St. Luke's Health Initiatives and the Flinn Foundation strive to make Arizona a better place to live for all of its residents. Despite our state's assets, Arizona has many issues to address, with health and poverty among the most important. Our organizations have been pleased to sponsor the state capacity research that provided the background and impetus for "More Promises to Keep: Sustaining Arizona's Capacity for Welfare and Health Reform." St. Luke's Health Initiatives and the Flinn Foundation view the information and analysis provided in this report as a good way to stimulate discussion of health and welfare policy options and community actions. Research and dialogue are essential steps in the process of constructive change, as is communication with the public. We urge readers to consider the ideas presented in this paper and to continue to work together to improve the health and welfare of all Arizonans.

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.

Despite all of the spending reductions, fund transfers, and other techniques used to balance the budget in the preceding few years, Arizona’s general fund faces a massive deficit. This issue of Policy Points poses an important question: Are you content with the historically low expenditures being made from the general fund and satisfied that the current low level of public services will be permanent?

Arizona is emerging from one of the worst state budget crises in the nation. Entering 2003, its projected deficit, measured as a percentage of the general fund, was the fifth largest in the country.1 The state had slashed spending in 2002 in the face of a $900 million deficit, but still faced a $400 million shortfall for fiscal year 2003 and an estimated $1 billion deficit in fiscal 2004. Although improved revenues have reduced the anticipated gap, fundamental underlying problems remain concerning the ability of lawmakers to control the budget. Some observers consider this a revenue problem, others a spending problem. Our concern in this paper is whether state lawmakers have enough control over either revenue or spending.