160

Arizona faces a $1 billion deficit as the state Legislature opens the 2024 session (apnews.com)

submitted 10 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

24 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A steep budget deficit caused by plummeting tax revenues and escalating school voucher costs will be in focus Monday as Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs and the Republican-controlled Arizona Legislature return for a new session at the state Capitol.

The Legislative new year officially begins in the afternoon with the governor’s annual State of the State address The goal is to wrap up the legislative session within 100 days, but lawmakers typically go until May or June, especially when there are difficult problems to negotiate like a budget shortfall.

The state had a budget surplus of $1.8 billion a year ago. But it now has a shortfall of about $400 million for the current fiscal year and another $450 million shortfall the year after.

A tax cut approved by legislators in 2021 and signed into law by Hobbs’ Republican predecessor, Gov. Doug Ducey, replaced the state’s graduated income tax with a flat tax that took full effect last year. Arizona subsequently saw a decrease of over $830 million in revenues from income taxes, marking a nearly 30% decline from July through November.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] ThrowawayInTheYear23@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Economists who have researched this topic for decades have found that the rosy economic impacts teams promise rarely pan out. "Though findings have become more nuanced, recent analyses continue to confirm the decades-old consensus of very limited economic impacts of professional sports teams and stadiums," the Kennesaw State University professor J.C. Bradbury and his coauthors concluded in a February 2022 review of more than three decades of studies on economic impacts of stadiums. Even when adding in social benefits from stadium investments, welfare improvements from hosting teams tend to fall well short of how much the government spent to obtain it. Put simply, the authors found, "the large subsidies commonly devoted to constructing professional sports venues are not justified as worthwhile public investments."

[-] agitatedpotato@lemmy.world -4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

You're repeating general findings and applying them to a deal with specifics you refuse to understand or even respond too. 200 million barely covers the restoration of the landfill, and more of this offer was privately funded than any other stadium offers period. There simply has not been a better deal for the cities in any major american professional sport than this one, so if you really dislike stadiums seeping public funds maybe support the ones that use less of it. Still waiting to see how much it's gonna cost taxpayers to clean and reclaim that land on their own burden.

Rich people are not going to stop building stadiums, the government will not stop subsidizing rich peoples anything. This whole debacle says 'dont bother sweetening the deal, stick with what was working because if they're gonna say no, they will say no.'

[-] ThrowawayInTheYear23@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

this post was submitted on 08 Jan 2024

160 points (96.5% liked)

politics

19087 readers

3716 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News