6th postscript, April 1994. In the last paper, we saw how a Michigan Republican Governor capitalized on the public's dissatisfaction with high property taxes, to get elected. He then carried through (after one defeat on the issue) to substitute sales and sin taxes, to provide education funds. Immediately a Democratic want-to-be-Governor telegraphed his upcoming campaign ploy by predicting "voters will soon feel cheated".

If you lowered and shook your head on that example of abuse of taxes, consider the mess of thinking and actions in Arizona. There in contradistinction to Michigan, the greatest dissatisfaction (at this time!) is the treatment of sales taxes.

13. The Board of Supervisors of Maricopa County, Arizona, approved an increase in sales taxes, to fund a baseball stadium, notwithstanding clear evidence that a great majority of citizens opposed such action. A letter to the editor of January 26, 1994, complained: "The problem with the discussion of major-league baseball is that government and its power to tax is being touted as the only solution. Moreover, the people are being cut out of the decision-making process." "Government doesn't exist to build baseball stadiums or to subsidize other private activities." "Enacting a sales tax to build a baseball stadium--a luxury item that will benefit only a portion of our community--without the consent of the voters is wrong."

Countering the argument of another writer, who had defied "anyone to produce a case of hardship caused by a quarter-cent tax on the dollar", a letter of March 7, 1994, replied: "This is the reasoning used to justify the proliferation of special-interest subsidies that have created our $4.3 trillion national debt. The $25 estimated per-capita cost of Phoenix's stadium subsidy is roughly the same per-capita paid by federal taxpayers to dairy farmers. Why worry about that? And why worry about similar subsidies for wealthy wheat farmers, cotton farmers, peanut farmers, maritime unions, construction unions, rural telephone users, TVA power consumers, SBA-subsidized borrowers and countless other special interests gorging themselves at the federal trough."

But there is still some fighting spirit in the old West. In an article published March 17, 1994, headed "Stadium-tax foes plan next step", it was reported: "Members of groups opposed to a sales tax to finance a major-league baseball stadium vowed Wednesday night to use legal challenges and possibly recall efforts to fight the tax." "... a lawsuit filed March 1 by the Sun City Taxpayers Association [challenges] the Board of Supervisors' decision to pass the tax." "Next, [they] will look into an initiative and even a constitutional amendment as a backup." "... recalling some or all of the supervisors ... could be explored."

And Arizona is not alone. A letter of April 23, 1994, cited this from the Wall Street Journal: "While teams reap the rewards of the new parks, fans and taxpayers pay the price. In Cleveland, a sin tax was levied on alcohol and cigarette sales to pay for Jacobs park. In Arlington (Texas), a half-cent extra sales tax is being collected to pay for most of the Rogers' ballpark. And to economists, that's a windfall for wealthy owners."

Hey! Baseball isn't the only game in town! Digest some quotes from an article of March 28, 1994, "Super Bowl's tax cut advances". "PHOENIX--An $800,000 tax break for Super Bowl XXX has cleared a Senate committee after a heated debate." "Passage of the sales tax exemption bill would mean that the Super Bowl XXX Host Committee will not have to pay an estimated $825,000 in taxes on the 75,000 tickets ..." "Tempe already has granted an exemption from its city sales tax on the game tickets." "Bill Shover, who chairs the Super Bowl XXX Host Committee, said the committee was required by the National Football League to assume the tax liability as part of the contract. There's no negotiating with the National Football League when it comes to these matters."

You can say that again Bill! This is the same National Football League, which not many moons ago, extorted a paid-state-employee MLK holiday from Arizona citizens, who had expressed their preference to retain a Sunday MLK DAY. The NFL said that Arizona could not be the only holdout; Arizonans must lock-step with the rest of the nation. The NFL said either you do the politically correct thing, or you forfeit Super Bowl XXX. Through the powers-that-be, the voters were led to pay the limited ransom, or lose mega-bucks for the local economies. SO MUCH FOR DEMOCRACY! SO MUCH FOR STATES' RIGHTS!

The Super Bowl XXX Host Committee, like members of Congress, was able to bring home the bacon. In an April 24, 1994, letter to the editor, Bill could express "Thanks to the Arizona Legislature and Governor Symington's signature, Arizona is now an established place to host Super Bowl events." "What it means is that Arizona now has equal opportunity with every other state to host the world's most spectacular single-day sports extravaganza. The 1996 game to be held in Tempe will bring nearly $200 million in new dollars to the economy and provide thousands of jobs during the two-week celebration." AND AT WHAT A PRICE! Why is Keating in jail?

It might also be mentioned in passing, that about the same time that the Board of Supervisors was magnanimous with the citizens' sales tax money, it had to report a substantial county budget deficit. This necessitated extensive employee lay-offs and curtailment of county services. If that were not enough, two of the five Supervisors made quite a flap before they ceded their county provided automobiles.

That's not the end of the sales tax fiascos. While the Supervisors were tacking on sales taxes to build a baseball stadium, and the State Legislature was being coerced into giving away sales tax exemptions to gain a Super Bowl, the Maricopa Associations of Governments found it was up the creek without a paddle. A half-cent sales tax approved in 1985 was supposed to pay for a 231-mile freeway network. "But only a third of the system will be built when the tax expires at the end of 2005."

The above quote is from a March 17, 1994, news article with the banner "Sales-tax hike tops list of choices to finish freeways-- Gas, auto, property levies studied". It reported on "a smorgasbord of funding choices that a consultant evaluated for the [Association]." "The winner was an old standby, the way Valley freeways already are funded: a sales tax." Critics complain it was a foregone conclusion. This whole study was designed to 'discover' that the sales tax is the only way we can possibly go, said ... a transportation watchdog."

A May 8,1994, editorial reported: "...the mayors unanimously adopted a proposal that, if placed on the ballot by county supervisors and approved by the voters, would do two things. First, it would extend the original tax for 10 years--until 2015. Second, it would impose a new 20-year, half-penny tax ..."

Arizona and Michigan keep your eyes on each other. Which will be the first to elect a politician, whose piece de resistance is "If elected, I'm going to reduce sales taxes". Perhaps Arizona's present (dyed-in-the-wool Reaganite) Governor may have an effect; he has recently announced, in his reelection bid, that he will eliminate the Arizona income tax.

Unlike Presidents and Congresses, most (if not all) state governments are not constitutionally permitted to run deficits, and infinitely large (national) debts. If a state government cannot or willnot reduce or eliminate an appropriation, it must find a revenue source to fund it. It can either insist on a "just" source, or it can be blind to its RESPONSIBILITY, and go for the politically expedient. At both the national and state (and lower) levels, we cannot "establish justice" and "insure domestic tranquility" so long as we continue the latter.

For the advice, of a former financial adviser to the Arizona Senate, who would place Arizona ahead of the DISUNITED States of America, continue on with the next essay.