It took Arizona three months to reach 20,000 cases of COVID19. After Governor Dour Ducey opened up the economy in early May, it took only three weeks to add another 20,000 cases. Arizona now has the WORST outbreak of COVID19 in the nation.
In addition to our state’s disregard for solid public health policies, such as a longer shelter in place directive or wearing masks in public, the state government has been shamefully slow and stingy in distribution of aid. Only 6 percent of the 16,000 Arizonans who applied for eviction relief have received it, and renters face an eviction cliff in mid-July if the Governor doesn’t act. Distribution of unemployment, pandemic unemployment, and federal aid that passes through the Governor’s office has been equally slow and minimalist. What is the point of forcing more strife onto people? Why the slow distribution of funds?
Today’s video is about HB2409, small business investment tax credit extension. This is also known as the Angel Investor Tax Credit. In the big scheme of tax giveaways in the state of Arizona, this one is sort of small potatoes dollar wise, but I still have issues. It is an extension if $2.5 million per year tax credit for 10 years. The angel tax credits are for “qualified investors,” people who are licensed, trained, and smart enough to play the stock market and make otherwise risky investments wisely because of their expertise. ￼[My layman’s definition.] ￼
I have attended several Bioscience Roadmap events where they showcase research and new discoveries from the universities that are … just …about… ready for market. What they need is venture capital to get the new drug discovery or the next medical device from our universities to production to market.
I am very familiar with this topic because ever since I started my own small business in 1986, I have been writing about or working in public health and medical research. In fact, the first Bioscience Roadmap event that I attended featured Dr. Gene Gerner, Dr. ￼Tom Grogan and the story of how their research at the Arizona Cancer Center blossomed into huge NCI research grants, new drugs, and successful UA spinoff businesses. I knew them, wrote about their research, and photographed them when I worked in the communication office at the cancer center.￼
My point is that I value scientific research and believe that research jobs (and related jobs that come with big grants) are some of the best jobs in our state. One of the reasons that I don’t support the angel investment tax credit is that I found out that only 30% of the funds go to businesses that spinoff from our research universities.￼ Also, there is a $10 million ceiling to qualify as a “small start-up business” (who is eligible to receive funds from angel investors). If your business has $9 million in assets, is it really as “small business start-up”? ￼
Since Dec. 1, newly elected members of the Arizona House have received a whirlwind of invitations for meetings, trainings, luncheons, dinners, tours, coffees, workshops, receptions, BBQs, caucus meetings, briefings, orientations– and more. For half of December, I was out of Tucson — with multiple trips to Phoenix and a field trip to Yuma. On the street, supporters ask me when I start working. Even though the inauguration isn’t until next week, I have been working for weeks as your “representative-elect”.
Instead of publishing a lengthy article on “how I spent my Christmas vacation”, I’m breaking up my December tales into five parts: meetings (not as boring as it sounds), the ADEQ field trip to a defunct gas station, and three segments about the Yuma agricultural tour (92,000 cows, lettuce and birds, and migrant farm workers).
Here is the first installment in the five-part series.
New House Member Orientation
Most of the 23 new Republican and Democratic members of the Arizona House attended an orientation at the Capitol in the beginning of December. We comprise one of the largest (if not the largest) Freshmen classes, since several of us beat incumbents. (Maybe… just maybe… we could break the gridlock mold because we are such a big group.)
The Arizona Clean Elections Commission recently hosted a debate between the three candidates vying for two seats in the Arizona House: Democrats Rep. Randy Friese and Pamela Powers Hannley (me) and Tea Party Republican Ana Henderson.
This debate was the first candidate forum that Henderson participated in with the two Democrats, and it’s likely the last. With 75 or more people from both parties, the debate was well-attended. The audience submitted many great questions. Some questions are asked of all candidates– like education funding, climate change, Prop 205 (marijuana legalization), and Prop 206 (raising the minimum wage).
Below is the video.
If you want to skip through the topics, there’s a list of the high points below.
Tomorrow is the Democratic Party Primary. August 30, 2016 has been in the back of my mind since I created my Pamela Powers Hannley for House Campaign Committee on August 19, 2016.
The campaign has been a heart-warming, physically-demanding, soul-searching, eye-opening, stress-inducing educational experience. Today’s post is not mine, though. It belongs to my supporters. Nine of my supporters– all LD9 voters, including several LD9 precinct committee people– agreed to make testimonial videos.
What do a world-renowned cardiologist, a stay-at-home Mom, two small business owners, two retirees, a college student, a painter, and a jeweler all have in common? They’re all voting for me in the August 30 Democratic Party Primary.
My neighbor and stay-at-home Mom Taundra Copley supports me because she believes that I will help single-income families like hers by raising wages and building a strong and just economy. She believes that families that choose to have one parent stay at home with young children should be able to live without financial hardship or public assistance.
About 50 LD9 residents and Democratic Party regulars attended the Clean Elections primary debate on June 28 with candidates Dr. Randy Friese, Matt Kopec, and me. (The hour-long event was taped by the Clean Elections Commission.)
The debate had an interesting format– much better, in my opinion, that some of those free-ranging presidential debates where each candidate was asked a different question, making it difficult to compare candidates. The format was: one-minute intros, a set of questions that everyone answered (two minutes each), a set of questions written by audience members and addressed to specific candidates or to anyone (one minute each), and one-minute wrap-ups. (Our audience was very involved and submitted many good questions.)
The debate gave me an opportunity to explain my sustainable economic development ideas and talk about my background and other ideas. Here is the excerpt about economic development (29:33 mark):
Economic reform is a big part of my platform. Everything in my platform either raises money or saves money to pay for the things we want like quality education, a solid infrastructure, and good-paying jobs. Public banking is a big part of it, but it’s not the whole part. I really believe that we have suffered under the failed economic policies of trickle down economics and austerity. So, we have largesse for the 1% and austerity for the 99%.
With the idea of public banking, we could bring all or part of our tax dollars back from Wall Street and invest it on Main Street.