Our borders should be secure.  Any illegal immigration reform must begin with securing the border.  You cannot adequately address flooding until the water flow causing it is cut off.  Securing the border will help reduce the financial costs borne by all taxpayers from illegal immigrants benefiting from government services—particularly in areas of education and health care.  In addition to the financial burden, the effects on crime and safety must also be considered when data shows a strong correlation between illegal immigration and crime rates.  Furthermore, border security is a crucial national security issue.  We live in a day and age where terrorists want nothing more than to kill us and destroy our way of life.  At the very least, they should not be able to do this by walking across an unsecure border.

In addition to securing the border, we must make sure jobs in our country go to those who are here legally, whether they be citizens or legal residents.  This is especially important during these economic hard times, when the unemployment rate is the highest we’ve seen in a generation and where jobs are few and far between.  I certainly can’t blame someone for wanting to move to the greatest country on earth to create something for themselves.  But they need to do so the proper and legal way, even if it proves more challenging.  If the migration process itself needs improvement, that’s a separate issue.  Personally, I have found that many of those most frustrated with illegal immigration are my immigrant friends—those who came to this country legally.  They want to know why those who come here illegally should be treated better than those who migrated here according to the law.  It is neither right nor fair to reward those who break the law.

The budget crisis is the most important issue facing the state.  In fact, Arizona’s budget mess is the worst in the country… even worse than California, if you consider the relative size of the problem in light of the available options.  The recession has literally wiped out 30-40% of state revenue over the last year.  To say that we are facing fiscal peril is a gross understatement.  In all my years at the Legislature, I have never seen Members so stunned and, yes, even scared at the sheer magnitude of the problem.

So what’s the solution?  There are only three viable options: increasing taxes, borrowing money, or reducing spending.  The fourth “solution”—pretending there is no problem, as some prefer to do—is just not at all useful or helpful.  Recession necessitates conservation.  Increasing taxes would likely prolong this recession or, even worse, push it into a depression.  Likewise, borrowing money would only delay the problem, hurt the overall financial health of our state, essentially mortgage our children’s future, and leave us worse off in the end.  “You cannot spend your way out of recession or borrow your way out of debt” (Daniel Hannan).  Tough decisions need to be made… now.  We have no more time for gimmicks or games.  Most of the “smoke and mirrors” accounting maneuvers that have been utilized to maintain high spending levels are exhausted.  We are out of options.  It’s time for state government to live within its financial means, just as every Arizonan is forced to do.

A significant portion of the “cuts” necessary to balance the budget would actually be rollbacks of spending increases that were made over recent years when state coffers were flush with money thanks to a strong housing market and a relatively prosperous economy.  Put into perspective, the loss of revenue has placed our state’s income back to where it was in 2004.  As such, my suggestion would be to dust off the 2004 budget books and use them as a starting point for today.  Were we ok in 2004?  Yes.  Does it mean more people going with less since there are more people in Arizona now than there were in 2004?  Yes.  Does making these difficult decisions now mean we can begin to put this challenge behind us and start looking toward the future again?  Emphatically, yes!

As simple as this solution is, however, it is not easy.    When roughly 55% of the state budget is dedicated towards Education, 25% towards Health and Welfare and 10% towards Public Safety—that leaves only 10% left to work with outside of the areas most people consider to be critical—at a time when we are as much as 40% short!  “The Gipper,” who faced similar economic hurtles during his presidency, said it right: “There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.”  There are hard choices in front of us.  Within the context of those choices, we must be specific on the areas of government that are to be given priority.  For instance, it is not enough to say, generally, that "education" must be spared.  We must declare that teachers, particularly, who are the heart and soul of the education system, will be prioritized.  This type of specificity becomes all the more critical when resources are limited.  Priority-based, within-our-means budgeting will involve difficult decisions.  As difficult as these decisions may be, and as painful as they may feel in the short-term, it is the responsible approach, and is necessary to preserve the long-term vitality of our government.

One of the most important roles of government is protecting you.  This can take the form of protecting you from physical harm, protecting your property from theft, and protecting your rights and liberties.  Crime is generally a violation of one of those first two and should not be tolerated.  Innocence until proven guilty is a fundamental right, but more and more it seems that criminals have more rights than the victims.  They get off on a technicality or their sentence is reduced and they are quickly back on the streets, resulting in more victims.  Violent criminals and sex offenders should be locked up and behind bars.  On the flip side, I believe there is a place for rehabilitation for those who commit lesser offenses.  If certain life circumstances tend to lend themselves to non-violent criminal behavior (i.e. drugs), then changing those circumstances, such as through education and re-learning, can lead to a healthy and productive life.  Nevertheless, while I do believe in possible second chances for those who are non-violent offenders, a “three strikes and you’re out” policy for violent crime seems more than reasonable.  Brutality should not be tolerated on our streets.

Teacher Pay
Teacher pay should be the cornerstone of Education funding.  There is no greater predictor of student achievement and success than the quality of instruction.  The problem is we don’t have salary levels or teaching environments that are very attractive.  The talented individuals who work in the classroom are often underappreciated, and underpaid.  This should not be.  The teaching profession, in my mind, should be held in the highest regard.  These are the folks outside of the home who are helping to lay the foundation for our children’s future.  School budgets should be designed around teacher pay.  And, teachers should be paid based on their abilities and with consideration to their students’ improvement and outcomes.

Teaching Resources
Teachers should be given a budget to spend on classroom resources and supplies.  Let them teach how they want to teach, using the materials they think best!  Many educators already spend money on school supplies out of their own pocket.  This just isn’t fair, especially considering the less-than-stellar teacher salaries.

Parental Choices
On the flip side of the equation, I can think of no greater way to drive schools to be better than to create an academic environment that emphasizes parental choice.  The more choices there are, the greater the competition.  I realize competition makes some folks within the public school sector uncomfortable, but competition is not a dirty word.  It is a great motivator forcing all those competing to be better!  Healthy competition should exist at every level of our education system: between schools within a district, between districts and charter schools, between online and ground campuses, and between public and private schools.  Where this has been done, studies have shown improved education quality across the spectrum, and that's what we need: http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/jun/19/co-competition-boosts-public-schools/

Education Funding
The K-12 finance system in Arizona is the most complicated education funding method in the country.  It is illogical, incredibly frustrating to navigate, and long overdue for an overhaul.  One of the obstacles to genuine reform is that so few people actually understand it well enough to begin reforming it!  I believe my experience working with education finance issues for the last several years would be invaluable to assisting the reform process.

Here is a clickable link to some Education factoids/statistics related to spending, class size, etc, you may find interesting: http://www.edreform.com/Fast_Facts/K12_Facts/

Energy production in one form or another has been the key to technological advancement, job creation and increased wealth throughout the ages.  The government should make promotion of alternative energy sources one of its top priorities.  No, this should not be done via Cap and Trade (or more appropriately referred to as “Cap and Tax”), nor by government intrusion in the form of industry subsidies or renewable energy mandates that ultimately increase utility costs to families.  The state can, however, help foster an investor-friendly environment that encourages private companies to pursue innovative ways of tapping into Arizona’s vast natural resources.  Investment in energy production would have long-term economic benefits for Arizona.  And, from a national security perspective, it would be wise to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil, especially from countries that want nothing more than to see our demise.

Each of us individually, as well as collectively, has an interest in protecting our environment.  It does not make someone a “bleeding-heart liberal” or a “tree-hugger” to want to look after God’s creation, and to protect nature and the wildlife that lives in it.  It seems short-sighted to be unconcerned with the quality of our air and health effects of pollution, or the disastrous consequences of a desert-based state running out of water.  However, simply allowing the “collective will” to override private property rights is contrary to individual liberty and personal freedoms.  To be sure, there must be a balance between government regulation and free market solutions or you can end up with a Tragedy of the Commons situation.  It takes discretion and wisdom, but I do believe in a reasonable middle ground between private property rights, environmentalists and business interests.

I am a free-enterprise, market-driven capitalist.  Private companies, big and small, cannot be regulated and taxed with ever-increasing intensity without the inevitable consequences that follow: increased prices, reduced wages, and, worst of all, job losses.  It astounds me how quick some are to use rhetoric like “big corporations” to demonize those entities that provide jobs.  That kind of one-dimensional thinking does more harm than good.  Do those who apply such tactics and use the popular “anti-business” sound bites not realize that the real casualties of their efforts are those they purport to help?  The best leverage an employer has is in providing a job and paying a wage.  The best leverage an employee has is in their skill set and job performance.  The two balance each other out.  You cannot artificially tip the scale in favor of one side or the other and expect the system to work as well as it would if left untouched, even if your intensions are good.  Reducing the regulatory burden on Arizona businesses will help create jobs.

“What makes for freedom — political, intellectual and religious as well as economic — is not government intervention, but the market economy;” “All those evils which the interventionists charge to the market economy are the products of allegedly beneficial interference.”  – Ludwig von Mises

“Remember, always and everywhere has government existed; a pure market economy has never been. Yet, the latter is incessantly blamed for problems the former caused, and the result is a call for more intervention.” – Milton Friedman

“The government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” – Ronald Reagan

I believe that good public policy is one that promotes a culture of life.  At the Legislature, I would be a defender of our most vulnerable… the Silent, who cannot speak for and defend themselves.  While I appreciate that the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate centers around the Life vs. Liberty argument, the latter cannot be used to justify the taking of the former.  There can be no liberty without the sanctity of life!

Our Founding Fathers made sure that the 2nd Amendment right to bear Arms was included as a fundamental liberty in the Bill of Rights.  I agree with their many reasons for doing so.  You cannot justify restricting or eliminating Constitutional protections in the name of safety or fear, nor is it right to place bureaucratic regulations on all people because of the irresponsible behavior of a few.  Nothing can take the place of individual responsibility.  Certainly not the government.  The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.  Period.

I believe the right to individual property is a “natural right” (I subscribe to the Labor Theory of Property - John Locke).  Some examples of property rights that the government should be focused on protecting and not violating include: your right to control and use your property, your right to benefit from your property, your right to sell or give away your property, and your right to exclude others from your property.  Property can take the form of objects or your money.  So often we lose sight of the fact that government taxing of our money is, in essence, government taking of our property.  It should not be the right of the government or a majority of voters to take away your property according to the latest whim.  Our government was founded on two competing concepts: majority rules vs. minority rights.  If left unchecked, the former easily tramples on the latter.  This was James Madison’s fear: “…measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.”  It is the beginning of oppression.

The size and role of government should be limited.  The larger the government, the fewer the freedoms.  The foundation of our country was in a limited government.  The U.S. Constitution is relatively short in length, just long enough to fulfill its chief purpose of giving some defined responsibilities to a centralized government.  In my mind, the role of government is simple: to protect the lives, liberties and property of its citizens, and to ensure due process and legal justice.  Unfortunately, many politicians think the best way to win votes is by promising more and more government programs to the populace.  This “programs to the people!” mentality is not the role of government that our Founding Fathers had in mind (a fact that would be better brought to light if we required all laws—or programs—to cite their Constitutional authorization).  Contrary to what the bureaucrats say, the people don’t need the government to take care of them.  It is our self-sufficiency and independence that has made our country great.  Indeed, there are already a lot of public programs out there, at all levels of government.  They may do good things (or at least intend to), but the role of government is in creating laws that protect our natural rights and freedoms, not creating more and more programs.  Some seem to think that the larger the government, and the more it controls, the better off people will be.  Yet, the larger the government grows, the more inefficient it becomes.  This is not necessarily the fault of its employees.  There are tens of thousands of government employees who work hard at their jobs.  It is the fault of the system.  It cannot be as efficient or effective as the private sector.  The government cannot spend your money as wisely or as properly as you can.  I am not saying this as a cliché.  I have seen it first hand having worked for the State the last eight years.  The government should not be in the business of providing any more services than it needs to, and even those that it “needs” to should be delegated out to the private sector via competitive contracts.  It is the only way to keep competition alive, and promote true quality of life.  Those who want to grow government should learn from history, just as Thomas Jefferson did: “My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.”

Arizonans--along with all Americans--are, and have been, Taxed Enough Already.  The idea that taxes should be increased in order to pay for ever-expanding government programs and services flies in the face of responsible governing and being good stewards of taxpayer dollars.  It is true that we are facing historic budgetary shortfalls, but poor fiscal planning does not justify adding to the already sizeable burden born by taxpayers, especially when they are facing their own struggles during these tough economic times.  “We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle” (Winston Churchill).  I believe Arizona’s own Dr. Edward Prescott, a Nobel-prize-winning economist and professor at Arizona State University, offers sound tax advice: keep the tax rate low and the tax base wide.  People should not be forced to pay taxes out of their necessities, nor should the burden be unduly placed on the shoulders of those who have been successful.  I am vehemently opposed to dumping more of the tax burden on “big corporations” because having excessively high taxes on entities that create jobs is counterproductive.  At the Legislature, I would advocate for reducing the tax burden on businesses (business personal property taxes, for instance) to encourage those fleeing high-tax states like California to relocate here.  This would go a long way towards creating new jobs, a key element to getting out of this budgetary mess.

I believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman.

A healthy transportation infrastructure is essential to state growth… which is essential to getting us out of the budget mess.  The obvious problem is that such infrastructure costs money we don’t have.  While advancement in fuel efficiency has been environmentally beneficial, it also means less revenue from gas taxes.  In addition, regional sales taxes (i.e. Prop 400 for Maricopa County) have significantly declined during this recession.  That leaves only one viable solution for transportation projects: the private sector.  I am a huge supporter of public-private partnerships (also known as “P3”).  Why not allow entrepreneurs to help solve the problem?  They can foot the bill for the upfront cost of new roads, and those who wish to use them can pay for them.  As long as there are adequate alternative “free” transportation routes, and existing lanes are not converted to toll roads to the detriment of neighboring lanes, the toll-payers can benefit directly from their use, and the non-payers can benefit indirectly from reduced traffic on the current lanes.  Furthermore, private investment would pump hundreds of millions of dollars into our state economy and create jobs in construction and other industries!

For the true policy wonk, below is a compilation of excerpts I chose from an essay by freelance writer Barry Loberfeld called “Liberalism: History and Future.”
 
----------------------

“… in terms of both semantic usage and governmental policy, "liberalism" is most widely associated today with a single concept: the mixed economy, i.e., a state that is neither completely capitalist (laissez faire) nor totally socialist (totalitarian). It is, to be sure, a union of conflicting -- liberal vs. anti-liberal -- elements. As F. A. Hayek, the great twentieth-century scholar of liberalism, observed: If we have the redistribution of wealth, then what of private property? If we enact biased laws to effect economic (or "social") equality, then what of political equality? If we regard the collective as the essential entity (which Hayek called "anthropomorphism or personification"), then what of the primacy of the individual?
 
To be capitalist or to be socialist? -- that is the question. Precisely what is the mix of the mixed economy? When is it capitalist and when is it socialist? When does it protect property and when does it confiscate it? When does it leave people alone and when does it coerce them? When does it adhere to the ethics of individualism and when does it obey the code of collectivism? And just which is the metaphysical primary -- the individual or the collective (e.g., the nation, the race, the class)?
 
There is, of course, another conceivable direction for the mixed economy: the opposite one, i.e., a move towards ideological consistency, be it capitalist or socialist.
 
We'll examine the second possibility first. The name Ludwig von Mises gained currency during the demise of the Soviet Union because [of] his prediction that a socialized economy could only decline because its abolition of the market robbed itself of any means to rationally calculate prices and thus determine production. But the Austrian economist also made another stark prediction -- that a mixed economy could not help but move towards total control. His argument ran like this: Imagine that the first control mixed into the economy is a price ceiling on the sale of milk, since the politicians promised to make it more affordable. What invariably follows is that the marginal producers of milk go out of business; milk actually becomes less plentiful. Now the politicians can repeal this control -- or they can impose a new one on the "factors of production necessary for the production of milk ... But then the same story repeats itself" on a wider level. If the latter course is chosen, we logically head towards socialization of the entire economy.
 
Let's move from milk in theory to medicine in practice. For about a hundred years, America has been a nation of accumulating medical controls. Each new regulation was passed with the same justification made for the previous one: This measure will sufficiently correct the failings of the free market and thus save the free-market system. And the result? Today's "crisis in health care" -- as the welfare statists themselves call this iatrogenic disease. The more band-aids are applied, the more wounds appear! And with nothing but band-aids in their bags, these "liberals" (often the same aging advocates of past regulation) can now prescribe only covering the patient head to toe -- i.e., the final move to the outright socialization of all medicine. What this says about the microcosm of medicine is obvious; what it means for our mixed economy is ominous.
 
What limits the limited welfare state? Even with socialism discredited both theoretically and practically, state control over society grows. Do the apologists for government intervention imagine that we can move isotopically towards the electrified fence of totalitarianism without ever touching it?”