I'm voting for Colette Rosati for the District 8 Senate seat. Why? The voting record alone proves Carolyn Allen is a tax and spend liberal. Next, Carolyn Allen claims Colette Rosati has no experience, which is not true.
Now Allen sends out mailers inferring Rosati is some kind of a nut. That is a personal attack and is dirty politics. I expect that from the liberal tax and spenders, but I am ashamed for Allen when she resorts to that kind of politics.
Lastly, the Arizona Republic likes Allen, and in the 30 plus years I've lived in Arizona, the Republic always likes the big government, tax and spend liberals. So even if I had any doubts based on the voting record alone, the Republic swayed me. I'm voting for Colette Rosati.
Ray WallageWhy in the world would any prudent taxpayer vote for a candidate who voted against an income tax cut and refuses to vote for property tax relief for us home owners whose assessments and taxes are going through the roof?
The state collected over $1.2 billion more than needed and Senator Carolyn Allen refuses to return ANY of this over payment of our taxes to us taxpayers. Allen shows a cold heart for so many living on fixed incomes by refusing to cap property tax increases to a reasonable level. Have you noticed that politicians who have no regard for life, the abortion supporters, also have no regard for the plight of the taxpayer and home owner?
Colette Rosati has a proven record of voting to protect the taxpayer, the homeowner and the child in the womb. If you want to make the saying "Nothing is certain but death and taxes" a reality, vote for Allen. If you believe you deserve a refund of your overpayment of taxes and protection from being taxed out of your home, vote for Colette Rosati – The taxpayers friend!
Gerald HackertSen. Carolyn Allen poses as a Republican at election time but votes like a Democrat behind closed doors. It's a matter of public record!
Property values have skyrocketed in Arizona and almost every Republican voted for a property tax relief bill, SB1289. Allen voted no. She also voted no with the Democrats on SCR1025, a bill to cap property valuation assessments. SB1465 was an income tax reduction bill, Allen voted no. She is one of the most liberal tax-and-spend Republicans in office.
Her challenger in the primary is Colette Rosati, a real Republican. Rosati believes in smaller government and lower taxes. Rosati won the Champion of the Taxpayer Award from the Arizona Federation of Taxpayers because as a member of the House, she has always voted to lower your taxes.
Max McNeelyRepublicans in District 8 do have a clear choice in the upcoming Republican primary for State Senator. In one corner is Senator Carolyn Allen, who is one of the most liberal Republicans in the Arizona Legislature. In the other corner is State Representative Colette Rosati, a strong conservative who has voted to cut taxes, reduce wasteful government spending and sponsored the law to keep day labor centers out of our community.
Some, including Senator Allen herself, want to believe that Allen is an "independent minded Senator." This is the usual term that liberals use to mask and justify their records when their views and beliefs are a bad fit for the voters in their district.
Consider some of Senator Allen’s more independent minded votes and positions on tax and spending issues.
In 2000, Allen sponsored legislation to double the state gas tax. Thankfully, given our gas prices, this was vetoed by Republican Governor Jane Hull.
In 2002, Allen voted for the largest tax increase in Arizona history which increased Arizona’s sales taxes.
In 2003, Allen supported increasing your property taxes.
And just this year, Carolyn Allen voted against the legislation that cut income taxes for Arizona families. Allen also ignored skyrocketing property taxes by joining with the Democrats to vote against a proposal to put a cap on the growth of property taxes. She even called citizens of her own district "greedy" because they didn’t want to pay higher property taxes.
Does Carolyn Allen still sound "independent minded?" Well consider her positions on illegal immigration.
In 2001, Carolyn Allen voted to give taxpayer funded health benefits to illegal aliens. In 2004, Allen opposed efforts to deny taxpayer funded benefits to illegal aliens. And Allen even opposed requiring proof of citizenship at the polls to vote.
Does she still sound "independent minded?"
Consider that in 2004, Allen joined with Democrats to pass a state budget that had a deficit of over $700 million dollars. Allen also supports using your tax dollars to pay for projects like "The Adventures of Sweater-Man" -a comic book that was paid for with your taxes.
Independent minded Carolyn Allen has also voted with the Democrats more often than nearly any other Republican Senator.
This is what "independent minded" Republican Carolyn Allen has been doing down at the Legislature. Perhaps her supporters think its independent minded to vote for higher taxes, benefits for illegal aliens, and bigger government.
Most Republicans would just call it liberal.
In the upcoming Republican primary for State Senator, the voters do have a clear choice between Senator Allen and Representative Colette Rosati. If they want their State Senator to be a liberal who supports higher taxes, bigger government, and benefits for illegal aliens, then they should vote to re-elect Carolyn Allen.
If, on the other hand, voters want their next State Senator to be a strong fiscal conservative who has cut taxes, opposed wasteful government spending, and has taken a strong stand in the fight to control illegal immigration, then they should vote for Representative Colette Rosati to be their next State Senator.
Sincerely,Recently there have been several articles and letters to the Editor concerning the proposal to allow community colleges to grant baccalaureate degrees. After hearing all of the debates and reviewing all of the evidence last year, I voted against the proposal. This year I am still not convinced that changing the law to allow community colleges to offer four-year degrees is a good idea.
Instead of expanding the government's role in higher education at great expense to Arizona taxpayers, I believe we should increasingly make use of higher education opportunities in the private sector. Already 55,000 full-time students attend Arizona's private colleges and universities at virtually no public expense. Furthermore, it is the private sector that provides the most flexibility; with weekend, evening, and summer courses; and leads the way with innovative teaching methods; such as online programs.
Before we change the mission of the community colleges by allowing them to offer baccalaureate degrees, we should maximize the use of our existing public and private colleges and universities.
Representative Colette Rosati R.N. R-D8Arizonans are overtaxed. Taxes on everything from your phone bill to the state income tax are so high they jeopardize our economic prosperity. State officials currently predict a huge budget surplus for this fiscal year. Bureaucrats, special interest groups, and some elected officials have already decided they know what's best for you and have made many plans to spend your hard earned money on their ill-conceived pet projects. By contrast, I want the majority of the surplus to be returned to the taxpayers and tax rates to be permanently reduced. In this way people can invest their money in businesses that create jobs, save for their children's education or their own retirement, buy a house, or just spend it in any legal manner they desire.
Our homes and private property must be protected from seizure by the government. Recently the United States Supreme Court decided in the infamous Kelo vs. City of New London case that cities can take homes or businesses and give them to developers with the hope of generating more tax revenue. All property owners are now subject to the same abuse as occurred in the Kelo case where 15 homeowners had their property confiscated by the city of New London which then leased the land to a private developer for $1 per year for 99 years! This kind of abuse must be prevented from happening in Arizona and legislation that explicitly forbids the use of eminent domain for private commercial development should be enacted this year.
Arizona is one of the few states that do not have a true graduated driver's license for inexperienced and new drivers. States that created these licenses reduced accident rates and saved lives. The leading cause of death of people between the ages of 15 and 20 is traffic accidents. Many of these accidents could have been avoided if the driver was more experienced. Nevertheless, some people oppose the introduction of these licenses because of the minor inconvenience it may impose on some drivers. However, driving is a privilege and safety should come first. Graduated driver's licenses will be good for Arizona and will result in better, safer young drivers and fewer accidents.
During the 2006 session of the legislature, my primary goals are to return most of the predicted state budget surplus to the taxpayers and to reduce taxes. Additional important goals are to protect property owners from the abuse of eminent domain and to make our streets safer by establishing graduated driver's licenses for inexperienced drivers. Together with your help and support we can accomplish these goals so please get involved. Call, write, fax, email or better yet... visit me at the capitol!
Colette Rosati R.N.Many elected officials believe the average person is not smart enough to spend their own money wisely and that the government should tax the average person to fund projects these politicians determine are worthwhile. In contrast, I believe that taxpayers have the right to invest in businesses, buy homes, save for their children’s education or their own retirement, go on vacations, buy gifts, or spend their money in any legal manner they desire. That’s why I am for limited government.
Consequently, I do not support the seven Phoenix bond proposals to be voted on March 14, 2006. Asking for just under $1 BILLION, the final cost will certainly be well OVER one billion dollars with the inevitable cost overruns and interest payments. Phoenix homeowners will be forced to pay for this spending through their property taxes without regard for their ability to pay. Corporations and organizations that back the proposals stand to benefit financially from their passage. Such handouts of the taxpayer's hard-earned dollars to armies of well-connected special interest groups should be defeated and the taxpayers protected.
Representative Colette Rosati R.N. R-D8While the Arizona Legislature makes many good decisions, in the past it has made several disastrous decisions with enormous financial consequences. Several years ago, before my time, the Legislature passed tax incentives for alternative fuels vehicles. The cost to taxpayers was astronomical and the program was repealed in embarrassment. Legislators are now faced with a fast track bill to turn community colleges into institutions that can award four-year degrees. While it sounds good, like alternative fuels did initially, the Legislature should move slowly to make sure that it is not negative to students, taxpayers or other Arizonans.
Senate Bill 1109, which I voted against yesterday, would grant authority to five community colleges to offer four specified baccalaureate degrees and unlimited additional degrees. The total number of sites at which these degrees could be offered total 23 campuses in Arizona - nearly double the total number of community college campuses with similar authority in the entire country. While this may sound good to some people to provide highly subsidized baccalaureate degrees statewide, it would behoove the Legislature to move slowly and examine the demand for the degrees, the cost of providing the degrees and the negative consequences for taxpayers and other institutions in Arizona. Further, Arizona's community college mission has been important in providing education to the transitional student. This mission should not be damaged or diluted.
Community colleges are highly subsidized by taxpayers -- both state taxpayers through the state general fund and local property taxpayers. Total community college costs in many cases equal or exceed the cost of education at the university level or at the private college level. Further, the state's budget agency estimated first year costs for Senate Bill 1109 at an additional $20 million dollars. The well-respected Arizona Tax Research Association said that property taxpayers would be vulnerable to property tax increases on their homes and businesses, plus would additionally be required to pay millions of dollars for new capitol facilities.
Some of the demand for additional educational services may be real; other demand must be examined more thoroughly. For example, despite the perceived demand for nursing education; careful analysis shows that demand is directed at the year one and two community college programs rather than at the year three and four programs. Community colleges would be well advised to expand their basic year one and two nursing programs before they undertake costly expansions of their nursing programs for year three and four.
Many legislators are also concerned that the bill duplicates government services already paid for by the taxpayers. Northern Arizona University already provides college year three and four at many community college sites -- 100 sites in Arizona. Why should Arizona taxpayers pay double for a service that is already provided?
The Legislature would be wise to learn from experience in other states before it leaps into this costly arena. Very few states have granted this authority anywhere, and where it is granted is because of either the uniqueness of the degree in that location or the remoteness of a region, or it is a pilot program to be tested; no state has granted community colleges anywhere near the broad authority provided in SB 1109.
In Florida, for example, a rigorous application process applies for community colleges before they can offer baccalaureate degrees. They must show extensive information regarding costs, demand for the degree, facilities, faculty and much more. As a result, only four community colleges have been given narrow authority. Even with these protections, the Legislature in Florida reports that the costs of providing college year three and four at the community colleges in Florida is more expensive than the costs at the state's universities. In one instance, the cost per student per year at the community college is $81,000 per year. It is essential that Arizona and its taxpayers avoid the same mistakes.
Arizona should learn from other states and move cautiously before granting community colleges this authority. A standard for approval of any bill in this area will be no tax increases to Arizona taxpayers, and no damage to other institutions in Arizona, public or private, and providing services only for real and proven demand in a cost efficient manner.
Don IsaacsonIt is fun to drive around Arizona and see a wide variety of historic and collectible cars on the streets. This is especially true if you are from -- the Motor City or other parts of the country where rust affects many cars.
This important segment of Arizona history and tradition is getting a boost from the State Legislature this year. HB2357 seeks to exempt collectible vehicles and motorcycles from emissions testing. So far, the legislation has met with unanimous approval from two committees, including the Environment Committee.
I am and will remain an ardent supporter throughout its progress. This bill manages to lower costs for classic car owners without appreciably losing any emissions reductions in the state. If this bill becomes law, it will be a huge victory for both car collectors and the Arizona economy.
The economic benefits are two-fold. First, exempting car collectors from emissions testing will save them the cost of the testing fees. Second, this law will make Arizona even more appealing to car collectors seeking a haven from emissions testing in other states.
This is particularly important considering the recent success of the just-completed Barrett-Jackson car auction. The popular event that draws thousands of tourists and buyers from all over the world brought in more than $60 million in sales – a record year.
Most of the cars would fall under the provisions of the bill.
The economic benefits of HB2357 do not end there. An increase in the number of collector vehicles in Arizona will translate directly into higher sales in associated industries, such as aftermarket parts. According to some statistics, this alone is a $30 billion-a-year industry.
An increase in the number of collector cars and motorcycles in Arizona will greatly boost the state and local economies.
The bill does not change any other aspect of the state’s current emissions testing practices. And the state remains dedicated to reducing particulates in the air.
The exempted vehicles in this bill make up a very small portion of Arizona vehicles and have a relatively minimal environmental impact. Collectible vehicles are defined in HB2357 as those 15 years old or older that are maintained primarily for car club activities, exhibitions and parades. Owners of such vehicles must also possess appropriate insurance coverage, which usually limit the use of such cars.
Passage of HB2357, first in the House and then the Senate, would be a tremendous coup for the state. We have a wonderful opportunity to improve the quality of our state in multiple ways by getting in gear and passing this bill.
I was thumbing through the Voters Education Guide that came to my house and I came across your Candidate Statement and was pulled to your website. After visiting your site for some time, I was glad I signed on. I must say I share many of your stands on issues. I was very drawn to the article about forest and fires in your op-eds.
I have been very concerned about water supply in the Southwest for some time. I’d like to ask you if you can direct me to more information on the President's Healthy Forests Act. I have wanted to write someone in Washington about some views I have had for a while now. I hope it is okay if I start here with you.
We have a big ocean out there and I need to understand why we pump oil and gas in pipes underground everywhere but we do not chose to pump ocean water through pipes to designated water stations everywhere in the mountains so when a flame sparks the fire fighters have water standing by like we do in our cities.
We also have lived with this drought from Alaska to Mexico for about nine years now. We watch on the nightly news reports of houses floating down the Ohio and Mississippi rivers and then those waters just run out into the ocean. Instead of controlling those flood conditions as they occur by moving the flood waters through pump stations that filter the water along a westward route to help bring relief to this dry Southwestern region with the key reason being that our farmers can take full advantage of our agriculture abilities here in our Great State of Arizona.
I’ll even bet the pump stations could even be located in towns along the way that could use a few more jobs!
Thanks for doing what you do,In the last two years, Americans have witnessed the catastrophic effects of a national forest policy taken hostage by extreme environmentalists bent on preventing the thinning of a single tree. The list of catastrophic fires reads like battles in a great war-the Aspen Fire in Tucson, the Cedar and Paradise Fires in California, and of course, the Rodeo-Chediski Fire in Northern Arizona.
Between the Rodeo-Chediski Fire and the recent California fires alone, over a million acres of pristine forest has burned, not to mention nearly 3000 homes and twenty lives. This unparalleled devastation rivals our nation’s most disastrous earthquakes, hurricanes, and tornadoes in its economic and human cost.
Yet, if one listens to the environmental groups who use litigation to prevent modest forest thinning, one would think that the greatest threat to our forests comes from the Forest Service itself. According to the extremists, forest rangers who clear brush and cut down dangerously dense trees are the true enemy-not fire.
In fact, it is the environmental extremists’ own policies that allowed minor fires to become cataclysms that burned an unprecedented number of trees, homes, and lives. By repeatedly suing the Forest Service and effectively preventing thinning projects, extreme environmental groups have allowed our forests to become choked with brush and small trees that turn small fires into natural disasters.
Where these groups are unable to sue, fires are not nearly as devastating. On the San Carlos Apache Reservation, a recent fire was easily contained in areas that had already been thinned by the Tribe.
The first step in our efforts to protect the forests must be the adoption of the President’s Healthy Forests Act. This modest measure allows judges who preside over thinning litigation to consider the damage of potential fire in the forest as well as the potential damage of thinning when issuing a decision. Currently, judges are only allowed to consider the effects of thinning, resulting in decisions that protect bird habitats at the expense of a healthy forest.
Without the Healthy Forest Act, federal law will continue to put our forests at risk. For example, even after the Rodeo-Chediski Fire, out-of-state environmental groups sued to prevent the Forest Service from thinning burned, dead trees. Their litigation allowed a devastating bark beetle infestation to spread and kept our forest communities from under threat of fire.
Only last summer-over a year after the fire-did a federal judge finally overrule the environmentalists’ objections and allow the Forest Service to begin thinning projects on land burned by Rodeo-Chediski.
As Vice-Chairman of the Environment Committee at the State House of Representatives, I have become increasingly alarmed by the deteriorating conditions in our forests and our government’s inability to take action. While the state can and will do everything in its power to rectify the situation, the federal government must institute reforms to truly make a difference.
It’s for this reason that I urge all Arizonans to support the President’s Health Forests Act.
Let’s bring common sense back to our forest policies.
A few years ago, the Arizona legislature passed into law strong protections of Arizona's vulnerable adults. Chief among those protected by this law are people who reside in our state's nursing homes. Virtually every Arizonan joined the bipartisan legislative support for this law as a strong statement that we will not tolerate intentional harm done to those who cannot protect themselves.
While this law has given us a great tool to protect nursing home patients and other vulnerable adults from intentional abuse, it has also produced some unintended consequences. Some attorneys, including several from outside Arizona, have taken advantage of some of the technicalities in the law and have used the law to enrich themselves at significant cost to Arizona's nursing homes.
Arizona's Medical Malpractice Act provides protection to patients in hospitals and nursing homes when mistakes are made that harm them. Patients are protected from mistakes like receiving the wrong medication, getting decubitus ulcers (bed sores), and falling and being injured. Patients can file malpractice lawsuits and, if they prove that the provider of care was negligent or did not provide the community standard of care, they can receive compensation.
The unintended consequence of Arizona's vulnerable adult abuse law is that some plaintiffs' attorneys are using this law against nursing homes when they make an unintentional mistake or when their care doesn't meet the level of care considered to be the community standard. They do this because the law provides them some advantages they don't have under the medical malpractice act. Under the vulnerable adult law, it's easier for plaintiffs' lawyers to assert that an innocent mistake amounted to abuse than it is to prove medical malpractice. And, because the law allows attorneys' feels to be awarded only to the plaintiff-unlike other laws that allow the court to award attorneys' fees to the plaintiff or the defendant, whoever prevails-there is a perverse incentive for plaintiffs' attorneys to drive up the legal costs in vulnerable adult abuse cases. In fact, there have been some cases in which the court awarded attorneys' fees in amount that exceeded the damages by tenfold.
Unless the Legislature acts to curb these lawsuits, many of Arizona's nursing homes fear they can no longer afford to stay in business. Some facilities have already closed, citing the rash of vulnerable adult abuse claims and rising medical liability insurance as a leading cause. As Arizonans continue to age, as we begin to seek nursing homes to care for our grandparents, parents and someday ourselves, will they be there? It is time for the Legislature to face the reality that the unintended consequences of a well-intentioned law threaten the well being of the very citizens we seek to protect.
House Bill 2439 addresses these unintended consequences. It continues the protection that patients enjoy under Arizona's medical malpractice act, but it limits the reach of the vulnerable abuse law to those intentional acts of abuse from which we all want to protect seniors and other fragile patients. We owe our most vulnerable citizens nothing less.
This has not been a good year for Arizona's teen drivers. We've all watched in horror as pictures of tragic crashes involving teenagers play across our TV screens. Although teens make up only 2.5 percent of Arizona drivers, they are involved in more than 8 percent of crashes resulting in injury or fatality. Last year, teen car crashes claimed 72 lives in Arizona and cost the state economy approximately $411 million. In fact, traffic crashes are the leading cause of death for young people 15 to 20 years old.
Why are our children involved in all these crashes? First they are inexperienced. They've just started driving and have not yet learned to cope with dangerous highway situations. Second, they are kids! They are smart, inquisitive, and full of life, but they are also immature, easily distracted, prone to bad judgment, and subject to by peer pressure.
This legislative session, I am working with AAA Arizona, which has put together a coalition of concerned citizen groups, medical professionals, and law enforcement to sponsor a bill enhancing our current Graduated Driver License (GDL) law to make it effective at saving teen lives. Thirty-six states have already turned to GDL systems to bring down teen crashes and fatalities, in some cases, by as much as 50%. GDL systems are designed to phase in teen drivers, letting them learn to drive under lower risk conditions, then gradually exposing them to more complex driving situations (such as night-time driving, or carrying passengers) as they gain experience and maturity.
First, to the matter of nighttime driving: Our bill would limit teens from driving between the hours of 10 p.m. and 5 a.m., but it would not stop teens from driving at night with a parent or 25-year-old adult, nor would it stop them from driving home after a school function or from work.
Now, how about teen passengers? Studies show that the crash risk to a teen driver skyrockets as the number of teen passenger increases. In fact, with three teen passengers and no adult, the risk of a crash is nearly triple that of a teen driving alone!
This legislation would limit the number of teen passengers a teen driver could carry to one -- unless a parent or adult is with them. But, this bill would allow teens to chauffeur their siblings around -- as many of their younger brothers or sisters as there are seat belts. We believe this is a reasonable accommodation to busy families who need help getting the kids to their activities, but want their teen drivers protected while they learn. GDL should not be an impediment to parents - it is a tool for them to use to teach and protect their children.
Here's something new: Under this legislation, teen drivers who maintain a clean driving record for one year would have the limits lifted. That's right, good teen drivers would have the same driving privileges as everyone else. That's a real incentive for teens to drive -- and learn -- safely.
It has not been a good year for Arizona's teen drivers, but you know what? No year has been. It's time to change that.
How can you help?
Write, email, or call your state representatives or members of the House Transportation Committee and ask them to support HB 2505, amending the driver license statute. To read more about GDL and locate members of the Transportation Committee, go to AAA Arizona's web site.