Despite single party control of both the legislative and executive branches of government, the Grand Canyon State has now been without a complete fiscal year 2010 budget for more than 40 days.  The delay has arisen largely because legislative leadership has continued to insist that tax-cutting dogma trump fiscal reality. More specifically, they have demanded that Governor Jan Brewer’s proposal to increase the sales tax on a temporary basis be paired with a permanent plan to reduce personal and corporate income taxes, along with property taxes, by $650 million per year.  To this point, their demands have foundered in the Senate, as the final vote needed to approve such a pairing has proved elusive.

A new gambit, devised in consultation with Grover Norquist, may provide the required votes within the next few days. It would separate the sales tax hike from the other tax changes, thus requiring two separate votes and thus potentially drawing new supporters to each element.  However packaged, the combination of a temporary tax hike and permanent tax reduction will have the same result over the long-run:  inadequate revenue and a greater share of the responsibility for taxes shifted onto working Arizonans.

So, let's suppose you live and do business in a state that faces a $3 billion budget deficit in the coming fiscal year, by far one of the largest in the nation. Imagine as well that your Governor recently took the responsible, if albeit vague, step of calling for a temporary tax increase to generate a $1 billion per year to address that deficit. What to do? Well, if you are the Arizona Chamber of Commerce, as the price of your fealty, you demand not just a tax cut, but multiple tax cuts. And not just any tax cuts, but tax cuts that benefit the very wealthiest state residents and the very largest of businesses.

Sound farfetched? Well, according to the Arizona Republic, it isn't. Just last week, the Republic reported that the Chamber had indicated it would support a sales tax increase, but only if "lawmakers [eliminate] the property-equalization tax and [take] steps to reduce the corporate income tax rate and capital gains taxes." In other words, the Chamber is fine with working Arizonans paying higher taxes, but only if its members get to pay lower taxes in exchange. Who could possibly object to that?

Arizona voters wisely rejected Proposition 105, a proposal that would have placed a nearly insurmountable obstacle in the way of Arizona residents seeking to raise their own taxes through the referendum process.

Arkansas voters approved a measure to institute a state lottery. While the state could certainly use the additional revenue, Arkansans should be wary of funding their government through regressive revenue sources such as the lottery.

Maine residents rejected an increase in the alcohol and soda taxes to fund health care. While it's certainly a bad thing that these taxes are regressive (as well as unlikely to exhibit sustainable growth in the coming years), the ludicrousness of the fervent opposition this relatively minor tax created can be read about in this Digest article and this blog post.

Maryland residents also decided to secure additional revenues for their government via expanded gambling, in the form of 15,000 new slot machines. Check out this Digest article to learn about some of the problems with this proposal.

Missouri also attempted to increase its haul from gambling. Increased gambling taxes and the elimination of limitations on the amount of money one is allowed to lose were approved by voters this Tuesday. This Digest article explains how the proposal leaves much to be desired.

Minnesota voters decided to go through with a 3/8ths percent sales tax hike. While the environmental causes to which the funds will be dedicated are undoubtedly worthy, the regressive way in which voters decided to go about funding the projects (through the sales tax) is far from ideal.

Nevada residents voted to amend their constitution to require that all new sales and property tax exemptions be subjected to a benefit-cost analysis, and accompanied by a sunset provision that will force their reexamination in the future. While the proposal sounds good in theory, its requirements are relatively loose in practice. It will be up to Nevadans to carefully watch their representatives to ensure that the spirit of this law is adhered to. Learn more about this proposal here.

Arizona's Proposition 105 won't immediately change any taxes, but its implications for tax policy in the state are potentially severe. The question seeks to amend the state's constitution to require that any tax increase be approved by a majority of registered voters. This would be in addition to the requirement that tax increases enacted through the legislature be approved by 2/3 of legislators.

Under this new proposal, if, for example, only half of registered voters took the time to vote in an election where a tax increase was on the ballot, every single one of them would have to vote in approval of the tax measure for it to become law. Essentially, any registered voter that fails to vote will be counted as in opposition to the measure. As one observer puts it, "anyone who wants to vote no can just stay at home."

For some perspective, no ballot initiative (tax related or otherwise) has received approval from a majority of registered voters in Arizona since 1974. In fact, it's possible that at majority of registered voters do not even vote in some elections.

The passage of Proposition 105, coupled with the 2/3 majority requirement in the legislature, could perhaps bring to an end the possibility of any future tax increases occurring in Arizona. Needless to say, this would be a very irresponsible arrangement, given the recent budget troubles in the state.

The runup to the 2008 elections has given us plenty of reminders of why direct democracy is generally not the best approach to tax reform. In North Dakota, a typo in the language of a proposed tax cut may actually result in a tax increase for some families. In Nevada, the failure of supporters to properly file thousands of signatures in favor of an (ill-conceived) property tax cap resulted in that measure being thrown off the ballot.

But while both of these rather innocent mistakes are undoubtedly serious, neither is as serious as the rampant dishonesty often involved in the signature collection process. In Arizona, for example, a staggering 42% of signatures for a transportation ballot proposal this year were found to be invalid. In North Dakota, though problem wasn't quite as rampant, one signature collector this week was found guilty of faking potentially hundreds of signatures for their regressive income tax cut.

While there may be compelling reasons rooted in democratic theory for allowing citizens to take matters directly into their own hands, it is also important to remember the benefits of representative democracy. A badly written ballot proposal backed by thousands of fraudulent signatures is hardly an improvement over whatever flaws the legislative process may have. The problems with the initiative process illustrate that there are good reasons for having those who we have elected (and whose salaries we pay) writing our laws.

In a surprising development, Arizona's proposed one percent hike in the state sales tax rate was kept off the November ballot after falling short of the number of valid signatures needed. The secretary of state found that a startling 47% of submitted signatures were invalid -- a finding the state's Supreme Court recently upheld.

Though Arizonans undoubtedly would have benefited from the influx of transportation dollars that this measure could have provided, the sales tax is arguably the worst method possible for funding transportation. Two competing principles exist for evaluating any tax proposal: the "ability-to-pay principle" and the "benefits principle". Even if you're unfamiliar with these principles by name, it's not at all difficult to see how the sales tax fails them both.

Under the "ability-to-pay principle", those best able to afford to pay for government should be asked to contribute the most. This is the standard by which most taxes are judged. Progressive income taxes that ask the most of society's wealthiest members fulfill this principle, while inherently regressive sales taxes do not.

In contrast, under the "benefits principle", taxes should be paid by those individuals who receive the benefits the government provides. In the realm of transportation, multiple options exist for fulfilling this principle, including the gas tax, tolls, vehicle sales taxes, registration/license fees, and in some cases even property taxes. The sales tax is only loosely (if at all) related to how much one benefits from the transportation infrastructure, and thus fails this principle as well.

Many (perhaps most) in the policy community believe the "benefits principle" to be the proper standard for judging transportation finance measures. But even if they're wrong, the fact that the sales tax fails both of the above mentioned principles means there is little or no reason to support such a measure.

Unfortunately, the attractiveness of the sales tax in the eyes of many lawmakers has grown as states seek to fill transportation funding shortfalls with anything but an increase in the gas tax. For example, a Minnesota bill that passed earlier this year allowed for several counties to raise their sales taxes for transportation. A Los Angeles transportation-related sales tax hike appears close to the ballot. Finally, numerous sales tax ideas have been floated in Virginia as a way of plugging a massive transportation funding shortfall. More state and local governments can be expected to follow this trend soon if gas tax revenues don't rebound.

It's that time again. Right-wing activists, unable to convince lawmakers to gut their tax systems, are asking voters to do it themselves through the ballot. This update explains that ballot initiatives to enact regressive tax policies died in Michigan and Montana, but survived to secure spots on the ballot in Arizona, Florida, Massachusetts and Oregon.

The Good News: Two Regressive Proposals Did Not Make It onto the Ballot

Michigan "Fair "Tax": The Michigan Fair Tax proposal, a highly regressive measure that was anything but fair, failed to make it onto the November ballot. The proposal would have eliminated both the Michigan Business Tax and the personal income tax, raised the state sales tax to 9.75% and expanded it to include services, food, prescription drugs and out-of-pocket health care expenses.

Montana Property Tax Limitations: CI-99, a measure that would have capped property tax increases at no more than 1.5% annually, fell short of landing a spot on the Montana ballot. In addition to the limits on tax hikes, the proposal would have ensured that homes can only be reappraised when sold (as opposed to every seven years). Sound familiar? It looks like, at least this year, Montana averted the disastrous path followed by California's Proposition 13.

The Bad News: Other Regressive Tax Proposals ARE on the Ballot in November

Arizona Sales Tax Hike: On June 27, the Digest described the Arizona sales tax initiative which will be on the ballot in November. The proposal would hike the sales tax by one cent. The increased revenues would be directed toward a faltering transportation system. Arizona already has sales taxes bordering on 10% and a nearly flat income tax. As a result, its tax policy is already highly regressive and this initiative would make it more so.

Florida Tax Swap: In November voters will decide on Amendment 5, a 25% property tax cut and a 1 cent sales tax hike. The property tax cut would hit Florida's schools, already in shambles, the hardest. The Amendment would come at a cost of $9 billion in lost revenue and the subsequent sales tax increase would only produce about $4 billion, plunging the Sunshine State even further into debt and shifting the tax burden to lower-income Floridians.

Abolishing Massachusetts' Income Tax: In Massachusetts, voters will have the opportunity to decide on an initiative that would eliminate the state's income tax. Such irresponsible policy would cost the state $12 billion in lost revenue -- a whopping 40% of its budget. The price would be paid with teacher layoffs, school closings, cuts to higher education, worker training programs and health care services, and delays of road and bridge repairs.

Cutting Oregon's Income Tax for the Rich: Oregon voters will have the opportunity to vote on a measure that would drastically cut income taxes for its wealthiest taxpayers. The proposal would create an unlimited deduction on the state income tax form for federal income taxes paid.The state's general fund would lose about $4 billion over four years from the proposal. The general fund is used primarily for education, public safety, the justice system, human services (including health care, care for seniors and child protective services) and state parks. Meanwhile, the average tax cut for the top one percent of Oregon earners would be about $15,000. Those who fall among the middle 20% of earners would receive about $1 on average.

Facing a $2 billion budget deficit and a looming transportation funding shortfall, Arizona is planning to consider a 1-cent increase in its sales tax this fall. Backed primarily by business leaders along with Governor Janet Napolitano, a sales tax hike would make worse an already highly regressive tax system. With a modest income tax and one of the highest sales taxes in the nation (the tax would be over 10% in some localities if the proposed increase is enacted) Arizona's tax policy disproportionately burdens its low-income residents. Legislators in the Grand Canyon State are looking to use the tax hike to relieve transportation woes, including road and mass-transit projects. But at a time when the economy is sluggish, depending solely on an unreliable, high-rate sales tax to fund key infrastructure projects is foolish. Rather than making low-income Arizonans (whose budgets are markedly tighter in this economic climate) foot the bill for the much-needed improvements, Arizona should consider re-vamping its income tax system to generate more revenue and distribute the responsibility for paying taxes more fairly.

And if comprehensive income tax reform is off the table, there is something to be said for a gas tax hike coupled with carefully designed, offsetting income tax provisions. For more on the relative merits of sales versus gas taxes for financing transportation, see this article in this week's Digest.

This week in the Georgia House, lawmakers voted overwhelmingly (166-5) to approve property tax cuts, including the elimination of the state's car tax, that will cost the state more than $750 million when fully phased in. Republican Speaker Pro Tem Mark Burkhalter doesn't seem concerned with offsetting the lost revenue. Responding to concerns about the plan's price tag, he says, "It's very simple. You cut taxes, the economy grows. The economy grows, Georgians prosper. The best way to stem off any recession is to cut taxes. Not to clam up, go home and wait for the storm to pass." We've learned on the federal level that tax cuts simply don't pay for themselves, but clearly legislators in Georgia want to try their own experiment with this flawed (and dangerous) economic myth. The House-passed bill contains another misguided property tax change... a 2% cap on annual increases in a home's value for tax purposes (the cap would be 3% for businesses).

The Georgia Budget and Policy Institute issued a report adding up the costs of the state House's handiwork related to taxes this year and found that the tax bills passed this session would cost as much as $113 million in FY 2009, $473 million in FY 2010, and $798 million in FY 2011.

Coincidentally, the Oklahoma Senate passed a proposed constitutional amendment last week also dealing with caps on increases in a home's taxable value. In this case, the cap would be decreased from 5% to 3% (the 5% cap would remain intact for businesses). Assessment value caps of this sort have recently received much attention in Florida. The unfair way in which these caps provide the greatest relief to long-time residents (creating vastly different property tax bills between neighbors with similar houses) recently drove Florida residents to amend their constitution to patch over the problem in a very imperfect way.

Rounding out the recent trend in debating poorly reasoned property tax cuts is Arizona, where the House narrowly approved a measure to permanently repeal a portion of the property tax that is currently suspended. Allowing the tax to take effect again would raise about $250 million annually for the state, significantly reducing the projected $1.2 billion revenue shortfall for the current fiscal year. If the plan passes, cuts in public services could be the result.

Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano last week affixed her signature to HB 2515, an innovative piece of legislation aimed at curbing self-destructive tax incentive competition among municipalities in the Phoenix metropolitan area. The new law will reduce state-shared revenue to any city or town entirely in Maricopa or Pinal Counties that provides tax giveaways for retail development. While the new law won't undo such abuses as the $100 million tax break previously granted for Phoenix's CityNorth development, it could serve as a model for other states seeking to put an end to this inefficient and unsound approach to economic development.

Legislatures in Rhode Island and Arizona approved their state budgets for fiscal year 2008 this past week and, in each case, dealt significant setbacks to corporations seeking to avoid or to reduce their taxes. Rhode Island's budget will close three loopholes that have allowed profitable corporations to use creative accounting measures to pay less than their fair share in taxes. This will generate $12.5 million that will help to close the state's expected budget gap and finance vital public services. In addition, the budget halts the scheduled elimination of the state's tax on capital gains income, though it fails to restore the tax rate on such income to its prior level of 5.0 percent. While Rhode Island Governor Donald Carcieri (R) has vowed to veto the spending plan, that veto will likely be overridden. For more on how Rhode Island could strengthen its tax system, see the Rhode Island Poverty Institute's recent fact sheet.

Meanwhile, in Arizona, Governor Janet Napolitano (D) is expected to sign her state's budget into law soon. While that budget includes $11 million in tax cuts - including a state version of so-called section 529 education savings plans - these tax cuts are far smaller than those proposed by House Republicans, due to legislators' unwillingness to provide businesses with a 2.5 percentage point reduction in the state's corporate income tax.

Arizona is considering legislation that would end the destructive "race to the bottom" in tax competition among some of the state's municipalities. The Arizona Senate - and a key House committee - have both approved measures that would reduce state aid to any municipality in the Phoenix metropolitan area that uses tax breaks to entice businesses to locate there. State Senator Ken Cheuvront, one of the backers of the legislation, argues in a recent op-ed that "developers have learned that they can play off one city against another in order to get special tax incentives", usually in exchange for projects that would go forward without tax incentives.

Phoenix's CityNorth project - the recent recipient of $100 million in municipal tax breaks - is a perfect case in point. As the development's web site boasts, CityNorth will be "surrounded by some of the strongest housing growth in the country and the highest incomes in Phoenix," so it hardly seems that the project wouldn't be viable without millions in city subsidies. For more on how wasteful these kinds of giveaways can be and what can be done to curb them, visit Good Jobs First.

Earlier this year, members of the Arizona business community formed a new organization - the Transportation and Infrastructure Moving AZ's Economy or TIME Coalition - to advocate for additional transportation funding and to push for a ballot initiative to generate the revenue necessary to support that funding. At first, that may sound like business leaders acting in a fiscally responsible way to ensure that the state invests in the public structures on which all Arizonans rely.

Two details might make you think otherwise. First, the taxes that the Coalition would like to see raised through the initiative - the general sales tax and the gasoline tax - would fall disproportionately on low- and moderate-income people. Second, as the Arizona Republic points out, some of the members of the TIME Coalition - such as the Arizona Chamber of Commerce - are at the same time actively lobbying for the acceleration of tax cuts for commercial and industrial property and the outright repeal of the currently-suspended equalization assistance property tax. So, while Arizona may need to make critical public investments to foster economic growth and to improve the quality of life in the state, don't expect businesses to pony up - in their view, that's just for working people.

Tax legislation is often messy and complicated. This presents a challenge for those seeking to change state tax systems through ballot initiatives or referenda: how can these complex tax issues be boiled down to a simple and accurate description that voters will be able to read and understand while in the voting booth? Arizona's latest ballot-initiative snafu illustrates this difficulty. Health-care advocates successfully gathered signatures last summer for an 80-cents-per-pack cigarette tax hike... but what appeared on Arizona voters' November ballots was a 0.8 cent tax, which was approved by a 53% majority. This would provide one-one-hundredth of the revenue these advocates sought. The state's Attorney General has ruled, oddly, that the 80-cent tax can be collected anyway, but RJ Reynolds is considering filing a suit to prevent the implementation of this tax hike. Read more about it on the Talking Taxes weblog.

While the Democratic takeover of the House of Representatives (and apparently also the Senate) on Tuesday has has given new hope to advocates of progressive tax policies at the federal level, the results of ballot initiatives across the country indicate that state tax policy is also headed in a progressive direction.

In the three states where they were on the ballot, voters rejected TABOR proposals, which involve artificial tax and spending caps that would cut services drastically over several years. Washington State defeated repeal of its estate tax. Several states also rejected initiatives to increase school funding which, while based on the best intentions, were not responsible fiscal policy. Two of four ballot proposals to hike cigarette taxes were approved and the night also brought a mixed bag of results for property tax caps.

Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR):
Maine - Question 1 - FAILED
Nebraska - Initiative 423 - FAILED
Oregon - Measure 48 - FAILED
Voters in three states soundly rejected tax- and spending-cap proposals modeled after Colorado's so-called "Taxpayers Bill of Rights" (TABOR). Apparently people in these three states had too many concerns over the damage caused by TABOR in Colorado. Property Tax

Caps:
Arizona - Proposition 101 - PASSED - tightening existing caps on growth in local property tax levies.
Georgia - Referendum D - PASSED - exempting seniors at all income levels from the statewide property tax (a small part of overall Georgia property taxes. (The Georgia Budget and Policy Institute evaluates this idea here.)
South Carolina - Amendment Question 4 - PASSED - capping growth of properties' assessed value for tax purposes. The State newspaper explains why the cap would be counterproductive.
South Dakota - Amendment D - FAILED - capping the allowable growth in taxable value for homes, taking a page from California's Proposition 13 playbook. (The Aberdeen American News explains why this is bad policy here - and asks tough questions about whether lawmakers have shirked their duties by shunting this complicated decision off to voters.)
Tennessee - Amendment 2 - PASSED - allowing (but not requiring) local governments to enact senior-citizens property tax freezes.
Arizona's property tax limit will restrict property tax growth for all taxpayers in a given district. South Dakota's proposal was fortunately defeated. It would have offered help only to families whose property is rapidly becoming more valuable, and those families are rarely the neediest. Georgia's is not targeted at those who need help but would give tax cuts to seniors at all income levels. The Tennesse initiative, which passed, is a reasonable tool for localities to use, at their option, to target help towards those seniors who need it.

Cigarette Tax Increase:
Arizona - Proposition 203 - PASSED - increase in cigarette tax from $1.18 to $1.98 to fund early education and childrens' health screenings.
California - Proposition 86 - FAILED - increasing the cigarette tax by $2.60 a pack to pay for health care (from $.87 to $3.47)
Missouri - Amendment 3 - FAILED - increasing cigarette tax from 17 cents to 97 cents
South Dakota - Initiated Measure 2 - PASSED - increasing cigarette tax from 53 cents to $1.53. While many progressive activists and organizations support raising cigarette taxes to fund worthy services and projects, the cigarette tax is essentially regressive and is an unreliable revenue source since it is shrinking.

State Estate Tax Repeal:
Washington - Initiative 920 - FAILED
Complementing the heated debate over the federal estate tax has been this lesser noticed debate over Washington Stats's own estate tax which funds smaller classroom size, assistance for low-income students and other education purposes. Washingtonians decided it was a tax worth keeping.

Revenue for Education:
Alabama - Amendment 2 - PASSED - requiring that every school district in the state provide at least 10 mills of property tax for local schools.
California - Proposition 88 - FAILED - would impose a regressive "parcel tax" of $50 on each parcel of property in the state to help fund education
Idaho - Proposition 1 - FAILED - requiring the legislature to spend an additional $220 million a year on education - and requiring the legislature to come up with an (unidentified) revenue stream to pay for it.
Michigan - Proposal 5 - FAILED - mandating annual increases in state education spending, tied to inflation - but without specifying a funding source. The Michigan League for Human Services explains why this is a bad idea.
Voters made wise choices on education spending. The initiative in California would have raised revenue in a regressive way, while the initiatives in Idaho and Michigan sought to increase education spending without providing any revenue source. Alabama's Amendment 2 takes an approach that is both responsible and progressive.

Income Taxes:
Oregon - Measure 41 - FAILED - creating an alternative method of calculating state income taxes. Measure 41 was an ill-conceived proposal to allow wealthier Oregonians the option of claiming the same personal exemptions allowed under federal tax rules and would have bypassed a majority of Oregon seniors and would offer little to most low-income Oregonians of all ages.

Other Ballot Measures:
California - Proposition 87 - FAILED - would impose a tax on oil production and use all the revenue to reduce the state's reliance on fossil fuels and encourage the use of renewable energy
California - Proposition 89 - FAILED - using a corporate income tax hike to provide public funding for elections
South Dakota - Initiated Measure 7 - FAILED - repealing the state's video lottery - proceeds of which are used to cut local property taxes
South Dakota - Initiated Measure 8 - FAILED - repealing 4 percent tax on cell phone users.