Toying with the idea of an AZ ballot initiative, need help

[AZRedhawk44]

I'm fed up, and I want some change.

I want a responsible government, and I want the critters in the legislature and governor's office to feel the fangs of doing something irresponsible.

Namely, I'm talking about spending.

Arizona is in a deficit-spending mentality right now.  We've got a $1.3 billion budget shortfall last I heard, and the whizkids at ASU had the gall to ask the legislature for another $4 billion in funding for school expansion in the midst of this.

Here's what I'm thinking... help me refine the idea a bit before I stroll down to the Secretary of State's office to begin the Proposition process.

1.  It's gotta be a ballot prop.  The critters will never limit themselves in a manner like this voluntarily with legislation created in the Capitol.
2.  It's can't be a suicide pact for the State in the face of a true crisis.  If the State MUST go into debt to attain important goals, then it must be possible to do so.
3.  It must enforce accountability for the actions of legislators and the governor.  Voice-votes must be prohibited for votes in the Legislature regarding the annual budget.  Punishment for allowing voice-votes should fall squarely on the state Speaker of the House or President of the Senate (whatever those equivalent titles may be in AZ).  If the Speaker (or similar authority) allows a voice-vote for budget votes, he/she should be immediately removed from office, disbarred (if a member of the state bar association), charged with a felony to commit fraud on the State, and jailed for no less than 12 months.  This must be a political-career-ending punishment to preclude political party collusion to avoid accountability for votes.  If a voice-vote is somehow allowed to occur, all members of the legislature are prohibited from seeking re-election for a period of no less than 4 years.
4.  In the event that a deficit-spending budget is approved by the legislature, those members who voted in favor of the deficit spending (as noted in the roll call vote log) are ineligible to run for re-election to their current office for no less than 4 years.  This is tracked by the roll call vote.
5.  In the event that a deficit-spending budget is signed by the governor, he/she is ineligible to hold any office in the state of Arizona upon the expiration of his/her office for a period of no less than 4 years (since Governors have term limits, unlike members of the legislature).

The net effect of this policy would be:
1.  The ending of political careers of politicians who favor grandiose promises from the public treasury.
2.  The ability to sacrifice political careers if necessary for patriotic duty, if the state truly needs deficit spending.  Such politicians would be ineligible for office for 4 years so they can feel the effects of their legislation back in the private sector, then eligible to test the waters regarding public office to see how the public received their contribution.
3.  Cycling of fresh blood into the political arena whenever deficit spending is approved.  Obviously, something was mis-managed and new eyes are needed.
4.  Those who favor extensive spending will be forced to present revenue sources to pay for their new programs.  Taxes, fees, royalties, or sales of state trust land.
5.  If phrased properly, would maybe be palatable to the people of Arizona via a ballot initiative whereas such reform would be impossible if started at the Capitol.

[erik the bold]

You might want to try re-vamping AZ's screwed up property tax laws first...

Look at Michigan's Headley amendment.

[Scout26]

It's can't be a suicide pact for the State in the face of a true crisis.

Then everything will be a crisis.  Just look at how the Congress has said that everything is "interstate commerce".

If it's truly a crisis, then the critters need to take money away from the "nice-to-have" programs and use that money to solve the crisis.

I mean look at what the candidates are proclaiming, we have a Healthcare Crisis, an Education Crisis, a Homeless Crisis, a Poverty Crisis, etc, etc....


It does need to be a suicide pact.  A political suicide pact.

[ilbob]

I suggest requiring any bill that raises any tax rate, or imposes a new tax, must be approved by referendum prior to actually being effective. That way the tax increases still have to go through the normal channels of being approved by the legislature and governor, but once approved then have to be subsequently approved by the voters.

I would also suggest some kind of bill limiting the amount that can be spent in any one year to no more than 105% of the total revenue collected in the previous year.

term limits are mostly a good idea.

another good idea is that all bills have to be published in their final form for at least 10 days prior to the legislature voting on them. there is nothing that a state legislature does that can't wait 10 days to become law.

[Firethorn]

2.  It's can't be a suicide pact for the State in the face of a true crisis.  If the State MUST go into debt to attain important goals, then it must be possible to do so.

Then require a supermajority to exceed the budget.  2/3 or 4/5.  If it's a big enough problem, they shouldn't have any trouble getting the votes.

3.  It must enforce accountability for the actions of legislators and the governor.  Voice-votes must be prohibited for votes in the Legislature regarding the annual budget.  Punishment for allowing voice-votes should fall squarely on the state Speaker of the House or President of the Senate (whatever those equivalent titles may be in AZ).  If the Speaker (or similar authority) allows a voice-vote for budget votes, he/she should be immediately removed from office, disbarred (if a member of the state bar association), charged with a felony to commit fraud on the State, and jailed for no less than 12 months.  This must be a political-career-ending punishment to preclude political party collusion to avoid accountability for votes.  If a voice-vote is somehow allowed to occur, all members of the legislature are prohibited from seeking re-election for a period of no less than 4 years.

Rather than get all complicated for that, require written/physical votes for all fiscal matters.  No need to have all the penalties; simply state that if they do a voice vote for spending money it's invalid and the money doesn't get spent.

4.  In the event that a deficit-spending budget is approved by the legislature, those members who voted in favor of the deficit spending (as noted in the roll call vote log) are ineligible to run for re-election to their current office for no less than 4 years.  This is tracked by the roll call vote.
5.  In the event that a deficit-spending budget is signed by the governor, he/she is ineligible to hold any office in the state of Arizona upon the expiration of his/her office for a period of no less than 4 years (since Governors have term limits, unlike members of the legislature).


Well, this would certainly make sure any deficit spending is important, but I can't help but think that it'd be overkill in that the money wouldn't get spent when it does need to be.