The initial step in the Master Plan Update for Tucson International Airport is the identification of a series of goals and objectives that will establish guidelines for the planning process. These goals and objectives reflect the input of the Tucson Airport Authority, the Long Range Planning Council, the Airport’s Planning Advisory Committee, and the Airport’s Consultants. The Goals and Objectives will ultimately form the framework for evaluating the recommended long-range development plan and ensuring that the on-going development of the airport is consistent with the airport’s overall strategic objectives.

This update of the Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport Master Plan has been undertaken to evaluate the airport's capabilities and role, to review forecasts of future aviation demand, and to plan for the timely development of new or expanded facilities that may be required to meet that demand. The ultimate goal of the master plan is to provide systematic guidelines for the airport's overall development, maintenance, and operation.

Arizona is one of the states in which the high-wage end of the employment distribution provides a more favorable impression of its job quality than that based on all employment. Thus, Arizona’s subpar job quality is not due to a scarcity of high-wage jobs, but instead results from lesser job quality in the remainder of the employment distribution. In particular, Arizona has an above-average share of very low-paying jobs that serve tourists and seasonal residents. In turn, the low overall average wage in Arizona — 7 percent less than the U.S. average — primarily results from factors other than job quality. The average wage in Arizona is less than the U.S. average in the vast majority of industries and occupations, both high- and low-paying.

Education decisions are among the most important choices people ever make. So we were surprised and disappointed to see an article so loosely reasoned and reckless in its conclusions as “Five Reasons to Skip College” published in Blank Slate at Forbes.com on April 18, 2006. The article never provides a numerical assessment of the costs and benefits of going to college, uses statistics inappropriately and in a way that biases the conclusions against college, contains conceptual errors on how to evaluate the return on a college education, and greatly exaggerates the only substantive criticism of typical evaluations of the financial worth of a college degree.