the $28 million Steyer dumped into the failed campaign, he also attacked Republican candidates, spending more than $3 million against Attorney General Mark Brnovich and engaging in the Arizona Corporation Commission race through dark money groups such as ChispaAZ.

On Tuesday morning, Steyer announced his candidacy for president in a digital video. Steyer plans to spend at least $100 million on his campaign.

The post AZ to Steyer: Thank you, next appeared first on Â鶹´«Ã½Ó³»­.

Alastair Mactaggart. Does the name mean anything to you? It should. This wealthy California real estate investor just did something that Congress hasn’t done, and even the California legislature wasn’t willing to do, until they were threatened. Mr. Mactaggart got the most restrictive data privacy law in the country passed in less than 72 hours in California.

How did this happen? With $3.5 million of his own money, Mr. Mactaggart funded an effort to get an initiative on the California ballot that would have established extreme data privacy standards for companies doing businesses in the state. It would have also prevented the California legislature from amending the law unless such amendments were “passed by a vote of seventy percent of the members of each house and signed by the Governor, provided that such amendments are consistent with and further the intent of this Act.� Sound familiar? That is essentially the same restriction that applies to every Arizona voter-approved initiative.

The threat of a looming filing deadline for this ballot initiative caused the California legislature to rush through a bill last month to satisfy Mr. Mactaggart and get him to drop his initiative.

So, what does this mean for us in Arizona? While we have also seen an increase in statewide initiatives being filed in Arizona by well-funded interests, this data privacy standoff in California represents a truly frightening new twist in “policy-making by the ballot.� Like the California data privacy initiative, more and more of the initiatives being filed in Arizona are not simple, easy to understand questions being advocated by droves of unhappy voters. Rather, they are complex policy issues being pushed by individuals and advocacy groups, a growing number of them from out of state. These initiatives often require extensive and confusing statutory language that most voters are unfamiliar with. Soundbite campaign messages are simply insufficient to allow voters to act as lawmakers on these complex initiatives. TV ads and mailer campaigns are no replacement for sound policymaking, which requires fact finding, robust debate, stakeholder input and most importantly, the opportunity to change and improve a policy proposal.

The recent California experience demonstrates the danger of a single-shot vote on a complex ballot proposal. Even after legislative debate and process–although abbreviated–the California legislature wisely delayed the effective date of the new data privacy law so that unaddressed issues and mistakes in the rushed bill could be amended next year before the law takes effect.

No matter how good a petition signature gatherer or campaign mailer can make an initiative sound, we can’t afford to have badly drafted initiatives getting put in front of voters by someone with an agenda, a pile of money and a good soundbite to get people to sign a petition. The stakes are too high and the consequences too great. Likewise, we can’t afford to have someone with those same assets have the ability to extort rushed or bad policy out of our legislature. Just ask California how that is working out for them.

Susan Anable is the Chair of the Arizona Â鶹´«Ã½Ó³»­ of Commerce and Industry and Vice President of Public and Government Affairs, Cox Communications Southwest Region.

The post Guest commentary: The initiative standoff appeared first on Â鶹´«Ã½Ó³»­.