Is Matt turning libertarian? Perhaps it's TIME.

To take the partisanship out of this, I made sure I wrote libertarian with a small "l", in part because I am at work right now (although it is lunch time), and, well, even if I weren't at work I would not confess to joining the Libertarian Party. My thoughts on that political party can be saved for another time. I am a strong believer in funding necessary government services, but I am also a believer in well-run government. I worked on an efficiency review of state government under Governor Napolitano, and I very much agree with her and the business community on the need for more money to pay for infrastructure as Arizona grows, because growth does not pay for itself. But I have increasing concerns about the TIME Coalition, which is seeking to raise Arizona's sales tax by 18% (an additional percentage point) to pay for transportation projects over the next 30 years. After a deal the Governor made with homebuilders to support the transportation initiative in exchange for not funding the initiative through a tax on homebuilders, now non-profit groups of gamers (not the video kind, but the kind with real guns) and environmentalists will have tax money funneled into their organizations to protect some of the wildlife and game that is killed off by motorists when we put new highways through their habitat. I am not opposed to using some tax money to help protect wildlife, but when the Arizona Department of Game and Fish is not consulted on how the initiative would impact wildlife, some out there are going to wonder if the TIME folks are just using public money to buy support from various groups for their initiative. Of course, without that kind of buy off (or buy in, depending on your point of view), initiatives don't usually pass. But again, the average consumer is going to be stuck with the bill for sprawl and growth, and the industries who profit off of sprawl will not have to pay for any of its costs.

My bigger concern is not a few million for non-profit groups to do wildlife conservation. I just quetions whether I-40 needs to be 6 lanes through Holbrook, or I-10 needs to be 6 lanes through Willcox. But again, would rural voters pay the tax if they didn't get something out of it?

Will California gay marriage ruling lead to "marriage amendment" in Arizona?

With the court ruling this week in our neighboring state of California that same sex couples shall be allowed to wed, you might think that would speed up plans to put on the Arizona ballot this fall (again) a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman. A bill to put such a constitutional amendment on this fall's ballot has been moving through the legislature, but so far Senate President Tim Bee, who is running for Congress in a very competitive district in southern Arizona once represented by openly gay Republican Jim Kolbe, has not brought the bill up for a final Senate vote. He has said he will not deal with anything referring proposals to this fall's ballot until after the Legislature and the Governor have agreed to a budget, which apparently won't be anytime soon. Bee publicly has his priorities right, but Representative Jonathan Paton, a Republican who is seeking to replace Bee in the Senate when he leaves, has said that Bee may not bring the "marriage amendment" up for a vote at all. If a constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man-one woman is on this fall's ballot, look for Representative Kyrsten Sinema, a central Phoenix Democrat, to put an initiative on the ballot banning discrimination in hiring and public accommodations against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered persons.

Why are we afraid of a highway across North America?

Maybe I am just not enough of a conspiracy theorist lately. As one who likes to occasionally vacation in Mexico, one foreign country where my American dollar is still worth something, I really do not understand how building a superhighway linking Canada, the United States, and Mexico means that we are necessarily moving toward world government and a loss of sovereignty. Apparently it is a major concern of a majority of Arizona's state Senators. Now if only these people could do something important, like pass a budget so our entire state doesn't close down on July 1.

Another legislator retires for financial reasons

Representative Jennifer Burns, a moderate Republican from southern Arizona, announced that she will not seek re-election, saying that the $24,000 salary makes the job very difficult. Burns is one of the few in our legislature who actually devotes most of her time to her job serving Arizonans, while many other legislators have outside income from jobs they do when the legislature is not in session. Many of those legislators with outside jobs spend their time at the legislature working for legislation that benefits their industry. Jennifer Burns has been a rare, refreshing exception, fighting for the best interests of her constituents, as she sees their best interests anyway, instead of her own gain. But her district is larger than many states, and driving her Jeep around meeting with constituents is not getting any cheaper. She says she is considering going into lobbying, where she can make considerably more money. Her district is Democratic-leaning territory, perhaps making it a little easier for Democrats to gain the seats they need to take control of the Arizona House of Representatives for the first time in over 40 years. Still, a Democratic House is a bit of a longshot.