Definition of IceArizona's insanity...say the same thing over and over again, and expecting people to believe it...
But sometimes crazy like a fox. Have you noticed that among all of the rosy projections of development and jobs in LeBlanc's two proposals for new arenas (the ASU and the "location-agnostic" versions), he never once made a claim you might expect - that Arizona would benefit from the new taxes raised? I mean, if there's going to be all this new development "that wouldn't have occurred were it not for the Coyotes," as he phrased it, it would stand to reason AZ would collect some new net tax revenue, correct?
Well, he can't say that, and here's why:
If there's a Senate vote later in the week, it will be when the Senate is meeting as a "Committee of the Whole." They function like a committee so they can take amendments, if offered. I think at that level, passage only requires a majority of those voting. So let's say three of the Senators go to a Canucks game and get the mumps and have to be absent, the bill could hypothetically pass by a 14-13 vote.
Later (at least a day later, by Senate rules), there would be another vote, called Third Reading. This is the final vote and requires a majority of the full Senate, or 16 votes.
But there's a provision in AZ law that says if a bill would increase revenue to the state, it requires a 2/3rds vote, or 20 Senators out of the 30. This rule presumably exists to protect the taxpayer - if taxes or fees are going to be raised for the state's coffers, it makes it harder to pass, and thus, is protective of the taxpayer.
Now, taxes would be raised under SB1149 - the 2% additional sales tax. But the crafters of the bill have made sure it doesn't "increase the revenue to the state," at least on a net basis. Because 1/2 of that 2% sales tax increase is used to pay off the bonds the state would be putting up for $170 million in arena construction costs.
And what about the other 1/2 of the 2% sales tax? Well, IA conveniently collects that from the state to pay their own $170 million of the construction costs. So in writing the bill this way, IA graciously is preventing the state of AZ from incurring additional revenue . . . and by the way, requiring a 20-vote supermajority in the Senate that would make it much harder to pass!
So how can the state raise sales taxes by 2% and not increase net revenue to the state?? Give half of it away to IA, that's how! Just IA helping make this all a little easier on everybody!
