Making Welfare Work: Reforming Arizona's Welfare System to Help Families and Save MoneyPosted on March 04, 2010 | Type: Policy Report | Author: Katherine K. Bradley
Like many states, Arizona is grappling with a historic budget shortfall and faces complex decisions about what programs and services to reduce or eliminate. In response to the 2010 budget, the Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES) made a series of cuts, including $13.5 million in the Cash Assistance welfare program. The state was wise not to cut welfare-to-work programs that are designed to move recipients off the welfare rolls and into self-sufficiency. Arizona should consider additional no-cost policies that would further save the state money and increase the number of people leaving welfare for gainful employment.
Budget Reduction Opportunities 2010Posted on March 03, 2010 | Type: Policy Report | Author: Byron Schlomach
In September 2009, Governor Jan Brewer asked each state agency to present a plan to reduce their budgets by 15 percent. The following is an assessment of each agency’s plan and whether there are more opportunities for savings. The departments are arranged in the order in which they appear in the master list of programs from the Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting. Most stand-alone boards and commissions, the so-called 90/10 agencies, are not included since they are self-funded through user fees.
Health Care Freedom Act Q and APosted on February 02, 2010 | Type: Policy Report | Author: Clint Bolick
The Health Care Freedom Act will appear as a proposed constitutional amendment on Arizona’s 2010 election ballot, and similar measures are under consideration in more than 30 other states. With the possibility that Congress will enact some sort of national health insurance legislation, questions are being raised about the scope of the Health Care Freedom Act and its effect should a federal bill become law. Clint Bolick, who helped to author the Health Care Freedom Act, answers frequently asked questions.
Reconsidering McDonald v. Chicago: How the 14th Amendment Obliges States to Protect the Fundamental Right to Bear ArmsPosted on February 02, 2010 | Type: Policy Report | Author: Nick Dranias
For decades, debate has raged over whether the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the individual right to keep and bear arms. In its landmark 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. Many assumed that lower courts would take the next logical step of “incorporation”—recognizing that the right to keep and bear arms, like the right to free speech, is among the fundamental liberties the Fourteenth Amendment protects against contrary state and local laws. But so far, two of the three federal courts of appeals considering Second Amendment cases have refused to apply it to the states. The U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second and Seventh Circuits claim that their hands are tied by century-old Supreme Court decisions—specifically, United States v. Cruikshank (1876), Presser v. Illinois (1886), and Miller v. Texas (1894)—that did not expressly apply the Second Amendment to the states.
Nonprofits in Health Care: Are They More Efficient and Effective?Posted on January 26, 2010 | Type: Policy Report | Author: Byron Schlomach
Too often “profit” is equated with “greed.” The word implies to many an unrelenting seeking of gain, even at the expense and suffering of others. This reasoning implies that one man’s profit is derived from another man’s loss.