text:
Difference between revisions of "Arizona Sales Tax Increase, Proposition 100 (May 2010)"
(→Constitutional changes: Removed sentence.)
Geoff Pallay (Talk | contribs)
m (Text replace - "[[sunshinereview:" to "[[")
|Line 88:
|Line 88:
==Possible fiscal impact==
==Possible fiscal impact==
:: ''See also: [[
:: ''See also: [[Arizona state budget|Arizona State Budget]]''
===Contingency plan===
===Contingency plan===
Revision as of 06:41, 16 August 2013
|Arizona Constitution
|1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 6.1 • 7 • 8 • 9 • 10 • 11 • 12 • 13 • 14 • 15 • 16 • 17 • 18 • 19 • 20 • 21 • 22 • 25 • 26 • 27 • 28 • 29 • 30
- 1 Aftermath
- 2 Election results
- 3 Text of amendment
- 4 History
- 5 Possible fiscal impact
- 6 Support
- 7 Opposition
- 8 Media editorial posititions
- 9 Campaign contributions
- 10 Studies and figures
- 11 Polls
- 12 Path to the ballot
- 13 Timeline
- 14 Similar measures
- 15 Quotes
- 16 See also
- 17 External links
- 18 Additional reading
- 19 References
The sales tax hike is projected to generate approximately $1 billion a year. It will hike the state's sales tax from 5.6 cents to 6.6 cents on every dollar of taxable items purchased. The sales tax increase will be a three-year temporary increase. Brewer also included the proposed ballot measure in her Fiscal Year 2011 budget proposal. Early voting for the measure began during the week of April 18, 2010. Early voting was expected to be a light turnout.[2][3][4]
Gov. Jan Brewer wanted the Arizona State Legislature to vote to refer the one cent sales tax increase to the ballot, as a means to alleviate the state's budget strain. According to Brewer, "If we don't get additional revenue in 2011, it will be a disaster. 2012 will be a major catastrophe."[5][6]
As of April 29, 2010, early voting in the state had shown many people became interested in the issue in Arizona counties. According to reports, Pima County had reported at the time that about 33,000 ballots were returned out of the 164,000 that the county had mailed out.[7]
Two days before the election, the measure was expected to turn out a large number of voters, according to county election officials across the state. The measure was predicted to attract about 45% percent of Arizona voters. A statewide special election hadn't been held in the state since 1980 when 30% of voters flocked to the polls to decide on whether or not to cap property tax increases.[8]
Reports out of the state claimed that the revenue that was brought in during the first month of the sales tax's implementation has fallen short of projections by supporters. The sales tax brought in $65 million into the state coffers during the first month, which was short of the $72 million projected to be generated. Opponents stated that the raise in the sales tax hike won't even be sufficient to help bridge some fiscal gaps in the state budget, as main proponent Governor Jan Brewer stated it would do.
However, members of the Joint Legislative Budget Committee stated that the revenue could rise, suggesting that in some cases, a 120-day exemption period must be considered for purchases made under contracts that were signed prior to the sales tax taking effect in the state.[9]
Two weeks before the implementation of the sales tax, businesses prepared for the effects. Neil Schrock, who is a general sales manager at Sanderson Ford car dealership, stated that the business had been planning to advertise to warn voters that the newly approved sales tax increase would impact vehicle prices. Schrock stated that the ads would encourage buyers to purchase their cars before the tax is implemented. According to Schrock, "Example: A $40,000 rig is now going to be $400 more. If you finance that, then there's finance charges also on that $400. So it's considerable...We will have an ad run in the paper, also do some radio. I'm sure, just to remind folks that if they're thinking about buying a car, now is the best time."[10]
With the sales tax increase approved, schools in the state then turned to crafting their budgets. For Amphitheater School District, a plan was already in place if the sales tax was defeated and if it was approved. The district is planning on eliminating a large portion of its free full-day kindergarten, increasing class sizes and reducing staff and faculty. In the Marana Unified School District, changes are taking place as well, but not as drastic as it would have if Prop 100 had failed, according to the district. The district is also bringing back all but two of the 64 teachers who were given notices about potential reductions.[11]
According to Dennis Hoffman, economics professor at Arizona State University in the week leading up to the sales tax, "This will be a huge weekend for sales of durables in terms of furniture and automobiles."[12]
School District officials across the state showed relief after the passage of Proposition 100, with the proposed cuts to education that were reported to take place if the measure failed. Gary Catalani, superintendent for the Scottsdale Unified School District, claimed, "This is a great day for all students in our state. Scottsdale Unified School District will be able to retain valuable teaching staff and important programs. Thank you to our community for your support of education." According to Fountain Hills Unified School District board member Dana Staar, "It's a good thing. It would not have been fun if it hadn't passed as far as classroom instruction goes when you've got to take aides and so many support staff from the classroom. This will get us by until the economy gets better."[13]
Although the measure passed, supporters still had budget concerns, stating the sales tax increase was a bridge to help the state assess their structural deficit. Supporters, such as Governor of Arizona Jan Brewer also claimed that the measure is "not a cure-all."[14]
Opponents reacted to the passage of the amendment with skepticism, taking the same stance as before the vote had taken place. According to Richard Bayse, member of the Association of Taxpayers, "I would just hope the citizens of Arizona keep a close watch on the legislature and see that they don't subsequent to this vote, pass a corporate tax cut that takes away as much revenue as we're being taxed to generate revenue." John Kromko, another member of the Association, stated, "I think we have to work to change the tax structure in Arizona because this doesn't get us out of the woods at all, this just takes care of like 1/3 of the deficit. That's one of the reasons I was hoping it would fail."[15]
According to Senator Thayer Verschoor, who campaigned against the sales tax, argued, "[Lawmakers] are going to say the voters have spoken ... in favor of continuing to spend and not to make further cuts, and yet I believe revenues will continue to fall."[14]
Educational cuts
According to reports out of the state, despite the passage of the measure, budget cuts still appear to be on the horizon, particularly in education. Senator Thayer Verschoor, who was against the measure, claimed that the cuts to education are inevitable, stating, "Just because this proposition was passed doesn't mean there won't be more budget cuts to education." Estimates for first quarter tax revenue are $44 million below predictions; this coming from a report released on September 29, 2010.
Elma Delic, board chair of the Arizona Students' Association stated that the cuts to education would have been worse had Proposition 100 failed to pass. The measure, according to Delic, although not the cure for the economic crisis in the state, has been helpful.[16]
Election results
Official election results for the amendment read:
|Proposition 100
Election results via the Arizona Secretary of State's Official Canvass of Election Results
Text of amendment
Ballot title
The ballot title of the measure read as follows:[17]
- A 'yes' vote shall have the effect of temporarily increasing the state transaction privilege sales and use tax by one cent per dollar for three years to fund primary and secondary education, health and human services and public safety.
- A 'no' vote shall have the effect of keeping the state transaction privilege sales and use taxes at their current levels.
The short summary, according to the Arizona Secretary of State's website read as follows:[18]
- A concurrent resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Arizona; amending Article IX, Constitution of Arizona by adding section 12.1; relating to temporary transaction privilege and use taxes.
Fiscal impact statement
The following was the fiscal impact statement that could be found in the voters' pamphlet on the Arizona Secretary of State's website:
"State law requires the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) Staff to prepare a summary of the fiscal impact of Proposition 100. Beginning June 1, 2010, Proposition 100 would amend the Arizona Constitution to temporarily increase the state transaction privilege and use taxes ("state sales tax") by one cent per one dollar for three years.
Proposition 100 is projected to increase state sales tax revenues by $918 million in the first year. The proposition is projected to increase state sales tax revenues by $968 million in the second year and $1.06 billion in the third year."[19]
Constitutional changes
The measure will amend the Arizona Constitution by adding Section 12.1 to the Article IX.[20][21]
|Taxes on the ballot in 2010
Governor's veto
In June 2009, lawmakers approved a state budget, but only days later, Brewer vetoed the bill because it did not include the sales tax measure.[22]
On July 31, 2009 lawmakers attempted to pass a state budget for the new fiscal year which began July 1, 2009. But, by the end of the day, lawmakers found themselves at yet another stalemate on the already late budget because of a failed agreement on the sales tax increase initiative.[23]
Ballot number controversy
On April 9, 2010, Brewer vetoed a bill that, according to supporters, would have helped clear confusion on ballot measures and their designated numbers on statewide ballots. Supporters stated that it is very confusing to voters that must see a Proposition 200 every year on the ballot. According to the proposed bill, measures would be assigned continuous numbers instead of having the same numbers appear every year. However, Brewer vetoed the bill due to the May election nearing and the sales tax question potentially having to change its number a little over a month before voters decide on it. Brewer did not want to see Proposition 100, which is the number designated to the sales tax increase, be reassigned as Proposition 106, due to fear that it would unintentionally confuse voters.[24]
Possible fiscal impact
- See also: Arizona State Budget
Contingency plan
A contingency plan, if voters had rejected the tax, showed that the state could owe the federal government a significant amount of money if voters reject the tax in May. That amount of money could be as much as what the tax would rake in if it were approved. The plan showed that approximately $428.6 million in K-12 education aid would be cut, in addition to the $380 million that legislature is proposing to cut in order to balance the 2011 budget.
The plan goes further in cutting 12 percent in university system funding, which would be $39.3 million for Arizona State University, $32.6 million for the University of Arizona, and more than $16 million for Northern Arizona University. According to reports, big changes may still come to the state now that the measure was approved. In an agreement between Governor Brewer and Republican legislative members, one change that could occur is the elimination of full-day kindergarten in the state.[25]
The cuts would allegedly amount to tens of millions of dollars. According to Arizona State University Provost Elizabeth Capaldi, commenting on the sales tax increase's impact on tuition, if rejected by voters, "I don't know what we would have to do. It is possible that we would have to have an additional surcharge, and that would be awful."
Board of Regents member Anne Mariucci claimed, "The impact of the state sales-tax measure failing would be completely catastrophic. We'd have to consider all options. But, I'll tell you, it's hard to entertain additional requests for tuition increases until we see what cuts and efficiencies can be achieved at the university level."[26]
John Kavanagh argued that university officials were misplacing their arguments about cutting funds. Kavanagh stated that universities needed to figure out solutions to save costs instead of blaming state government. He stated, "We have a $3.4 billion shortfall, and that's after we cut over a billion. We don't have money to invest a lot in anything, and we're doing the best we can. For them to suggest that we increase appropriations (to them) when we are cutting everyone else, I think is a little selfish."[26]
A story written by the Arizona Daily Star stated that cuts to education would still come even with the passage of Proposition 1. According to the story, "If voters approve the temporary penny sales-tax increase on the May 18 ballot, public education would receive the lion's share of the projected $1 billion it would raise in annual revenues. And while a full two-thirds of the revenues would be steered to K-12, make no mistake: Education cuts are coming regardless." According to the story, cuts would come in teachers' jobs, extracurricular activities, and salary cuts.[27]
Special legislative session
Although Governor of Arizona Jan Brewer stated confidence in the measure passing when placed before voters, Brewer had stated another back up plans if the measure had failed, in addition to cuts taking place. Brewer also said that another special legislative session would have to have been called in order to implement steps by approving certain legislation in that session. Those steps would have included changing state law in order to make those cuts in education, state prisons, public safety, health care services and other agencies.[28]
Supporters of the measure are as follows:
- Governor Jan Brewer had fought strongly in favor of the measure. In June, the governor vetoed the new fiscal year budget bill after it was approved without the sales tax increase measure. According to Brewer when campaigning for the measure in the weeks leading up to the election, "It is always a difficult thing to vote for an increase in taxes but it is the right thing to do. Prop 100 is not a cure all but it will get us through. If we don't get the revenue we will have to cut another billion dollars."[5][29]
- Senate president Robert Burns had also spoken in favor of the measure.[23]
- The Yes on 100 committee filed paperwork with the Arizona Secretary of State during the week of February 18, 2010 and formed on February 19, 2010, according to Max Fose who was running the campaign. The committee tried to persuade voters to vote for the sales tax increase and inform them of the benefits of a "yes" vote. The organization stated that the tax hike would help pay for education, health and public safety. Fose stated that the group was non-partisan and it would be made up of educators, business executives and some elected officials in the state.[30]
- The Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, with concerns over negative economic impact to the Hispanic community, supported the measure in an economic forecast publication. In the publication, the chamber included policy recommendations to Arizona Hispanics. One such recommendation was to support the sales tax increase proposed for the state. According to the organization's president and CEO Armando Contreras, "We know that a tax increase would definitely impact the marginalized and poor and small business, but we do believe a temporary tax increase would be needed in order for the state to get back on its feet."[31]
- The Arizona Tax Research Association stated it would support the measure, but only if the state continued to cut spending to make up the $2 billion structural deficit instead of further raising taxes.[32]
- The Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association were supporters of the amendment, with chairman Norm Botsford stating in an editorial, "Our hospitals employ more than 80,000 people and contribute $11.5 billion to the gross state product. Hospital employees account for 7 percent of Arizona's wages and salaries. In fact, our hospitals have added thousands of jobs during the most severe times of our state's recession economy. A temporary increase in the state's sales tax is a practical solution to today's economic challenges."[33]
- Kristin Borns, senior policy analyst with the Morrison Institute for Public Safety, stated her support of the measure in a column published by the Arizona Republic, giving specific examples of what the measure could possibly do for the state. Borns wrote, "Nothing is more critical, more necessary and more immediate than creating a balanced tax structure that decreases volatility, encourages private-sector growth and sets Arizona on the path to its second century as a global economic player."[34]
- Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard had previously stated an opposition to the measure, stating, that he couldn't support the sales tax if he didn't get further clarity on whether the governor would veto tax cuts for corporations, if passed in legislative session. He stated in a letter to Governor of Arizona Jan Brewer: "Arizonans like my wife and me cannot support your proposed sales tax increase if you intend to follow it with across-the-board corporate tax cuts. I call upon you to pledge your veto to any non-targeted corporate tax giveaways that would appreciably offset the short-term revenue gains from Prop. 100." However, Goddard changed his stance to support the measure, "Prop 100 is necessary, it's the only choice given and Arizona needs to change course and get serious about educating kids." According to reports, Brewer claimed an opposition to business tax cuts, which was what Goddard had wanted, stating, "I've been on the record saying that there is no way we're going to go out and ask the people of the state of Arizona to vote for a temporary tax and then come back and do business tax cuts."[35][36][37]
Arguments in favor of the measure included the following:[38][33]
- Tax increase would result in a revenue boost, and would preserve Arizona's work force, quality of life.
- Additions to the state, including more students, prisoners and health care patients, have strained the state, and the tax increase would help alleviate that.
- Would create $1 billion in revenue each of the three years the tax would be implemented in.
- If the measure failed, the state would face cuts in education, public safety and health care.
- State physicians, hospitals and other health-care professionals would face an additional 10 percent cut in payments for care if measure failed, according to Norm Botsford, chairman of the Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association
- Botsford stated that hospitals would lose $342 million per year in state and federal matching funds as a result of Proposition 100's defeat.
- According to Botsford in an editorial published by the Arizona Daily Star, "Prop. 100 is not a permanent increase, nor does it provide a permanent solution to our state's budget problems. Proposition 100 will, however, serve as a bridge over some troubled fiscal waters we face in the next three years and provide stability for our core institutions as the state's economy rebuilds."
- Yes on 100 Committee stated in addition to the approximate $420 million cuts in K-12 funding and $100 million in education funding, other cuts included: public safety would see an $85 million cut and health and human services would see $110 million in cuts.[39]
- $62 million would be cut from the Arizona Department of Corrections, which would result in the transfer of thousands of inmates from state to county prisons. This would result in county jails seeking ways to make up the difference of the influx, possibly by raising property taxes, according to supporters of the measure.[40]
- In an editorial published and written by the Arizona Daily Star, the measure would help out the elderly in the state. The editorial argued that if the measure passed, the one-third of the proposed revenue would be used for "health and human services", which included a large part of the senior citizen assistance. However, if the measure failed, agencies such as the Pima Council on Aging would face major cuts. The agency would lose, according to members, between $800,000 and $900,000.[41]
- Prep school athletics would have been affected, according to school districts in the state. According to Herman House, director of interscholastics for the Tuscon Unified School District, "If it fails, the announcement has come from our district office that the possibility of eliminating athletics across the board in our district is real." The district would have had to shave $45 million from its budget, according to House. Steve Hogan, athletic director of the Mesa School District, largest district in the state, claimed, "Athletic directors are a resilient bunch and we always seem to find a way. At the same time, there are fiscal realities you can't ignore. Sometimes, that has bad consequences for the kids."[42]
Television ads
Rallies, debates and campaign tactics
- A demonstration was held at the Arizona Capitol on March 26, 2010 that saw college students lobby for the approval of the measure. The rally was attended by the Arizona Students' Association, a group of students from the three major universities in the state, including Arizona State University and the University of Arizona. According to Elma Delic, a member of the organization, "We've seen the largest tuition increases a couple of weeks ago," Delic said. "That's going to continue to happen if we don't get our funding." Delic was referring to the Arizona Board of Regents' decision to approve an increase in tuition for the three state universities. Ashley Wilcox, member of the student group, stated her argument for the tax, "To put it in context: 1 cent per dollar or lose millions of dollars," Wilcox said. "When you compare and contrast like that, it's really the only option."[43]
- On April 9, 2010 a group of Arizona college students associated with the Arizona Students' Association held a rally and marched from to downtown Flagstaff in support of Proposition 100. Students voiced their concerns over a sharp increase in tuition if the measure fails. According to Lauren Talkington, secretary of the group, "The bad news is that if it doesn't get passed, there is going to be a huge decrease in state funding. There could be upwards of a $1,000 increase in tuition, and along with that, there would be staff shortages, professor shortages and more furloughs — basically, a worst-case scenario." Students who attended the rally held up signs stating phrases such as "Yes on 100!" and wearing shirts that stated, "I'm a student and I vote!."Talking had stated she didn't know the details of the measure and the full economic implications, but did state, "If this doesn't pass, I think that our economy will be far worse off. Obviously, education is what makes the world go around. If we want Arizona to have an economy in the future, we're going to need education."[44]
- On February 26, 2010, the Arizona Secretary of State's office received 120 arguments for and against the sales tax measure. However, there were significantly more arguments for the sales tax increase than against. According to reports, 94 arguments for the amendment were submitted, while 26 were submitted against the measure. These arguments are to be mailed voters' homes before the May 18 special election in official publicity pamphlets.[45]
- Brewer spoke about her proposal when she met with county and local officials in Cochise County and Graham County. Her promotions included painting a bleak picture for the state if her sales tax increase was not passed. Brewer stated, "Our checkbook is overdrawn, our credit card is maxed out and we've mortgaged the house." The governor also said the budget deficit would increase next fiscal year, and that the state budget is about $1 million short of meeting expenses.[46]
- In a debate held on April 27, 2010, foes faced off on the proposition arguing for and against the measure. Although both sides argued that the economic recession was the reason the measure should have been approved/rejected, both made cited specific examples of their views. Eileen Klein, chief of staff to Gov. Jan Brewer, argued for the measure when she stated that the $1 billion a year revenue that the tax was projected to rake in would prevent cuts in funding to education, health care and public safety. Klein also argued against her opponents' claims that schools needed to spend more wisely. According to Klein, ""The only duping that's going on is the people who think we can run a quality education system without extra resources."[47]
- Gilbert Public Schools parents, teachers and students planned to hold a rally on May 5, 2010. According to Brena Morreim, who is a parent, stated that the rally was to encourage voters to vote for the measure.[48]
- A "flash mob" sang its support for Proposition 100 at Park Place Mall, where the group sang "Vote Yes on 100" to the tune of the Macarena. The surprise event took place on May 9, 2010 in front of a crowded food court. The singers wore button up shirts, but then opened them up to reveal undershirts that stated, "Vote Yes on Prop. 100." The performance was organized by the education-advocacy organization, Voices for Education, which is based in Tuscon.[49]
Controversies and stories
- In a story written by the Arizona Republic, Arizona resident Lupita Majalca stated that she was torn about the sales tax question, because her Douglas, Arizona business, a refrigerator and cake supplies store, would lose money if the sales tax increases and if she keeps her prices the same. She stated that the sales tax is already at 8.9 cents, and that a sales tax increase would cause her to raise her prices, which is hard considering most of her customers are poor. Majalca stated, "I'll have to increase my prices. That's hard." When asked which way she would vote, Majalca stated, "Wow, it's hard. I don't know." She also stated, however, that the tax increase would help out public schools in the area, with the approval of the increase saving teachers' jobs. She stated, "That is so bad. I don't know what they're supposed to do, the government." She stated that the recession has hit her business hard as it tries to survive. Others in the town of Douglas share the same torn sentiment. Murel Smith stated that although he plans to vote yes on the measure come May 18, 2010, he will vote for it reluctantly. According to Smith, "Sales tax would be the last thing I'd want to push. But the state's got to stay as close to being solvent as possible. If it is going to the schools, I'd want to see it."[50]
- In Dysart, Arizona, the Unified School District would be making major cuts to their budget if the measure fails. According to a report, the school district would face nearly $19 million in cuts. In addition, fifty three teachers and four administrators had been put on notice that they would be let go if the proposition was not approved. This came after a March override election that avoided cuts of $15 million in the district. According to the school district's spokesman Jim Dean, "Ironically, as excited as we were about the passing of the override in March, that excitement was short-lived because within days there were massive cuts to education. This wis not a Dysart issue. It affects every Arizona school district, charter school and public safety and public health services."[51]
- According to a report by The Explorer News, if the proposition failed, the Arizona Department of Corrections would cut $63 million from its budget and would send thousands of inmates from state prisons to county jails. The reason for such action would minimize the state's budget deficit. Only inmates with one year or less remaining on their sentences would be transferred. As a result, according to reports, Pima County officials are preparing for potential defeat of the measure. The county jail would take in approximately 1,800 prisoners if Prop. 100 fails. Pima County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry stated that to make up the difference, "our property tax would have to be increased 17 percent."[40]
- In a story written by MaryLee Moulton of the Arizona Education Network, she gave her arguments about the measure being a choice between schools or prisons. She cited that if the measure failed, the state would transfer inmates to county jails because the state will cut prison funding. Moulton stated that the Pima County Sheriff would look to modify existing buildings to accommodate those prisoners. According to Moulton, "Tucson Unified School District will be closing nine neighborhood schools this fall because of the state budget cuts. That will already be devastating to property values those Tucson neighborhoods. Can you imagine what will happen to property values and our city's reputation if schools are turned into jails?".[52]
- Representative David Stevens stated his opposition to a sales tax increase in an editorial published by the Arizona Range News, stating, "A sales tax increase would lose at least 15,000 jobs with a possibility of nearly 60,000 people needing additional support from the state. That scenario would be disastrous to our economy..." However, Stevens was in favor of allowing the voters to have the final say, writing, "Now it's time to get the final word from Arizona voters on the sales tax increase. I strongly believe this is the best way to move forward with an issue as weighty as a tax increase."[53]
- Republican Senators Pamela Gorman and Ron Gould stated that they were opposed to the governor's tax measure. Democrat lawmakers claimed they were uncomfortable approving the sales tax measure because they didn't want to use sales taxes paid by consumers in order to balance the budget.[23]
- Senator Russell Pearce was in opposition to the measure as well, and was creating a website named, "Ax the Tax" in order to show voters there were better alternatives to the sales tax hike. According to Pearce, reducing spending to match revenues was one way, stating, "To raise taxes during a recession is unconscionable."[30]
- Although Senator Al Melvin had claimed that he had not made up his mind about whether he supported the measure or not, he stated that he was leaning towards opposing it, and said, "I'm worried about the loss of private sector jobs, and people on fixed incomes who can't afford additional taxes."[54]
- The National Federation of Independent Business claimed in a written statement, "This 18 percent tax hike will further exacerbate major drivers of small business failure and job loss - historically low consumer confidence and dramatically lower consumer spending.[45]
- The Americans for Prosperity organization was against Proposition 100. Director Tom Jenney said, "This is a terrible time to raise taxes on Arizona's struggling families and businesses."[6]
- In a joint statement made public on March 8, 2010, Senators John McCain and Jon Kyl both stated their opposition to the sales tax hike. McCain and Kyl also stated that they supported the right of the Arizona voters to decide on the issue, but claimed, "However, as Arizonans and Americans across our nation continue to face perilous economic times, we fundamentally oppose increasing taxes on small businesses and working families."[55][56]
- National Federation of Independent Business stated their opposition, claiming that groups that were backing the measure were only doing so because they were hoping the governor would sign a package of tax cuts.[32]
- Buz Mills, a candidate for the position of Governor of Arizona, stated his opposition to the sales tax measure. According to Mills, the tax increase would take away jobs from the state. Mills stated, "Instituting a tax increase during a recession is like standing in a bucket and trying to pick it up by the handle. It's going to cost us jobs."[57]
- The Arizona Free Enterprise Club were initially reluctant to oppose the sales tax amendment, on the condition that the legislature pass House Bill 2250. The bill would have given businesses multiple tax breaks, but was rejected during April 2010. The group then formed opposition to the sales tax hike.[58]
Arguments that were made against the proposed sales tax measure included:[59][60][61]
- Some opponents were stating that the tax would not be temporary, due to historical occurrences concerning temporary taxes.
- Cuts that were being proposed were scare tactics to lead voters to believe they had no other choice.
- Sales tax increase raised the price of transactions, which the state did not need in a recession
- The sales tax was merely a way to bail out the mismanagement of the state government. Raising sales tax made living in the state more expensive to live and work, and would worsen the state's situation.
- Small businesses could be affected negatively as some businesses would lose money due to a raise in taxes.
- Voting yes would boost tax burdens by about $400 a household.
- According to an editorial by Tom Jenney, Arizona director of Americans for Prosperity, the amount of money citizens pay in state sales taxes would go up by 18 percent.
- In response to potential cuts in education if the measure failed, Jenney countered, "Arizona's K-12 system has massive waste. There is more than enough money, but that money does not trickle down into our classrooms."
- Health care in Arizona would not be dramatically effected, as cuts in unnecessary and excessive education spending would have freed up money to help public health services, according to Jenney.
- Bryan Schlomach, economist for the Goldwater Institute, questioned the validity of the sales tax question proposed by lawmakers, stating, "Ten years ago, Arizonans voted to raise the state sales tax with the commitment that the extra money would go to classroom spending. But, earlier this year, the state auditor general reported that just over half of that money is getting into the classroom."[62]
Proposed alternatives
State Treasure Dean Martin introduced alternative ways to deal with the budget crisis instead of depending on a statewide sales tax increase. Martin proposed that the state refinance the $4.5 billion debt in order to create immediate cash. The treasurer's plan included:[63]
- State could generate $2.7 billion now, and extend payments, spreading them over 30 years.
- $450 million in debt service would remain constant annually over the time of the proposed plan, but total interest paid, according to Martin, would only be $1.5 billion more.
- Increase borrowing limit from current $350,000 to help cover the $4.5 billion debt he wants to refinance.
- Referring his plan to the November 2, 2010 ballot by way of a constitutional amendment.
Martin described the sales tax hike as a "government bailout".[45]
Campaign advertisements
Rallies and debates
- The National Federation of Independent Businesses and Americans for Prosperity, both Tea Party groups, held a protest against the sales tax measure, and was attended by Joe "The Plumber" Wurzelbacher and was also hosted by J.D. Hayworth. According to Hayworth, who is running for United States Senate against John McCain, "We fundamentally and instinctively understand that our path back to prosperity is not through higher taxes. It is through less taxation and more freedom."[43]
- During a debate held on April 13, 2010, opponents of the measure stated their case in front of about 50 people. The debate, which was being sponsored by the League of Women Voters, saw opponents state that raising taxes in the middle of a recession was unnecessary. Former Pima County Supervisor Paul Marsh stated the argument, citing a possible 9.1 percent total local sales tax rate.[64]
- In a debate held on April 27, 2010, foes faced off on the proposition arguing for and against the measure. Although both sides argued that the economic recession is the reason the measure should be approved/rejected, both made cited specific examples of their views. According to Tom Jenny, Arizona director of the group Americans for Prosperity, who was against the measure, there is already money that is being wasted in the state, and the sales tax would make the matter worse. Jenney also argued that instead of putting more money into school funding, the state should loosen regulations placed on administrators so they can make better decisions on when and where to spend money. Jenney said, "We've been burned before. There's absolutely no guarantee this money is going to be spent well."[47]
Controversies and stories
- In an story profiling Fredonia, a town in Arizona with the highest taxes, the Arizona Republic examined residents' opinions of sales tax in that area, which would obviously further increase if Proposition 100 was passed. According to David Kropf, a longtime resident of the town, many residents were struggling to get by. Kropf stated, "There's nothing around here. You have to make your own job. We just need less government. If you want a tree to grow, you've got to trim the branches somewhere." The report highlighted the fact that the town had no property tax, and relied on the sales tax in order to generate revenue. Although some residents had stated their support for the measure, Town clerk Marilyn Johnston stated that most of the town would probably not support the tax, and would probably reject it with a "resounding no." The town had been in economic trouble since the mid-1990s when a lumber mill and mining operation ceased production and closed. A combination of state, county and town taxes contributed to the town being the highest taxed.[65]
- In Cave Creek and Carefree, Arizona, high sales tax were making business owners skeptical of the sales tax increase. According to B.J. Smith, owner of Sassy's Salon in Carefree, she was worried about what kind of damage a tax increase could put on her business. Smith stated, "They play on the sympathy of us taxpayers. I don't like the way our elected officials take advantage of the good people of Arizona."[66]
- According to reports that were coming out of Arizona, the Arizona Education Association had heard rumors that voters were thinking of voting no on Proposition 100 due to the passage of Senate Bill 1070. SB 1070 was the highly controversial immigration bill signed into law by Governor of Arizona Jan Brewer. Opponents of the immigration law were planning on voting no on the sales tax question as a retaliation against Jan Brewer, who was a strong supporter of Prop 100. The immigration law that was passed mandated that immigrants carry their alien registration documents at all times. Also, the law ordered that local, county and state police question people if there was reason to suspect they're in the United States illegally.[67][68]
Media editorial posititions
Yes on Proposition 100
- The Arizona Republic stated support for the sales tax increase being put on the ballot, saying the issue should be decided by the voters. The publication wrote: "Arizona voters must have the chance to consider a sales-tax increase. The extra tax revenue, estimated at $800 million a year, wouldn't prevent cuts in spending, which is running $10 billion this year. But it would make the difference between painful reductions and devastating ones...Even if it fails, a ballot measure has the value of letting legislators know the public's wishes." Another editorial was published by the newspaper in favor of the measure on May 12, 2010, claiming: "One cent will buy Arizona time to recover from a recession that hit our state unusually hard. Vote "yes" on Prop. 100."[69][70]
- The Arizona Daily Sun stated support as well, writing, "Yes, it doesn't make any sense to cut corporate taxes while Arizona is in the midst of a state revenue crisis. But it also doesn't make sense to use reckless fiscal policy by the Legislature as an excuse to oppose a temporary sales tax hike at the ballot box."[71]
- Statepress.com wrote an editorial in support of the measure, stating, "It's obvious that taxes are not popular — no one likes to see their hard-earned money handed over to the government to do with as it pleases. But these taxed pennies wouldn't be lost in the abyss of the Arizona deficit, as lawmakers would be unable to redirect the money from its taxpayer-determined destination. Also, the tax is temporary and would expire after three years."[72]
- The Wilcox Range News endorsed the measure in an editorial published on April 28, 2010. According to the editorial, "The situation we are in now will affect the quality of life for Arizonans for some time. We have to turn this around as quickly as possible. Turning the state of Arizona into worse than a third world country will affect our ability to attract business and residents as the economy improves. That will just deepen the hole we are in. So we urge you to vote yes on Proposition 100, the termporary sales tax."[73]
- The Arizona Daily Star published an editorial the day of the election, encouraging voters to pass the measure, stating, "Prop. 100 should pass. It won't fix all of Arizona's problems, but without the revenue generated from the three-year sales tax increase, our state will surely suffer damage. Without that patch, essential services will be cut back to a degree that will cause lasting harm."[74]
- The Yuma Sun stated support of the measure, writing, "The saving grace of the measure is that the governor and lawmakers have promised the tax hike will be only temporary. Proposition 100 has a sunset provision that ends the tax increase in three years. If voters choose to approve the measure, they will be watching to see that most of the revenue is truly used to help education and that it truly is temporary, as promised."[75]
No on Proposition 100
- The East Valley Tribune was against a sales tax increase, stating: "Those with basic math skills will quickly realize the Brewer tax, targeted to bring in a billion dollars a year, will not be nearly enough to eliminate the state's budget deficit. But the truth is, the state government can eliminate its budget deficits without raising taxes at all."[76]
Campaign contributions
Campaign for
Supporters of the measure gathered more than $419,000 in contributions as of February 23, 2010. That number did not include minor donations to the campaign for the measure. A total of 73 contributions and expenditures have been made for the campaign in favor of the measure, according to the Arizona Secretary of State's office. Contributions and expenditures for the campaign, dates and amounts are shown in the table below:[77][78]
|February 23
|High Ground Inc.
|February 24
|Friends of ASU/Phoenix c/o ASU Foundation
|February 24
|Magellan Health Services
|March 4
|Arizona Secretary of State
|March 4
|Arizona Secretary of State
|March 4
|Moore Information
|March 9
|Greater Phoenix Leadership
|March 9
|Arizona Chamber of Commerce
|March 11
|Professional Fire Fighter Assoc.
|March 11
|Stand for Children
|March 15
|Blue Cross Blue Shield of Arizona
|March 15
|March 15
|AEA Education Improvement Fund
|March 15
|Arizona Campaign for Arts and Culture
|March 16
|Arizona School Boards Association, Inc.
|March 18
|Scottsdale Healthcare
|March 19
|Sundt Companies, Inc.
|March 24
|University of Arizona Foundation
|March 30
|The Leona Group Arizona
|April 5
|Arizona State University Foundation
|April 5
|Tucson Medical Center
|April 5
|Gila River Indian Community
|April 6
|Resolution Copper Mining
|April 6
|Corrections Corporation of America
|April 6
|Honeywell International PAC
|April 12
|Rural Metro Corporation
|April 13
|Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce
|April 14
|Arizona Association of Community Healthcare Centers, Inc.
|April 14
|DMB Associates, Inc.
|April 16
|April 20
|PMT Ambulance
|April 21
|April 21
|Molera Alvarez Group
|April 22
|John C. Lincoln Health Network
|April 22
|University Medical Center
|April 23
|Arizona Food Marketing Alliance
|April 23
|Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research
|April 26
|April 26
|University Physicians Healthcare
|April 27
|Yuma Regional Medical Center
|April 27
|Apollo Group
|April 27
|Arizona's Tooth Doctor for Kids
|April 27
|Intel Corp.
|April 28
|TP Racing, LLLP
|April 29
|Northern Arizona Healthcare
|April 30
|Arizonans for Tribal Government Gaming
|April 30
|Arizonans for Tribal Government Gaming
|April 30
|Arizonans for Tribal Government Gaming
|May 3
|El Rio Santa Cruz Neighborhood Health Center, Inc.
|May 3
|Community Partnership of Southern Arizona
|May 3
|Rigo's Restaurant
|May 3
|DWE Mangement Consultants, Inc.
|May 3
|DWE Mangement Consultants, Inc.
|May 3
|League of Mexican American Woman
|May 3
|Old Pueblo Printers
|May 3
|Lesher Communications, Inc.
|May 4
|Banner Health
|May 4
|St. Luke's Medical Center
|May 4
|District Medical Group, Inc.
|May 5
|Friends of ASU/ Phoenix
|May 5
|Flagstaff Forty
|May 10
|Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce
|May 11
|University Physicians Heathcare
|May 11
|Cox Communications
|May 11
|Tucson Electric Power
|May 11
|Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce
|May 11
|Centene Management Company LLC
|May 13
|Carondelet Health Network
|May 14
|Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce
|May 17
|Arizona Chamber of Commerce
|May 19
|May 24
|Tucson Medical Center
|June 1
|ASU Friends of Education
Campaign against
Senator Russell Pearce, head of the Ax the Tax Committee stated that there were no large donations to the campaign. The first financial report for the committee was scheduled to be turned in on March 19, 2010. Although the campaign had not raised as much money as its counterpart, Thayer Verschoor had stated that grassroots campaigning such as social networking would be helpful in swaying voters to vote no. According to Verschoor, "It is preaching to the choir, but you've got to remember that that choir is a very vocal choir. They're out there talking to their friends and neighbors, so I think a lot of word of mouth is out there."[79]
The total amount of money, according to the Arizona Secretary of State's website, as of May 14, 2010, was as follows:[77][80]
|Ax the Tax Committee
Studies and figures
- According to the Arizona Department of Revenue, sales tax revenue was down during the month of March, compared to revenue collected during the same month in the previous year. The department showed that collections were down 3.7 percent. However, tax collections from restaurants in the state did increase by four percent, and overall retail sales rose by a little under one percent.[81]
- According to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, a 6.6 percent sales tax spread across Arizona's population would unlikely vault the state to one of the highest taxed in the country. According to the foundation, other taxes in state remained low, as Arizona had one of the lowest state and local property tax bills in the nation. Income tax in Arizona also ranked as one of the lowest in the 43 states that implement those taxes. The foundation did state, however, that if the sales tax question was passed, Arizona would go from having the 27th highest sales tax rate, to having the 9th highest.[82]
- The University of Arizona Economic and Business Research Center conducted a study pertaining to Proposition 100, and concluded that the measure would save more than 13,000 jobs. In addition to saving these jobs, the study also claimed that the measure would preserve approximately $442 million in federal matching funds for the state. According to the study, researchers took into account the state agency budgets and how funds are spent. Researchers also used a model that monitored the spending by state agencies, revenue projections of the measure, and budget cuts that had been proposed during legislative session. The University of Arizona would face cuts in funding if the measure had failed.[83]
- In 2009, the Goldwater Institute asked The Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University to perform a study on the effects of Arizona raising its sales tax. According to the study, the institute concluded that the state would lose approximately 14,000 sector jobs. According to Byron Scholmach, Ph.D., director of the Center for Economic Prosperity at the Goldwater Institute, the study was based on real world analysis. The Beacon Hill Institute stated that the analysis was based on their STAMP (Tax Analysis Modeling Program) model. Additionally, the institution found that the increase would, according to the study, cut the state's economic output by $1.2 billion and residents would see their total after-tax income fall by an average of $300 per household. Also included in the conclusions wss the potential loss of 5,260 public employment jobs.[84][85]
- The Reason Foundation, together with Americans for Prosperity, released a whitepaper offering baseline budget reductions and one-time sources of windfall revenue. The document identified $760 million in baseline budget reductions and $2.6 billion in one-time revenues for FY 2010 and $3.5 billion in baseline budget reductions and $1.6 billion in one-time revenues for FY 2011.[86]
- The Yes on 100 committee conducted a poll of 506 Arizona residents during February 24-25, 2010, asking voters if they would support the sales tax increase slated for the May 18, 2010 special election ballot. The results showed that 39 percent of voters would "definitely" vote yes and 19 percent would "likely" vote yes. On the other side, 28 percent stated they would "definitely" vote no and 7 percent would "likely" vote no. Only 7 percent of those polled were undecided. The question that was asked was the exact language of the measure's ballot title.
- Arizona Capitol Times reporter Jim Small stated skepticism in the newspaper's blog page, claiming that the campaign did not release the complete poll. According to Small, "But by offering a portion of the survey for public consumption, they want the best of both worlds. The campaign expects reporters to take that bit of the poll it wants to tout publicly and cover it, but they refuse to release the complete poll. They can't have it both ways."[87]
- A poll of Arizona small business owners conducted by the National Federation of Independent Business during February 17-19, 2010 showed that 70.6% percent stated that they opposed the temporary sales tax hike, and 24.8% percent favor the tax increase.[88][17]
|Date of Poll
|In favor
|Number polled
|Feb. 17-19, 2010
|online poll
|Feb. 24-25, 2010
|Yes on 100
Press release by Yes on 100 can be found here.
Path to the ballot
Report of vote on Senate floor to refer Proposition 100 to ballot
During the week of December 12, 2009, Governor Jan Brewer met with legislative officials to discuss whether or not to hold a special session for lawmakers to brainstorm ideas relating to the measure and the state budget crisis. The budget crisis is currently the worst the state has gone through and state leaders believed the sooner the ballot measure was put before voters, the faster solutions the state would see at the time. Brewer first wanted to hold the special election for December 17, 2009.
However, on December 16, 2009, Secretary of State Ken Bennett claimed that the state needed more time to set up an election for the measure. Brewer called Arizona Legislature into the fifth special session the next day, despite these concerns. However the referral of the ballot measure to the state voters was dropped, for the time being.[89][90][76]
During the week of January 27, 2010, the sales tax measure resurfaced in the legislative session as lawmakers considered placing the temporary one-cent sales tax increase on the May special election ballot. According to Senate President Robert Burns and House Speaker Kirk Adams, support was spread thin among lawmakers for the sales tax.
Despite Burns' allegations, the Senate President reported at the time that the sales tax increase would most likely be included on an upcoming election, which subsequently, it was included on the special election ballot.
On February 2, 2010, the Arizona State Senate approved the measure with a 16-12 vote. The measure was placed in front of the state House of Representatives on February 4, 2010, where it was approved by a vote of 35-25. As a result, it was sent to the ballot.[91][92]
During the week of February 12, 2010, the State house voted to end the special session that was called during the month of January 2010, thus paving the way for the May 18 special election to take place. Since the special session was called to an end, legislation authorizing the special election could be implemented before that special election date.[93]
The following is a time line of events relating to the ballot measure:
- December 12, 2009: Governor of Arizona Jan Brewer met with legislative officials to discuss whether or not to hold a special session pertaining to budget crisis.
- December 16, 2009: Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett claimed that the state needed more time to set up an election for the measure.
- December 18, 2009:: The East Valley Tribune publishes a commentary by Tom Jenny, Arizona director for Americans for Prosperity, who is against a tax hike.
- January 27, 2010: The sales tax measure resurfaced in the legislative session as lawmakers considered placing tax increase on the May ballot.
- February 2, 2010: The Arizona State Senate approved the measure with a 16-12 vote, sending it to the Arizona House of Representatives.
- February 4, 2010: The measure was placed in front of the Arizona House of Representatives, where it was approved by a vote of 35-25, sending it to the May ballot.
- February 12, 2010: The State house voted to end the special session, thus paving the way for the May 18 special election to take place.
- February 18, 2010: The Yes on 100 committee filed paperwork with the Arizona Secretary of State to officially form.
- February 19, 2010: The Yes on 100 committee officially formed.
- February 23, 2010: Supporters of the measure gathered more than $419,000 in contributions.
- February 24-25, 2010: Yes on 100 committee conducted a poll of 506 Arizona residents.
- February 26, 2010: The Arizona Secretary of State's office received 120 arguments for and against the sales tax measure.
- March 8, 2010: Senators John McCain and Jon Kyl both stated their opposition to the sales tax hike in a joint written statement.
- March 26, 2010: A demonstration was held at the Arizona Capitol that saw college students lobby for the approval of the measure.
- April 9, 2010: Governor vetoes bill that would have changed Proposition 100 to Proposition 106, due to fear of confusing voters.
- April 18, 2010: Early voting for the measure begins.
Similar measures
- In 1983, the Arizona Legislature increased the state sales tax to 5 cents from the previous 4 cents in order to balance the budget, similar to Proposition 100. The temporary tax was scheduled to expire in the summer of 1984, but the governor at the time, Bruce Babbitt, introduced a proposed budget that would leave a permanence to the sales tax, which was subsequently approved. The tax was changed 16 years later by former governor Jane Hull, who increased the tax to 0.6 cents on the dollar. The .6 cent increase was placed on the ballot for voter approval, and was introduced to pay for education in the state.[59]
- In 1997, the city of Phoenix saw a transit tax proposed, but was defeated by 122 votes. The proposal would have been implemented as a permanent tax. A similar measure was then introduced again three years later, but stated there would be a twenty year expiration on the tax. This time, the tax was passed.[59]
- In 2000, voters in Arizona approved a sales tax increase, an increase that brought the levy from 5.0% to the current 5.6%. The measure, Proposition 301, authorized issuance of up to $800 million of new school improvement revenue bonds. The measure passed with 53.5% of voters approving the measure.
In a Q&A interview with Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett, The Arizona Republic asked:[94]
- "Given that you don't have much time to prepare, what challenges do you face in handling the May 18 statewide election for a temporary sales tax?"
Part of Bennett's response to the question read:
- "Putting together a statewide election is a massive task that requires a coordinated effort by our staff and that of elections officials throughout our 15 counties. Ballot language is approved. Polling places are coordinated. Educational pamphlets are prepared and mailed to nearly 2 million households. The preparation is immense - and that's before the real work of Election Day has even begun..."
According Governor Jan Brewer, in statements made to residents of Benson, Arizona, regarding if the measure is voted down:
- "I am trying to protect public education, which is the cornerstone for our future and the basis for our economic recovery. If this sales tax does not pass, we will then cut another $1 billion out of the budget."[95]
See also
- Arizona governor wants sales tax measure on November ballot
- Arizona budget stalled by sales tax increase initiative
- Tax increase one step closer to Arizona ballot
- Proposed Arizona sales tax increase solidified for May ballot
- Sales tax hike receives opposition from two key figures
- Pro-sales tax campaign receiving high donations in Arizona
- Early voting to begin for highly publicized Arizona sales tax vote
- Arizona sales tax question's supporters pour in the campaign donations
- Early voting deadline for Arizona sales tax question looms
- Arizona voters to flock to polls for first statewide special election in 30 years
- Early results show approval of Arizona sales tax hike
External links
- Arizona Secretary of State Official Website
- Payson Roundup, "Arizona's Budget is in Dire Condition"
- Voter Pamphlet from the Secretary of State
- Decision day for sales tax increase
- Voters head to polls today to decide on Arizona sales-tax hike
- Board of supervisors OK final results of special election; official disappointed by overall turnout
- 1-cent sales tax increase takes effect Tuesday
Additional reading
- Passage of Prop. 100 only the beginning
- Editorial: Prop. 100 delayed but didn't stop cuts
- Arizona sales-tax increase falling short
- 2010 May Special Election:Ballot Measures
- Key points of Arizona budget plan
- What if voters reject the Prop. 100 sales tax?
- The Brewer Budget and You
- Sales tax special election early ballots available in Tucson and Pima County
- ABC 15, "Hear Me Out: Should 1-cent sales tax increase be passed?", April 12 2010
- Questions surround Proposition 100 sales-tax measure
- Sales tax hikes would affect cities differently
- Hospitals favor Prop. 100; critics call tax band-aid
- Prop 100 impact on education debated
- Ariz. biz groups split on sales tax hike
- ↑ Havasunnews.com, "Mohave County voters just say no to Prop. 100", May 19, 2010
- ↑ Yuma Sun,"Budget goes to governor without her tax demand," July 1, 2009
- ↑ Phoenix Business Journal, "Brewer's FY2011 budget features major cuts", January 16, 2010
- ↑ Arizona Republic, "Sales-tax debate in Arizona likely to intensify", April 18, 2010
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 KOLD, "Arizona budget could be catastrophe", July 15, 2009
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 Arizona City Independent, "Ariz. sales tax hike debate in full bloom", March 3, 2010
- ↑ Arizona Daily Star, "County's early ballots show strong interest in Prop. 100", April 29, 2010
- ↑ Arizona Daily Star, "Sizable turnout predicted for sales-tax vote", May 16, 2010
- ↑ Arizona Republic, "Arizona's sales-tax boost falls short in first month" September 4, 2010
- ↑ KTAR.com, "Consumers need to hurry to beat tax hike", May 20, 2010
- ↑ The Explorer, "With Prop 100 OK, local school districts look to final budgets", May 26, 2010
- ↑ Arizona Republic, "Sales push is on as tax boost nears", May 28, 2010
- ↑ Arizona Republic, "Passage of state sales tax boosts school coffers", May 19, 2010
- ↑ 14.0 14.1 Arizona Republic, "Arizona still faces budget trouble with tax-hike OK", May 19, 2010
- ↑ KVOA.com, "Prop 100 opponents react to sales tax passage", May 19, 2010
- ↑ Statepress.com, "Cuts to education anticipated despite Prop 100 passage", September 30, 2010
- ↑ 17.0 17.1 Tuscon Weekly, "Early Poll: Voters Support Sales Tax Measure", March 15, 2010
- ↑ Arizona Secretary of State, "2010 May Special Election"
- ↑ Arizona Secretary of State, "2010 Ballot Proposition & Sample Ballot"
- ↑ Arizona State Legislature, "Arizona Constitution"
- ↑ Arizona Legislature, "Senate Concurrent Resolution 1001"
- ↑ Yuma Sun,"Budget goes to governor without her tax demand," July 1, 2009
- ↑ 23.0 23.1 23.2 East Valley Tribune,"Brewer, Burns try to round up budget votes," July 31, 2009
- ↑ KOLD News, "Ariz. governor vetoes bill on ballot measures", April 9, 2010
- ↑ Arizona Daily Star, "Education cuts are certain if proposed tax is rejected," March 9, 2010
- ↑ 26.0 26.1 The Arizona Republic, "Regents OK big hikes in tuition at ASU, UA, NAU", March 12, 2010
- ↑ Arizona Daily Star, "More school cuts coming even if Prop. 100 passes", May 9, 2010
- ↑ Bloomburg Businessweek, "Arizona gov: Session needed if sales tax fails", May 12, 2010
- ↑ The State Column, "Governor Jan Brewer Urges Arizona Voters to Support Prop. 100", May 12, 2010
- ↑ 30.0 30.1 Arizona Republic, "Effort to promote boost in state sales tax debuts", February 23, 2010
- ↑ Phoenix Business Journal, "Datos report: AZ Hispanics buying power increases, but hard hit by recession", March 3, 2010
- ↑ 32.0 32.1 Arizona Republic, "Proposition 100 conflict highlighted", April 23, 2010
- ↑ 33.0 33.1 Arizona Daily Star, "Pro: Hospitals, not only schools and police, would benefit from increase", April 28, 2010
- ↑ The Arizona Republic, "Sales tax would help state get on its feet", May 9, 2010
- ↑ Arizona Daily Star, "Pueblo Politics: Goddard takes stance on sales tax increase", March 17, 2010
- ↑ My Fox Phoenix, "Gov. Brewer Campaigns Hard for Prop 100", May 11, 2010
- ↑ The Arizona Republic, "Brewer: 'No way' she will support tax cuts", May 11, 2010
- ↑ ABC 15, "Hear Me Out: Should 1-cent sales tax increase be passed?", April 12, 2010
- ↑ Explorer News, "Pass Prop 100", April 28, 2010
- ↑ 40.0 40.1 The Explorer, "Pima officials plan for sharp hike if 100 falls", April 28, 2010
- ↑ Arizona Daily Star, "Prop. 100 needed to preserve help for the elderly", May 9, 2010
- ↑ Maxpreps.com, "Arizona: Proposition 100 will have major impact on prep athletics", May 12, 2010
- ↑ 43.0 43.1 State Press, "Phoenix demonstrations take both sides of Proposition 100", March 28, 2010
- ↑ Jack Central, "Students rally downtown for Proposition 100", April 15, 2010
- ↑ 45.0 45.1 45.2 The Daily Courier, "Arizonans weigh in on proposed sales tax increase", February 27, 2010
- ↑ Eastern Arizona Courier, "Governor shows dark picture of future", March 10, 2010
- ↑ 47.0 47.1 The Arizona Republic, "Tax foes, backers face off at debate of Proposition 100", April 28, 2010
- ↑ Arizona Republic, "Gilbert rally Wednesday for sales-tax proposal", May 1, 2010
- ↑ Arizona Daily Star, "'Flash mob' at mall sings support for Prop. 100", May 10, 2010
- ↑ Arizona Republic, "Arizona border town residents torn over vote on sales tax", April 17, 2010
- ↑ Yourwestvalley.com, "Prop 100 failure would add to Dysart's woes", April 26, 2010
- ↑ Tuscon Sentinel, "Prop.100 choice between education and prisons", May 6, 2010
- ↑ Arizona Range News, "Sales Tax Increase", February 17, 2010
- ↑ The Explorer News, "Melvin 'leaning against' a vote for 1 percent", March 17, 2010
- ↑ KGun 9, "McCain, Kyl oppose Arizona sales-tax hike", March 9, 2010
- ↑ East Valley Tribune, "McCain, Kyl refuse to support sales tax hike", March 8, 2010
- ↑ Daily Miner, "Mills blasts sales tax hike", April 22, 2010
- ↑ ABC15, "Inside Arizona Politics: Anti-tax groups and Prop. 100", May 10, 2010
- ↑ 59.0 59.1 59.2 Arizona Central, "Arizona sales tax: Would it be temporary?", March 29, 2010
- ↑ ABC 15, "Hear Me Out: Should 1-cent sales tax increase be passed?", April 12, 2010
- ↑ Arizona Daily Star, "Con: Voting yes would boost tax burdens by about $400 a household", April 28, 2010
- ↑ The Arizona Republic, "Proposition 100 a step in the wrong direction", May 9, 2010
- ↑ Arizona Daily Sun, "Treasurer suggest refinancing", February 26, 2010
- ↑ Arizona Daily Star, "Sales tax hike: job generator or burden on Arizonans?", April 14, 2010
- ↑ Arizona Republic, "Arizona's highest-taxed town, Fredonia, balks at sales-tax hike", April 26, 2010
- ↑ Arizona Republic, "Sales-tax hike could weigh heavily on Cave Creek retailers", April 26, 2010
- ↑ myfoxphoenix.com, "Immigration May Impact Prop 100 Vote", May 14, 2010
- ↑ CNN.com, "What does Arizona's immigration law do?", April 23, 2010
- ↑ The Arizona Republic, "Let voters decide on sales-tax hike", December 7, 2009
- ↑ Arizona Republic, "Prop. 100 buys time for Ariz.'s recovery", May 12, 2010
- ↑ Arizona Daily Sun, "Goddard on sales tax hike: Principle or politics?", April 8, 2010
- ↑ Statepress.com, "Editorial: Penny savers", March 28, 2010
- ↑ Wilcox Range News, "Our View: State of Arizona will be dire if tax doesn't pass", April 28, 2010
- ↑ Arizona Daily Star, "Vote for Prop. 100 today, bolster Arizona's future", May 18, 2010
- ↑ Dailyme.com, "Editorial:Prop 100 holds hope for state's troubled schools", May 1, 2010
- ↑ 76.0 76.1 East Valley Tribune, "Solve AZ budget crisis without new taxes", December 18, 2009
- ↑ 77.0 77.1 Arizona Daily Star, "Union is tax hike's top donor", March 16, 2010
- ↑ Arizona Secretary of State, "Notifications of Contributions to Ballot Measure Committees"
- ↑ Arizona Capitol Times, "Lopsided campaigns await Prop. 100 vote", May 13, 2010
- ↑ The Arizona Republic, "Foes of Prop. 100 have raised only $1,215", May 15, 2010
- ↑ Arizona Daily Star, "Sales-tax collections by Arizona declined", May 3, 2010
- ↑ The Arizona Republic, "Even with a sales-tax hike, Arizona taxes would stay among lowest", May 6, 2010
- ↑ UANews, "Passage of Proposition 100 Will Save 13,000 Jobs, UA Study Predicts", April 8, 2010
- ↑ WMICentral, "Prop 100 is 100% wrong for Arizona", April 27, 2010
- ↑ Goldwater Institute, "Lawmakers Consider Sending One-Cent Sales Tax Increase to Voters", February 1, 2010
- ↑ Reason Foundation, "Options for Eliminating Arizona's FY 2010 and FY 2011 Budget Deficits", December 10, 2009
- ↑ Arizona Capitol Times, "Another poll, another case of missing information", March 15, 2010
- ↑ National Federation of Independent Business, "NFIB Poll: Arizona Small Business Owners Rejecting Proposition 100", February 25, 2010
- ↑ kswt.com, "Ariz. gov., lawmakers to discuss special session", December 14, 2009
- ↑ The Associated Press, December 15, 2009
- ↑ Phoenix Business Journal, "Arizona Senate approves ballot measure for sales tax hike", February 2, 2010
- ↑ Bloomburg Business Week, "Ariz. Legislature sends sales tax hike to ballot", February 5, 2010
- ↑ Arizona Daily Sun, "House ends session; sales tax vote set for May 18", February 12, 2010
- ↑ The Arizona Republic, "Getting ready for statewide vote on sales tax", March 8, 2010
- ↑ San Pedro Valley News-Sun, "Gov. Brewer to Benson: Sales-tax hike the way to go", March 5, 2010
State of Arizona
Phoenix (capital)
|Ballot measures
List of Arizona ballot measures | Local measures | School bond issues | Ballot measure laws | Initiative laws | History of I&R | Campaign Finance Requirements |
Arizona State Constitution | House of Representatives | Senate | Joint Legislative Budget Committee | Legislative Council | Auditor General |
|State executive officers
Governor | Attorney General | Secretary of State | Treasurer | Superintendent of Public Instruction | Director of Insurance | Director of Agriculture | Commissioner of Lands | Director of Labor | Chairman of Corporation Commission | State Mine Inspector |
Recalls | Vote fraud | Voting | Ballot access requirements |
|School boards
Arizona Department of Education | Arizona school districts |
Arizona Supreme Court | Court of Appeals | Superior Court | Justice Courts | Judicial selection |
|Transparency topics
Public Records Law | Transparency Checklist | Transparency Legislation | Open Records procedures | Transparency Advocates | State budget | Taxpayer-funded lobbying associations |
State |
List of counties |
List of Cities |
List of school districts |


text:
mma / Columns
Locked in the Guillotine MMA News Report 8.24.12 CANCELED Edition
Hello one and all, and boy oh boy what a week did we have in the MMA world huh? Things were more or less quiet until Thursday, at which point all hell seemed to break loose. Fortunately you've got me to help you sift through the rubble in the aftermath of events. There's also the latest Strikeforce card to review, and believe it or not there was some news before Thursday, though it of course winds up taking a back seat. With all that big news as a distraction, Locking you in the Guillotine this week was actually easier than usual. Let's get to it.
Only one comment last week, but I'll take whatever I can get.
Guest#3134 stopped by and had some things to say about Frankie Edgar. He questioned the nature of the decision between Henderson and Edgar, noting that since rounds are judged round by round a decision for Henderson is certainly more understandable. He also expressed his interest in seeing UFC featherweight champion Jose Aldo destroy Frankie Edgar, something that could very well happen.
Green gets things going: Bobby Green defeated Matt Ricehouse by unanimous decision to get the prelims going. Ricehouse showed a decent chin, but had nothing offensive to really offer Green. Green continued to display his lack of head movement, but he clearly won this fight.
De Randamie with the upset: Germaine De Randamie defeated Hiroko Yamanaka by unanimous decision in something of an upset. De Randamie was just 2-2 coming into this fight, but if she continues to improve at the rate she has thus far she could be a legitimate upper level fighter.
Well that was odd: Adlan Amagov defeated Keith Berry by TKO in the first round. Amagov landed a side kick to the knee that sparked some debate as to it's legality. The stoppage was a little early too, but the whole thing was very odd. Still, nothing offensive.
This should have been on the main card: Miesha Tate overcame a tough first round to catch an armbar and submit Julie Kedzie in the third round of their fight. This was a very entertaining scrap, Kedzie showed off her striking skills, but man does her groundwork fall short. Her defensive wrestling was very good, and she fought off the armbar as long as she could, but eventually had to tap out and give Tate the win. Great fun fight to finish off the prelims, but this really should have been on the main card.
Big KO: Ovince St. Preux defeated TJ Cook by KO in the third round with a huge overhand left punch that knocked Cook out cold. The first round had some good back and forth action, including Cook coming back from being hurt and threw some nasty body shots that really slowed OSP down. In the third he landed a huge overhand left to the jaw of Cook that turned his lights off. Good finish for OSP coming off of his loss to Gegard Mousasi.
The 411 unanimous pick curse strikes: Anthony Smith submitted Lumumba Sayers with a triangle choke in the first round. Smith proved much more well rounded than Sayers, he used kicks more effectively, had his opponent mounted, and locked up the triangle choke in transition. Sayers might want to think about dropping to welterweight, he was much shorter than Smith and it played into how elements of the fight played out. First round finish, and nothing offensive here.
The 411 unanimous pick is right: Tarec Saffiedine defeated Roger Bowling by unanimous decision in a fairly entertaining fight. Bowling brought power punches and kicks, but Saffiedine was more technical and a bit more effective and busy. Saffiedine said afterward that he wants to fight Nate Marquardt for the Strikeforce welterweight title, but that will depend heavily on if Strikeforce is around after December.
Well that was fast: Ronaldo Souza defeated Derek Brunson by knockout in under a minute. Souza showed very accurate striking and pretty much just ran over Brunson. The fight was a mismatch to begin with, and thankfully Souza treated it as such. Might as well have Souza and Luke Rockhold fight again assuming Strikeforce is around long enough.
That was fast and impressive: Strikeforce bantamweight woman's champion Ronda Rousey submitted Sarah Kaufman with her trademark armbar in under a minute. I predicted this fight would get out of the first round, and boy oh boy was I wrong. This one didn't get out of the first minute. Rousey did the right thing, she charged at Kaufman and got the clinch immediately and never gave Kaufman a chance to strike. After the fight Rousey called out suspended female fighter Christiane "Cyborg" Santos. I'm not sure if Sheborg can make 135 with any reliability, but that fight is certainly the one that people will be talking about now. This was a good showcase for Rousey, who continues to be the face of woman's MMA. For Kaufman, she's still a very good fighter, but it seems Rousey is just on another level from everyone else right now.
Sonnen calls out Jones: Former UFC middleweight title contender Chael Sonnen has been talking up a storm and calling out UFC light heavyweight champion Jon Jones. Sonnen is set to fight Forest Griffin at light heavyweight, and one has to imagine Sonnen is trying to position himself for a title fight with Jones. I don't expect Sonnen to have any level of success against Jon Jones if they do fight, and there's an incredibly simple reason for that: Jon Jones destroys wrestlers. Ryan Bader, Vladimir Matyushenko, Rashad Evans, the reality is that you can't come into a fight with Jon Jones and have the game plan of taking him down. No one has taken Jon Jones down. Sonnen wouldn't be the first to try and fail. This is very good marketing on the part of Sonnen, but there's no way he has any degree of success if the two do fight.
Bones/Machida drama: Word has spread around that Jon Jones isn't very excited about fighting Lyoto Machida again. Machida earned another title opportunity when he knocked out Ryan Bader in the second round of their fight at the last UFC on FOX card. Jones has noted that his first fight with Machida didn't draw good PPV numbers, it was the least bought card of any that Jon Jones headlined last year. Not only was it the lowest purchased, he finished Machida in incredibly convincing fashion. Now the reality here is that Machida is just another pig-hostage for Jones to dismantle while the UFC tries to build a new challenger for him. I'm a Machida fan, but I don't think he beats Jon Jones, and in a rematch I'm not sure he even gets out of the first round.
Edgar dropping down: Despite the very controversial nature of his loss to Benson Henderson, former UFC lightweight champion Frankie Edgar has announced plans to enter the featherweight division. One has to imagine Dana White is extremely happy with this. Frankie Edgar only lost, for my money, twice at lightweight. Once in an early fight with Gray Maynard, and then his first title fight with Benson Henderson. This is a move that has long been speculated about, and it will be very interesting to see how Frankie fares at 145.
UFC 151 – Canceled: News broke Thursday afternoon that the upcoming UFC 151 event will be canceled. This is a big deal, the UFC hasn't canceled an event since Zuffa bought the company. The reason for the cancellation is two part: first of all Dan Henderson, who was scheduled to take on Jon Jones for the light heavyweight championship in the main event, suffered a partial tear to his MCL. This injury severely hampered Henderson's lateral movement, and apparently even caused his significant pain if he were in top position from a wrestling stand point. Yet another injury, though this time we're not discussing the injury, we're discussing the second reason the event had to be canceled. Jon Jones elected not to fight the only replacement the UFC could find apparently, in the form of former UFC middleweight title contender Chael Sonnen.
At the media conference call that Dana White had to announce the cancellation of the event he basically threw Jon Jones under the bus. The proposed fight between Sonnen and Jones would have taken place eight days from the offer, and apparently Jones and his coaches didn't feel that was adequate time to prepare for Sonnen. I'm not sure I totally agree with that, because while Sonnen and Jones' original opponent Dan Henderson are different fighters, one is a clinch wrestler with KO power, the other is a power double guy with no power. Because no other fighter could be found to fight Jon Jones, and Jones turned down a fight with Sonnen, the UFC decided the entire event needed to be scrapped. While Dana White has been apparently eager to make this entire thing the fault of Jon Jones, the reality is that the UFC decided to cancel the event. The UFC couldn't find another fight to possibly headline, the UFC has started essentially promoting one fight cards with little depth in the actual event. Dana White deserves a fair share of the blame as well as Jon Jones, but since Dana gets to the media first and has a talent for spinning things, we hear his story first. He did essentially the same thing when Shogun Rua decided he didn't want to fight Glover Tiexiera, we got Dana White's side of the story and as such his point of view in many ways became ours.
Please don't think I'm blindly defending Jon Jones here, I'm not. I would have paid money to see him obliterate Chael Sonnen, which is exactly what would have happened, and there were actually a few other fights on this card that I was somewhat interested in seeing. Now the entire event is off, the reality is that there are no winners here, this sucks for everyone involved. Jon Jones has agreed to fight Lyoto Machida at UFC 152 in Toronto, which will now be the main event with the inaugural flyweight title fight between Demetrious Johnson and Joseph Benavidez in the co-main event. This is actually good news for Johnson and Benavidez, that fight was never going to draw huge numbers as a main event, now with Machida and Jones fighting and factoring in all of the buzz around this now, those two will get a chance to shine and really make a name for themselves. While UFC 152 had certainly benefited here, everyone else on the UFC 151 card is in a real bad spot now. These are guys who fight for a living, the money from the UFC and their sponsors pays their bills, and now the entire event is canceled leaving them in possibly a big financial lurch. There were ten other fights on that card, so twenty fighters are now without the money that competing would bring in. For all of them to summarily throw Jon Jones under the bus as well, as most of them have been doing, is simply them not wishing to upset Dana White.
Let me be clear, Jon Jones did not cancel this event. Dana White did. Dana can attempt to blame this on Jon Jones, but the decision was his. He apparently couldn't find any other fight to move to this event, didn't want to look for anyone after Sonnen volunteered to fight, and decided to take this opportunity to bury one of his own fighters. The UFC has put out some dog events, events with main events that had no reason or right to be main events, Rashad Evans vs. Thiago Silva springs instantly to mind, or cards top to bottom bad, UFC 149 I'm looking at you, I have an unbelievably difficult time with this decision by the UFC. They couldn't have found two other guys to take the main event spot? Yeah the card would have been a dog, but Dana could still satisfy his need to bury guys who don't do what he wants when he wants it, and he'd still have had an event and all of those fighters would have been paid. Dana trying to place all of this on the shoulders of Jon Jones is simply him deflecting his own failures onto someone else. The reality is that the UFC hasn't been booking these cards with a plan B if something like this happens. I know that a champion the caliber of Jon Jones has likely never turned down a fight, but this had to be something of an inevitability. One fight cards a huge gamble, and this one wound up coming back to bite the UFC in the ass. There is more than enough fault to go around for everyone involved in this, let's try and make sure everyone gets their fair share, which means holding everyone accountable and not letting someone place all the blame on one party. Jones has his fair share of blame here, but so does Dana White and the rest of the UFC.
My original plan for this weeks Hate Everything segment was dealing with commentary. I wound up changing my mind and instead will focus on perhaps an even more aggravating aspect of MMA fandom at the moment, Dana White. Dana White is the president of the UFC, and is a tireless worker. It's very likely the UFC and MMA in general isn't anywhere near its current position in terms of popularity or success without Dana White. That said, the man is constantly on sound bites, promoting cards, giving his opinions, and as I said last week, overexposure is a huge component in getting burned out and hating things.
Dana White says some of the most ridiculous things in the sport. Between fighters, agents, reporters, columnists, Dana White manages to stand out above all of them in terms of saying stupid things. He has spoken negatively about some of the best fighters of all time simply because he doesn't agree with them. Prior to UFC 100, the UFC released a list of greatest fights, there was a pretty glaring omission from that list in the form of Frank Shamrock vs. Tito Ortiz. I advise anyone who hasn't seen it to look it up, it is a very good fight, and certainly better than several of the fights that made it into the final list. The fight was not counted because at the time Dana White didn't like Frank Shamrock or Tito Ortiz. He still has a bad relationship with Shamrock, though that could just be a grudge against his commentary at this point. Prior to last week's Rousey vs. Kaufman fight card Dana White said publicly that he could only name three female fighters. For a man who runs the largest MMA promotion in the world to be that completely ignorant of a bunch of fighters is startling. I wonder how many flyweights he could name off the top of his head? He also said he would fire Anderson Silva, or have him fighting on the prelims. That's just stupid, yes Anderson's performance against Demian Maia left a lot to be desired, but the man is the middleweight champion, everyone knows you wont put a champion on the under card, no matter how upset you are.
At the post fight press conference for UFC 112, which featured the infamous Anderson Silva vs. Demian Maia fight, Dana White promised to "make it up to you." Apparently that is code for never returning to that area again, as the event took place in Abu Dhabi and the UFC hasn't come close to running another event in that city since. Perhaps the most annoying and grating thing about White is how obviously self serving he is. When dealing with a fight promoter you have to expect them to spin everything their way, that's simply the nature of their profession. When a fighter is fighting for a different promotion they're not relevant, not a top ten fighter, they're a no one. As soon as they sign with you they're world beaters on huge win streaks who have been "flying under the radar" for however long they haven't fought in the UFC. This long history of behavior makes it that much more painfully obvious when he's only trying to help himself.
Consider for a moment his reaction to the decision to the fight between Frankie Edgar and Benson Henderson. When asked about it he said "I'm not a judge." Do yourself a favor, look back at close decision or controversial ones, Dana White has never, never shied away from giving his opinion on them. He's called out judges twice in fights involving Nick Ring, in fights with Riki Fukuda and Court McGee he openly said he thought Ring lost and that the judges were wrong. In fact Dana White has disagreed with MMA judges so frequently he coined on of the most ridiculous terms in the MMA lexicon, "Never leave it in the hands of the judges." Consider just how stupid that statement is, then consider that he refused to say who he thought won the Edgar vs. Henderson fight. Now why would an outspoken promoter with a history of speaking his mind about referees, fighters, judges, and commissions suddenly decide to play dumb? Because he got the outcome he wanted, but not how he wanted it. White has long said he wanted Frankie Edgar to fight at featherweight, and a second loss to Benson Henderson means he got what he wanted, but he clearly thought Edgar should have won the fight. Because he was stuck in a middle position like that, he played dumb, and with a history of being obvious and out spoken, it's just painfully obvious why he's acting like he is.
One of the most telling things came from the UFC's press release following the cancellation of UFC 151, "UFC 151 will be remembered as the event that Jon Jones and Greg Jackson murdered". Now you've read that I think there's plenty of blame on all sides, and that does include Jon Jones, but stuff like that is pointless. Jon Jones is still a UFC fighter, in fact he's headlining the next UFC event, and one has to assume the UFC wants people to buy tickets for the show or watch in on PPV. Him going around touting Jon Jones as a guy who just murdered a fight card isn't going to accomplish that, White is shooting himself in the foot by claiming one of his top drawing fighters, and Jones still holds that title though it remains to be seen if he keeps it much longer, kills cards. You're not encouraging fans to invest money in the product, you're not promoting one of your champions as someone people have to see fight, and it's going to come back and bite you in the ass.
That does it for me this week guys. I will be back next week, and given the state of things I'll likely be looking again at some of the fallout from the cancellation of UFC 151, Dana White will doubtless have many things to say, and unless something else happens my Hate segment next week will look at commentary. Between Octagon Jitters and your submission defense my arms are gassed, and you've escaped the Guillotine yet again. Thanks for stopping by, and I'll see you next Friday.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
I-64 accidents hinder traffic east of Birdseye exitApril 21, 2014
By BILL POWELL
Herald Staff Writer
SIBERIA — Two separate accidents on I-64 east of the Birdseye exit hindered traffic for a time Sunday evening.
Full details have yet to emerge but the initial accident, at about 5:30 p.m. CDT at the 74.5-mile marker, involved a westbound Chevrolet Blazer carrying three occupants from Louisville, according to St. Meinrad Volunteer Fire Department Fire Chief Tom Kloeck.
Kloeck said the Blazer ran off the interstate for an unknown reason, flipped and caught fire in the median. All three occupants safely exited the SUV and declined to be transported from the scene by ambulance.
Then, at 5:51 p.m. CDT, while traffic was slowed or stopping at the scene, an eastbound Nissan Sentra driven by Robert Forsten of Louisville failed to slow for traffic.
Forsten's Nissan struck a 2001 Toyota 4-Runner driven by Adelye Seng, 24, of 4114 W. 300N, Jasper, sending it into the passenger door of an older-model Chevrolet Lumina driven by a Henderson, Ky., motorist, according to the Perry County Sheriff's Department.
All three drivers were OK, but a female passenger in Forsten's Nissan was flown to University of Louisville Hospital by a LifeFlight helicopter for treatment of non-life threatening injuries. She was treated and released, according to police.
The second accident shut down eastbound traffic for about 90 minutes, according to authorities.
A Memorial Hospital Emergency Medical Services ambulance was called to the scene, as were first responders with the Ferdinand Volunteer Fire Department.
The St. Meinrad fire department remained at the location with four trucks and 18 firefighters for two hours. The Anderson Township Volunteer Fire Department from western Perry County also assisted, bringing three trucks to the scene.
Contact Bill Powell at firstname.lastname@example.com.


text:
The description design for the "Work" section of my portfolio. The way you see it here is in its responsive vertical positioning when there is a smaller device or screen width.
See it in action here: http://melissabrugh.com
keyboard shortcuts: ← previous shot → next shot L or F like Z toggle zoom


text:
Roethlisberger: Blame me for collapse
Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger looks at his passing statistics, and they're not all that bad.
NEED SOME? GET SOMEFeed your NFL addiction! Come feast on all the news in our updating blog.
His passer rating is up from his career average, as well as his average passing yards per game.
The completion rate is where it has been over the course of an eight-year career.
Only once before has Roethlisberger thrown more touchdown passes per game or fewer interceptions per game.
But it's been Roethlisberger's play, by his own admission, that's a key factor in Pittsburgh (7-8) failing to make the playoffs for only the fourth time since 2001.
''A lot of it just has to do with me not playing well enough down the stretch,'' Roethlisberger said. ''Fourth-quarter drives or last-minute throws, I'm just not making it happen, so my best answer would be that I just didn't play well enough.''
The Steelers controlled their playoff fate until their 13-10 loss to Cincinnati on Sunday eliminated them from the postseason.
Just as had happened one week earlier against Dallas, Roethlisberger threw an interception during a tie game that led to the opponent kicking a winning field goal.
Those losses joined others earlier this season against Denver, Oakland and Tennessee in which Pittsburgh not only blew fourth-quarter leads, but had the ball in the final minutes with a chance to drive for a potential winning score.
The Roethlisberger-led offense failed each time. In the season opener at Denver, he threw an interception to Tracy Porter that was returned 43 yards for the clinching touchdown.
''In the past, I prided myself and us in fourth-quarter comebacks,'' Roethlisberger said. ''I've always said that you don't want to have them, because that means you haven't done well early in the game, but we've always been good at it. And this year, we just weren't. I don't think there's any rhyme or reason why, (but) it was just a year when I wasn't.''
Roethlisberger has thrown only eight interceptions this season, but many came at crucial times. Six came in defeats, four in the fourth quarter or overtime. His first interception in the must-win game against the Bengals on Sunday was returned for Cincinnati's only touchdown.
This season, Roethlisberger's 84.4 passer rating in the fourth quarter and overtime is by far lower than during any of the other three quarters.
NFL fans are a special breed, and they bring their own brand of craziness on game day.
That would seem to be in contrast to the clutch reputation Roethlisberger has earned over the course of a career in which he has led 22 fourth-quarter comebacks and 29 game-winning drives during the regular season and also led a memorable comeback in the final minutes of the 2009 Super Bowl.
''I don't think there's any reason to go panic about it, because I've been pretty good for eight years doing it and had one not-so-good year on it,'' Roethlisberger said. ''I think I played pretty good football, though, other than those situations.''
To be fair, Roethlisberger was under center for three fourth-quarter comebacks this season. But even coach Mike Tomlin acknowledges his two-time Pro Bowler just wasn't the same in such situations this season.
''Just not making the critical plays,'' Tomlin said. ''Not a lot has changed in terms of structurally for how we prepare for those moments and how we deal with those moments. They're not coming together for us, and I'm not going to try to make excuses in that regard.''
Roethlisberger and Tomlin both downplayed the notion that the quarterback's right shoulder and rib injuries sustained in November are affecting his play.
Roethlisberger missed three games, and since he's come back, he's thrown six interceptions and four touchdown passes in three games - all losses.
''We can talk about that in the offseason, maybe, but I feel good enough to play,'' Roethlisberger said.
There have been times over the past three games that Roethlisberger's arm didn't appear as strong as usual and he was badly off on throws he typically makes. But there also are examples he was the same old Big Ben.
Against Dallas, for example, he lofted a ball more than 50 yards in the air to Mike Wallace to set up a tying second-half touchdown. Earlier in that game, he scrambled and avoided multiple sack attempts to find an open Heath Miller for a score just before halftime.
''The only reason we're in that game is because of his play,'' safety Ryan Clark said. ''The only reason he had an opportunity to throw an interception at the critical moment is because he played so well to keep us close.''
Still, Roethlisberger has largely built his career not on eye-popping numbers but on clutch play.
When asked about why this season has been so much different, Wallace shrugs and maintains that Roethlisberger is the same at practice and in the huddle.
''You can't be perfect every time,'' Roethlisberger said. ''You can't be a superhero every time.''
Maybe, but Roethlisberger was far from it late in this season - and as a result, the Steelers will spend January at home.
''I not worried about Ben,'' Miller said. ''He's one of the best quarterbacks in the league - in my mind, he's still there. And I wouldn't want anybody else to be leading this team.''
Notes: The Steelers placed Miller, CB Ike Taylor and RB Baron Batch on injured reserve Wednesday and signed TE Jamie McCoy, S Damon Cromartie-Smith and LB Marshall McFadden to the active roster. Miller, who tore knee ligaments Sunday, will have surgery Wednesday.
Related Stories
Member Comments
Please note by clicking on "Post comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Use and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be Polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator.
NFL Headlines
NFL Insiders: Dolphins name Dennis Hickey new general manager
Carroll: Seahawks CB Richard Sherman sorry about postgame rant
Browns to interview Bills' Pettine with Broncos' Gase out of running
NFL talking to 49ers about sideline hit vs Seahawks in NFC title game
Falcons hire former Chiefs GM Pioli as assistant general manager


text:
This beloved book, a modern classic of Christian testimony and devotion, addresses these and other vital questions, showing us how we can rejuvenate our prayer life, meditate more reverently, understand God more deeply, and experience God's presence in our daily lives.
©1992 A.W. Tozer; (P)2008 christianaudio.com
College English professor who loves classic literature, psychology, neurology and hates pop trash like Twilight and Fifty Shades of Grey.
"Once again, Tozer's Message..."
is to those for whom the divine has become a playground of church socials, sing-a-longs and comforting, warm and fuzzy little sermons about Ruth and Naomi, for those who have long left behind the deeper and harder seekings after goodness, truth and justice in its purest and most challenging form. Tozer's message is one that always needs to be heard and heeded.
"Timeless Godly encouter"
Great read, Listen. I would recommend this book to anyone who wants to see a glimpse of God, who wants to know God better and who wants to understand the God we serve and worship.
"Great reading of a christian classic"
Great reading of a christian classic. Tozer's insights are timeless. Christians would do well to meditate on this topic more.
D. Milner
"Classic Study on the Attributes of God"
Listening to this as I did my early morning walk through the neighborhood gave such an awesome appreciation to such a Mighty and Exalted God that watches over us daily.
God, who is the central and only character of this book.
No, this was my first
It made me awestruck at the thoughts of how great God is.
"Rather buy the book"
The narrator of this wonderful book made it impossible for me to listen to more than 3 chapters. His over-the-top reading became so irritating that I could not concentrate on the deep insightful message at all. I'll rather buy the book and read it / enjoy it.
"Absolutely spoke to my heart"
Well written, engaging, intriguing, holy. Read by someone who obviously felt the intensity of the author. A must hear!
"Poor narration"
First of all this is a 5 star BOOK - a classic that belongs on every Christian's bookshelve.
The 1 star rating is for the narrator. I can't even listen to him. His voice and delivery are the
audio book equivalent of figernails on a blackboard. He is TONE DEAF to the subject matter of
book he is reading. His strident, frenetic reading is just plain annoying, to the point that, as I
said, I cannot even listen to it.
"One of Tozer 's Best"
A.W. Tozer was an amazing author, teacher, and man of God. This is a fantastic book and a solid performance by Scott Brick.
"Amazing Book"
I read this book once every year or two because it is an essential to the Christian life. I highly recommend it to every one who wants to do a study of God. A W Tozer has a handle on The attributes of God and makes them extremely practical.
"Detailed wisdom"
This book was insightful. Extremely detailed. Well thought out. Could only be explained through the lenses that God allows man to strain through to see Him. Well done God. Via AW Tozer
"Very powerful"
I think the problem with Christians is that they have no clear understanding of who God is. This small work does much to correct to.
There are no listener reviews for this title yet.
Report Inappropriate Content
If you find this review inappropriate and think it should be removed from our site, let us know. This report will be reviewed by Audible and we will take appropriate action.