Filtering by
- All Subjects: Politics and government
- All Subjects: Finance, Public
- All Subjects: Income
- Creators: Morrison Institute for Public Policy
Per capita earnings in Arizona has been lower than the national average for decades. The 2011 differential of 19 percent is the largest on record; the typical differential has been between 10 and 15 percent. Thus, for residents who have spent some or all of their working life in the state, the state’s historically low per capita earnings help to explain the state’s below-average per capita property income.
Arizona’s electorate – regardless of political party registration – is dissatisfied with state government and its leadership, according to results of a September 2010 Morrison Institute-Knowledge Networks Poll.
Public finance—taxes and other revenues collected by government and the expenditure of those revenues—always has been somewhat controversial because of wide philosophical differences among residents regarding the role that government should play in providing public services and in collecting taxes and fees from its residents. Recently, public finance in Arizona has become a prominent public issue due to the need to resolve the deficits that afflict state government and most county and municipal governments in Arizona.
Examines the size and growth of Arizona’s economy and the productivity and prosperity of its residents. Learn about Arizona’s gross product, occupational mix, per capita personal income, and more.
Numerous tax cuts over the last 15 years have substantially reduced revenue to the Arizona state general fund and greatly narrowed the tax base.
How can we continue to concentrate on such key issues as job creation, education, pollution, the prison system, water management and structural deficits when the incendiary issue of illegal immigration again grabs the headlines?
Focuses on the evolving roles of government by looking at five state and local entities that impact nearly all Arizonans, but are not well-known. The report looks at how these agencies came to be, how their purposes have changed over time, and how the state’s expectations have changed.
Arizonans have gained a reputation for their low opinion of government, despite -- or perhaps because of -- the major role played by all governmental levels in residents’ daily lives. This view was reflected in the responses to this segment of the survey, as panelists generally gave low ratings to the government services they were asked to judge. This was especially true of lower-income panelists. But the respondents’ low ratings might not always have been based upon personal experience: Few panelists said they had sought information from government or community agencies. This may be due to the increasing popularity of the Internet as a self-help source, but it could also mean that relatively few residents need the services or know they are available. In any case, more than half of those who did seek information said they were satisfied with the result. Panelists were not dismissive of all collective efforts at social betterment. They expressed high levels of agreement that good community-based programs can prevent many social problems, from drug and alcohol addiction to child abuse and juvenile delinquency. Asked how they themselves would distribute public funds for social problems, most respondents choose programs for children, affordable housing, and health insurance.
States have always administered federal programs. But, states usually have had very little say in how they carried out programs. All states could generally do was follow the rules laid out by federal agencies. But now, devolution is giving states more power over programs. And, in general, Americans have said that they approve of the idea. A 1998 nationwide poll, funded by The W. K. Kellogg Foundation, showed that a majority of Americans perceive devolution to be a positive development for the country.
Arizona Ideas includes notions large and small, homegrown and borrowed, current and historical. From A-Z, every one -- whether originally born here or adapted from elsewhere-- contributes to the state’s competitive position. Arizona Ideas also explores the roots of Arizona’s tradition of self-criticism --some call it a sense of insecurity or inferiority in comparison to other places -- that often surfaces in discussions of public policy. This observation has provoked considerable debate, but few would deny that this perspective exists. It is time to debate this idiosyncrasy out in the open and find better ways of moving the state ahead.