I am opposed to taking money from non-drinkers, non-smokers, and the insured to subsidize those who drink, smoke, or are not insured.  However, subsidizing this bad behavior is just what we do:  we pay for the police to deal with the problems of alcohol, we pay the higher costs of health care to cover the costs of alcohol AND tobacco (in direct taxes for medicare and medicaid AND in increased private insurance rates due to the government refusing to pay doctors and hospitals the true cost of the services — which means they increase the price for everyone else to cover the losses), and increased auto insurance rates due to drunk and uninsured drivers.  (Did you know “uninsured motorist” protection only covers medical expenses due to being hit by an uninsured driver?  If they destroy your car you are out of luck UNLESS you’ve been paying for comprehensive and collision all along, which costs more!)

So here’s my solution:  Large insurance companies bid on creating a fund to cover the costs– sometimes called EXTERNALITIES — and ALL costs of drinking, smoking, and uninsured driving will be paid out of the externalities fund quarterly.

So let’s say Farmers Insurance wins the contract for administering one of these funds for the next five years.  They will take claims on the fund for the next three months, then levy a fee on that activity over the next quarter that will pay those claims.  Any shortfalls on the fund will be rolled over into the next quarter and prioritized; any surpluses will lower the assessment for the next quarter.  Farmers might keep 1.5% of what is PAID OUT as an administrative fee — the specific percentage of profit withheld by the company is part of the bidding process.  Farmers sets up a website where people or insurance companies who have a claim on the fund enter their information and amount of damages, then pays it out once the fees have been remitted.

On alcohol, the fund gets money through a per millileter of alcohol in the drink sold.  Law enforcement can bill for hours and money spent on testing, arrests, paperwork, incarceration, court time, etc. for handling DUIs.  Cities and individuals can put in claims for property damaged by drunk drivers (assuming they have police reports and an estimate provided by claims representatives from the fund agent).  Auto insurance companies can put in for claims paid out for medical and life insurance claims due to accidents deemed by law enforcement to be caused by alcohol.  Health insurance companies can submit for reimbursement for treatment of cirrhosis of the liver secondary to long-term alcohol abuse.

Treatment and education WILL NOT be paid for by the fund.  Effective treatments can be paid for by the health insurance companies, but should not be paid for by the fund as often such “good programs” are a colossal waste of money.  The only way DRINKERS will support the program is if it is not used as a way of moralizing and chiding them for their choice of recreation.  Sure, drinking is harmful — and especially so when done to excess — but the amount of money “do gooders” can spend doing “good” with other people’s  money, without delivering any measurable results, is staggering — and should be offensive to us because of its unfairness.

The fund WILL NOT be used to augment the general fund, i.e. it is NOT a “cash cow” to be milked whenever the government needs money.  Government will NEVER have enough money, and their continued raising of the rates will only undermine support of the program by those who pay into it — support which will be critical to maintaining compliance.

To address smoking, Arizona would get rid of its idiotic, proposition-enacted tobacco tax and create an externalities fund for tobacco-related damages.  These are mostly just going to be administration fees — paying someone to go out and ensure that cigarettes sold are carrying the tax — and health care costs from treating emphysema, COPD, and lung cancer.  Second hand smoke claims must be documented with health records or employment records showing living in a house with a smoker or working in a bar or other space that had smokers.  The fund rate would be levied per gram of tobacco.

To address uninsured drivers,  we must repeal the “welfare for tow companies” act that allows uninsured vehicles to be towed and impounded for 30 days when all the impound fees go to the tow company — not a dime paid to people whose property has been damaged, or to law enforcement, who spend their time waiting for the tow truck to arrive at the scene of the accident or citation.  I say the vehicle is still automatically towed, but can be sprung automatically if the uninsured driver pays the assessed fee online via Paypal or credit card PLUS the cost of the tow —  this could be done with a valid code given to the payer upon receipt of the payment of the fee by the fund.  After ten days, if the vehicle is not picked up, the vehicle is seized by the fund agent and auctioned, the tow company being paid a reasonable fee for the tow and ten-day impound.  All proceeds of the sale go to the fund to pay for damages done by uninsured drivers.  Any insurance company or private individual who has had damages caused by an uninsured motorist can put in to be reimbursed by the fund, as long as they have an estimate provided by an adjuster from the fund agent company.  The fund would get its money from the fee paid by drivers to spring their cars from impound or from cars abandoned in impound by their owners.

I believe this kind of system will end the transfer of money from responsible, law-abiding citizens to those who engage in irresponsible or damaging behavior,  and let those who engage in this behavior see the TRUE cost of their choices so they can make rational decisions.  Can we overcome the objections of the entrenched interests who benefit from the current ineffective system in which some get rich at the expense of others?  Only if we educate, persuade, and work at changing it.

I welcome your comments and ideas!

I would like to see a Constitutional challenge to our current inhumane treatment of Native Americans (hereafter “NAs”) on the grounds that Congress has granted a title of nobility in direct opposition to Article 1, Section 9, paragraph 8:

No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

It seems to me that making a hereditary right to lands and privileges such as operating casinos and selling cigarettes and fireworks tax free, is just that.

The nobilty system in Europe allowed “nobles” to be  made hereditary lords of lands which allowed them to extract rents and fees from the people who lived, worked and farmed on them  This system was a cancer that produced a huge number of morally bankrupt “rulers” whose lock on the progression of the society and economy was only ended by sending so many of them off to fight and die in ill-fated Crusades.

I believe we can see the impact of such a system on people and society today on any reservation you choose to visit.   I don’t think you could find any thinking person who has spent any time on one who thinks it is good:  alcohol, sexual abuse, immorality, drugs, economic malaise and shiftlessness are rampant there.  I do not pretend these things don’t exist OFF the reservation, but the particular degree and uniformity of effects — which are nearly without exception passed on to the next generation on the people — are properly called EVIL.

In the 1950s the Repubican party supported a policy called “termination”, where the reservations were the idea was that the reservations became private property owned by the NAs.  Details of the policy seem to be the domain of obscure scholarly journals, but it is clear that people didn’t have the stomach for the effects.  Many NAs were not able to fend for themselves after generations on the public dole or just not being integrated into society.  Some, predictably, sold off their land for money to get alcohol.  In the end, the government ended up buying the reservations back and placing the people back on them.

I think something must be done for people on the reservations that would free them from the effects of government in their lives (anyone looking for what happens when government tries to be “good” apart from God should spend a few months on their nearby reservation) and give them a chance to live full productive lives.

I propose that each tribe should have the chance to decide if they want to parcel their land, form a large corporation, completely sell off and distribute the proceeds, or whatever AFTER a long period of education about the impacts.  I know some would just squander what they get; however, they are sqandering what they’re given now, and then without fail passing that pathology on to the next generation with a guarantee that taxpayers will continue to support it.

Do we care enough — and do we have enough credibility about caring — to make this happen?  I can think of NO other single policy that would so greatly benefit so great a number of people and free them from the shackles of sin.  These are really WONDERFUL and SPECIAL people who we have left to the ravages of government (don’t get started on how much the Department of the Interior has stolen from them —  I don’t think an audit has ever been completed because the amount of money missing is in the billions!).

I look forward to hearing from anyone who chances upon reading this — and I challenge you to take up this cause.

I spend a lot of time wishing that SOMEWHERE on the internet people were talking about ideas, trying to persuade others, and once an idea had the bugs worked out, provided a place for people to work together to get the idea IMPLEMENTED.  I don’t guess this will be the place, but I’m hoping others will share ideas and read those others have written.

I’m going to be working on posting some of my ideas here.  If you see one you like, PLEASE get in contact with me and let’s see what we can do to get the ball rolling!  FYI, the ideas will be mainly free market, less government, more freedom ideas.  If one doesn’t sound like it meets those goals I’d welcome hearing from you.

In January 2007 this country was estimating having a $249 billion dollar surplus by the year 2017. So what happened between 2007 and 2010 to now have estimates saying in 2017 we won’t have anywhere NEAR a surplus we will have a deficit of $9.7 trillion dollars?

The answer is simple – The Democrats got a hold of the majority of Congress.

In January 2007 the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated the following to happen with regards to the new Democratic control of Congress:

The budget outlook was projected to improve from a $248 billion deficit in 2006 to a $249 billion surplus by 2017.

The federal government was projected to run surpluses in every year from 2012 to 2017.
The total ten-year budget surplus was equal to $800 billion.
The public debt was projected to decline from 37.0% of GDP in 2006 to 20.1% of GDP in 2017

However that didn’t happen now did it? I love how everyone blames President Bush for our federal deficit but what one must remember is that our Congress has been controlled by Democrats for the past 3 years!! And Barack Obama has added so much debt in the less than two years he has been elected President – I don’t know how this country will recover. Those bailouts and stimulus packages are not just handouts. The Federal Government had to borrow money to pay for them! And they will have to pay it back WITH interest.

New estimates for the year 2017 look like this now:

The $800 billion projected surplus has turned into a ten-year deficit of $9.7 trillion.
Instead of surpluses, the projected deficits in each year from FY 2008 to FY 2017 will exceed any deficit in any previous year in American history.
Instead of being 20.1% of GDP in 2017, CBO projects the public debt will be 81.8% of GDP under the President’s budget.

I’m going to quote the publication by the RSC because they said it best – “In just over three years of Democrat control of the Congress, an $800 billion projected surplus has turned into a projected deficit of more than $9.7 trillion—a $10.5 trillion worsening of the budget outlook covering just these ten years (or an average of more than $1 trillion a year). Consequently, the publicly held debt, which in January 2007 CBO projected would decline to a fifth of the economy by 2017, is now projected to increase to more than four-fifths of the economy by 2017.”

And you wonder why I vote Republican!

Sarah Markham

The health care bill passed yesterday with a 219-212 vote in the House.  All Republicans were smart and voted no along with 34 Democrats.  The bill is now on its way to the President to be signed.

Let me guess – you re-read that paragraph about two times making sure you read it correct didn’t you?  We all took civics in school, watched those silly school house rock videos, and we all are smart enough to understand how a bill becomes a law.  It goes through the House for approval, through the Senate and if approved through both goes to the President for a signature.  So how can this health care bill pass through the House, skip the Senate and go to the President for a signature?  Well it’s called: The Democrats pulled a fast ball on the American people.

What was passed yesterday was called a reconciliation bill.  What ended up happening was the House and Senate passed two different Health Care Reform bills.  In order for a bill to become a law it must get passed through the House and Senate in the same form.  At the time neither the House nor Senate wanted to take up each other’s form of the bill.  So what should have happened at this point in time was that everyone should have gone back to the drawing board and come up with something else.  That happened for about a day.  Obama got together with Republicans and Democrats and made it seem like they were trying to work out a compromise to this Healthcare Reform Bill.  I’m not sure though if any of you watched the actual debate, but I did and it was not a bipartisan meeting at all.  Nothing of what the Republicans said was heard.  So after that meeting, several deal makings later, and arm twisting by the Obama Administration, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi – the Democrats in the House got together and decided they would take up the Senate’s version of the healthcare bill.

The only problem was they didn’t have enough votes to do it.  One thing stopping the House Democrats from passing the bill was the provisions on abortion.  The White House though announced President Obama would issue an executive order pledging that no federal funds would be used for elective abortion. Well I don’t know about you but I don’t trust one word that comes out of Obama’s mouth and that promise to me means nothing. So this bill was passed with pro-abortion provisions meaning our tax dollars are going to support abortion.   But either way, the House Democrats not in favor of the pro-abortion provisions believed Obama and now had enough votes to pass the Health Care Reform, and because they passed the Senate’s version of the bill under “reconciliation” it now goes straight to the President for his signature.  The fixes that were made to the bill will go back to the Senate for approval; however under reconciliation all they need is a 51 vote majority to pass it.  Under normal circumstances it would take 60 votes to pass a bill through the Senate.  Democrats control 59 of the Senate’s 100 seats, one vote shy of the number needed to overcome bill-killing filibusters from a united GOP.   One other reason the Democrats wanted to pass this bill using reconciliation.  They knew they didn’t have the votes in the Senate to pass it normally, but they do have the 51 needed to pass it now.

So whether we like it or not, it looks like this Health Care Reform is going to be passed and put into law.  It’s going to cost over $900 billion dollars over ten years, bankrupt our state, bankrupt our entire economy, and not to mention my child who isn’t even born yet is going to get the bill footed to him or her.  I love though how the Democrats will tell you this bill is saving us $138 billion dollars.  I seriously do question if Reid, Pelosi and others got a legit education in their youth or maybe they just forgot over the years how to do simple math.  This bill is going to cost $900 billion + over the next ten years and we’re going to save $138 billion over the next ten years according to the Democrats.  900 – 138 = 762!  So our deficit is still going to go up $762 billion over ten years.  If you believe that is all this bill is going to cost.  I for one believe it’ll cost way more than $900 billion over ten years.

So with all that aside, what exactly is IN this health care bill?

Well along with the hefty price tag this bill comes with it also comes with a lot of rules and regulations. Under this bill I for one will be required to get health care, the 18 year old just out of high school who holds a part time job will be required, and the 30 year old who just got laid off and has no source of income will also be required.  Oh and if you don’t purchase health care by 2014 you will be penalized! Oh but don’t worry the government will offer you a subsidy. Oh how nice (that was meant to be sarcastic people).

Businesses that have fewer than 50 employees will not be required to cover their employees under the health care bill, but those with over 50 will be.  If they do not cover them, the company will face a $750 dollar fine per person. In some cases (depending on how large the company is) paying that $750 fine might be cheaper than offering health care.  The bottom line though is that this health care reform will hurt businesses.  I don’t know about you, but I’d rather have a job and some income coming in them no job and health care.  Companies will hire less people.  That’s the simple truth.  If you think unemployment is high in the year 2010.  You just wait till 2014 rolls around.

Now here’s what SEEMS like the good parts of the bill (hence the word seems)

From a news article on MSNBC.com: “The insurance industry, which spent millions on advertising trying to block the bill, would come under new federal regulation. They would be forbidden from placing lifetime dollar limits on policies, from denying coverage to children because of pre-existing conditions and from canceling policies when a policyholder becomes ill. Parents would be able to keep children up to age 26 on their family insurance plans, three years longer than is now the case. A new high-risk pool would offer coverage to uninsured people with medical problems until 2014, when the coverage expansion would go into high gear.”

Sounds good huh? People can no longer be denied based on pre-existing conditions, insurance companies can’t cancel your policy if you become sick and hey I could still be on Dad’s health insurance till I’m 26.  HOWEVER – hence the word seems – remember?  Those requirements and rules are going to raise the cost of premiums, medicine, and medical practices. So yes sounds nice on paper but in reality – covering those people are going to cost a lot more money.

So this health care bill DOES NOT lower the cost of health care in America. It’ll raise taxes by half a trillion dollars and the other half trillion to pay for this bill will be taken out of Medicare.  I’ll remember when my son (or daughter) turns 18 and realizes how much he has to pay for a health care bill he wasn’t even alive to know about when it passed – that it was the Obama Administration and those 219 Democrats that handed my son (or daughter) the bill they and their kids will be paying off for the rest of their lives.

Oh and just so you all know, on the November ballot in Arizona there is going to be an initiative called the Arizona Health Care Freedom Act. If passed, it will allow residents to opt out of any federally mandated health insurance program or plan. So I urge you all to VOTE YES in November on that initiative!

Sarah Markham

Well the Arizona Legislature has yet again decided not to make texting while driving illegal. It’s a battle that has been going on at the state level for over a year now. I can in a way see why some don’t want a law on it. I don’t like the government interfering in my life either. If I want to wear a seat belt, I’ll wear one. If I don’t, well my loss now isn’t it? What is me not wearing my seat belt going to hurt anybody else but me? Just so you all know – I always wear my seat belt, but still my point is how is me not wearing my seat belt going to affect you? However, it’s just plain common sense though. You’re driving in a car – wear your seat belt. We shouldn’t need a law on it. Not texting while driving should be common sense too; however the concept and outcomes of such an action does have different consequences than ones of not wearing a seat belt. The actions of not paying attention while you’re driving because you’re texting your friend back, could cost the life of another person. Don’t text while you drive – it SHOULD be common sense! If what you have to say is that important, why not try calling them? If you remember what it’s like to actually have a real conversation with a person. I have to say though, I have tried texting while driving. VERY hard & I don’t recommend it. I completely see why it causes accidents. So it should be common sense – don’t text and drive; however, it’s not because I have tons of friends who will text me while driving. I always tell them not too, but they do it anyway. So it’s not common sense to some. So maybe we do need a law on it. I actually see a more valid argument for having a law on banning texting while driving over requiring a person to wear a seat belt. Maybe if people used common sense though the idea of texting while driving wouldn’t need a law attached to it in the first place. I’m just saying …

Sarah Markham

The Census is very important. The 2010 Census just might be the thing that turns Mohave County into 5 Supervisory Districts, what could get Mohave County more federal money for more developmental projects, it could be what adds 9 new House Seats to California, and it could drastically change the outcome of some political races for the next 10 years. Yes the 2010 Census is VERY important!

However, I do think far too much is being spent on advertising for it. Our economy is in a recession and the Census Department is spending tons of money on unnecessary advertising. I might be able to grasp spending advertising for TV commercials. Again the Census is an important document and we need to make sure ALL LEGAL residents are counted, but why in the world does the Census Bureau need to pay for a damn advertisement at Movies Havasu and Ultra Star Theaters? Huh? Seriously? That’s pushing it AND a waste of our tax dollars!

But what REALLY ticked me off is what I heard today – we’re counting illegals in the 2010 Census? WHAT? The Census is FAR too important! It’s a document we base our entire political redistricting off of for TEN YEARS!! We SHOULD NOT be counting illegals!! We should be counting legal residents of the United States of America! Illegals are NOT apart of this country, should go back to whatever boat they came from or wall they jumped over, they should not be concerned in ANYTHING especially given ANY opportunity to get on OUR welfare and they should NOT be counted in the 2010 Census!

This is just ridicules – “the U.S. Census Bureau, Thomas Mesenbourg, told CNSNews.com that the bureau intends to work with community organizations to make sure every illegal alien in the United States is counted in the 2010 Census.”

What?! Now this is ONE thing no matter WHAT political affiliation you are – you SHOULD be pissed as hell about!

This Census is FAR too important to the future of this country to include illegal aliens in it!

The majority of people DO NOT want illegals in this country – so if you are illegal and reading this – GO BACK to whatever country you came from! And next time – think about coming here the legal, right way! And maybe then we’ll get along!

Sarah

The process of how a bill becomes a law is a very complicated one with many steps to it. There are about 1500 bills presented to the legislature every session that try to get passed and either turned into law or on the ballot for the people to decide. Out of those 1500 bills only 200 to 350 make it through the actual process of going into law or on the ballot. A bill in order to become law or end up on the ballot has to pass through both chambers of the state legislature. It has to pass through the house and the senate. An “ideal” bill will go through both the house and the senate and come out with the same language. So let’s first look at the process of how an “ideal” bill becomes law.

The process of passing a bill through each chamber of the legislature is the same. The bill will start out in the House first. It has to obtain a sponsor. Either a prime sponsor – which is just one main person supporting it. Their first and last names are listed on the bill. Or there are also the co-sponsors. You could have many names listed on a bill as co-sponsors of it. Once is bill gets sponsored it is then “dropped.” If a bill is dropped it’s a good thing. Being dropped means it was assigned a legislature number to it. Like HB 2460 for example or HCR 2460 (which means it’s trying to get passed to be put on the ballot). Bill numbers are reused every year. So HB 2460 this year may be about renewable energy whereas last year it was about income tax.

Once a bill is assigned a number it is then heard in committees. The house has 15 committees and the Senate has 11 committees. The House of Representatives has 60 members at the state level and the Senate has 30 members. Committees change every year, and each chamber has a finite number of weeks to hear the bill. For example the House this year had from January until the end of this week to get all the bills they intend to pass through committees.

The Speaker of the House is in charge of assigning the bills to committees. A bill may never get pass this point if the Speaker of the House does not assign it. He can assign it to one committee or to many committees as well. Ideally you want your bill to be assigned to one committee, because if it’s assigned to multiple committees the process can take longer and it may not get heard in time. The bill also cannot be heard in the 2nd committee unless it was heard in the first committee. There is paper work that can be drawn up however by another committee. Say your bill is stuck in the first committee and they just do not seem interested in reading it, you can request for that bill to be “withdrawn” from the primary committee it was assigned to in order for it to be heard in your committee.

The Committee Chair has sole discretion as to what bills they put on the agenda to be heard. If the Committee Chair doesn’t like your bill & is not feeling enough pressure from constituents or other Representatives, that bill may never be heard. When a bill is in committee that is the ONLY time the public is given the opportunity to speak, and even then it is up to the committee chair as to who gets to speak and who does not. A bill can be amended as well in a committee. An amendment may be offered to a bill by any member of the committee.
There are four outcomes to a bill when it’s in committee:
- Do Pass (DP)
- Do Pass Amended (DPA)
- Failed (if there is a tie vote on a bill it is considered a fail as well)
- Held (meaning it was not heard or there is going to be testimony on it but it’s not going to be voted on)

After a bill passes through the committees it was assigned, it then goes onto the Rules Committee. All bills must go through the rules committee. The Committee Chair of the Rules Committee again has full discretion on what bills are heard or not. The Rules Committee job is to vote on if the bill is considered “Constitutional & Proper” (C&P). There is never any public testimony during Rules and bills can only be amended for form.

Once a bill passes through rules it goes onto what is called a “Caucus.” Both political parties have their own separate caucus’s (There was one independent Representative a few years back and they chose which Caucus to attend – there currently are no Independent Representatives or Senators in the Az Legislature). In the Caucus the bill is discussed and must be passed through BOTH caucuses in order to move forward. There is no public input in Caucuses however the public can attend them. Bills cannot be amended in Caucus either.
Read the rest of this entry »

I believe Republicans MUST repudiate crony capitalism and all government intrusion into the marketplace.  Therefore, I believe Brenda Burns and Gary Pierce are our best bets for Corporation Commission.

I have nothing against Barry Wong personally.  He seems like a nice fellow, and I’ve seen him twice at local events with the Kingman Republican Forum and Kingman Republican Men’s Club, but because he says “I’ll be your eyes and ears,” I’d like someone elected to the Corporation Commission who knows what crony capitalism sounds like.

When he votes to mandate that a certain percentage of Arizona’s electricity come from alternative sources, and then it is put upon rate payers to pay the extra cost of this alternative energy, then it becomes nothing but a transfer of wealth from grandmas on fixed incomes to snake oil salesmen promising “energy from the sun” that costs ten times what “energy from the earth” (e.g. nuclear, coal, natural gas) or other “energy from the sun”, i.e. hydroelectric, costs.

In reality, if I could get a several-thousand-dollar subsidy, I could convert my household wastes to methane gas, but it’s not efficient to do so — therefore the subsidy would have to be really big.  I certainly don’t think it’s fair for the working folks of Arizona to support my losing business model, but that’s in effect what we’re doing when we REQUIRE $9 a month from every family in Mohave county as a  ”GREEN  ENERGY” mandate — and it IS THERE.  Check your bill.  And when the requirement increases down the road, the cost will grow.  The only “green energy” I can see is the effort these shysters are making to suck the green out of our pockets — $108 a year from each family in Arizona is a tidy sum, when multiplied by hundreds of thousands.  Nice work if you can get it.

This, while the natural gas plant down the road sits idle, and while the pipeline for coal slurry we already paid for from eastern to western Arizona sits idle.

It’s time to hammer the nail in the coffin of Global Warming.  Sorry Barry, you can’t hear the tell-tale sounds of big government sliding into bed with business.

The Senate adjourned the Sixth Special Session sine die today, after the House voted on the last of the special session bills. A brief explanation of each bill and its status is below:

SB 1001: statewide special election (Burns). Calls a statewide special election on May 18th, and includes reimbursement for counties for election costs.
-Approved by the House and Senate and signed by the Governor.

SB 1002: budget reconciliation; appropriations; education (Burns). Authorizes a roll-over of payments to K-12 schools and universities.
-Approved by the Senate last week. Amended in the House to make the rollover conditional upon the enactment of the House jobs package. The Senate opted not to concur and instead adjourned without acting on the amended bill, killing the measure.

SB 1003: revenue bonds; lease-purchase; finance (Burns). Authorizes the sale of up to $300 million in bonds against lottery revenue and authorizes the lease-purchase of additional state buildings.
-Approved by the House and Senate and transmitted to the Governor, awaiting signature

SB 1004: state lottery; authorization (Burns). Re-establishes the State Lottery Fund and the State Lottery Commission and provides for the repayment of bonds.
-Approved by the House and Senate and signed by the Governor.

SB 1005: standard deduction; non-residents; pro-rate (Burns). Prorates the standard income tax deduction for non-resident filers based on the ratio of Arizona gross income to federal adjusted gross income.
-Approved by the House and Senate and signed by the Governor.

SCR1001: temporary sales tax; repeal (Burns). Refers to the ballot a temporary one-cent sales tax increase for three years. The election is set for May 18, 2010.
-Approved by the House and Senate and transmitted to the Secretary of State to be placed on the ballot.