Related articles:

State Representative, District 23: Democrat: Barbara McGuireState Representative, District 27: Democrat: Phil LopesState Representative, District 23: Democrat: Ernest BustamanteState Representative, District 30: Democrat: Andrea DalessandroState Representative, District 26: Democrat: Nancy Young WrightState Representative, District 26: Democrat: Don JorgensenState Senate, District 23: Democrat: Rebecca RiosState Representative, District 25: Democrat: Patricia 'Pat' FlemingState Representative, District 29: Democrat: Daniel PattersonState Representative, District 27: Democrat: Olivia Cajero Bedford

General
MEDLEY COMMUNICATIONS
INSTALLATION PROFESSIONAL General
Drexel Height Fire District
Firefighter Part Time Employment
AVIVA Children's Services
Monitor: Parent-Child Visits

Name: Richard Boyer

Office seeking: State Representative, District 25

Party registration: Democrat

Age: 64

Occupation/employer: Associate professor of business and judicial and public administration — Wayland Baptist University.

Family: Katherine (Kathy) — spouse; Holly Jean Bajar — married daughter; Matthew Boyer — son, engineer

Religion: Protestant

Income: $64,000

Residence: Hereford

Education: Juris Doctor, University of Maine, and bachelors in general studies (major — business administration; dual minors — economics/military science)

Offices held/run for: Candidate, Arizona Corporation Commission (2006); chief judge (magistrate), Bisbee (2003 – 2006); New Hampshire state Senate (three terms, 1980-1986); chairman, New Hampshire Democratic Party (1981–1983); New Hampshire state representative

Civic activities/organizations: Member, American Society for Public Administration (2007 – present); member, American Bar Association (1974 – Present); member, Section of Dispute Resolution, ABA (Present); member, Military Officers Association of America (2008)

Why are you running? In response to the call of the the Arizona Democratic Party to be one of their two District 25 candidates as a way of doing my part by contributing my experience as a recovering attorney, former legislator and now university professor in formulating and implementing public policy to move Arizona forward.

The biggest issue facing my constituents is: There are two that are inextricably tied to each other; Arizona's economy and budget

Favorite local hangout: Turquoise Valley, Naco

NPR or FOX? NPR

How long have you lived in Arizona? Going on 8 years

What kind of vehicle do you drive? What kind of mileage does it get? 2003 Ford F-150 pickup, 18 mpg

If I could have dinner with any living person, I would choose: Other than my wife, Katherine, it would be Tiger Woods

If I had my own reality show, it would be titled: "The Great 'Clean' Elections Campaign"

First job: Laborer for heating and AC contractor

It would be a combination of targeted tax cuts, particularly real estate taxes, which have been particularly onerous in the rural areas, which dominate LD 25 and corresponding tax increases most likely in Arizona's income tax for folks in the top 20% income brackets, and selected effort at cutting state spending, by consolidating programs and re-examining the state's purchase of capital goods, like vehicles.

(1) Increase teachers' pay tied to merit; (2) smaller classrooms (improve student-teacher ratio); (3) reform funding of education with less dependency on real estate taxes (in recognition of the fact that more than 80 percent of the land in Arizona is in the hands of government and can't be taxed) and move more in the direction of Prop 301 (1/6th to education); (4) revise funding to give rural school districts parity; and (5) revise and improve AIMS, which would include not waiting to the end of the student's high school education to administer it, but rather requiring achievement tests in the last year of junior high to determine whether students are ready to move onto high school and then similar tests at the end of each of the four years of high school, which would be used in part to determine if students should move on to the next level, and then ultimately graduate.

(1) First and foremost, as it stands now Arizona's transportation infrastructure (interstate highways, rail and air) is dominated by the federal government and thus its funding, and regulation or lack thereof. This being the case it is more important than ever, with the federal transportation trust funds shrinking, that pressure continue to be put on our congressional delegation to fight for more than what is perceived as Arizona's fair share in recognition that Arizona experiences more than its share of interstate truck traffic and tourist traffic visiting the numerous national treasures in Arizona and Arizona is a critical segment for interstate truck and auto traffic, from east to west and vice versa; (2) the same can be said for rail traffic, but here in addition to continued to pressure the congressional delegation, the state has a little more wiggle room and an obligation to require more from the railroads, the form of bridges over highways, etc. as they continue to expand in Arizona to meet their growing shipping business traveling to both ends the country, which requires them to go through Arizona ; (3) closely related to this pressure should be put on the congressional delegation to require the nation's railroads to contribute to rebuilding passenger service in recognition that in large part Amtrak was created to relieve the railroads of the non-moneymaking part of their business, which was part of their responsibility until Amtrak, and part of the quid pro quo, for the railroads getting what was then millions of dollars, and now billions of dollars worth of land in the form of rights of way for their tracks that criss-cross the country; (4) on the state level, given the budget shortfalls and their magnitude, it seems that the fairest approach would be the addition of "user" fees, that is tolls, but ideally only in areas where the size of traffic would justify their use, it would relieve existing traffic congestion, and such roads would be in addition to and/or parallel to existing highways so that drivers would have the option of paying the toll to save time and avoid traffic delays. A portion of the tolls collected would obviously go to paying for and maintaining the toll road/bridge, but a certain percentage ought to go toward developing other transportation systems, like commuter service from Tucson to Phoenix and vise versa.

Given the size of the budget, by necessity balancing the state's budget is going to require both increasing taxes (my preference would be on those who are in the best position to afford it, like increasing income tax on the upper income brackets only, and luxury taxes). As far as cutting programs, I would favor further consolidation eliminating unnecessary and/or redundant types of programs, much the same as the governor started to do in the last session. After this, rather than cutting programs, I would favor an across-the-board reduction in spending impacting all departments equally, so that we all share in this burden. In the end, aside from balancing the budget, I'm hoping that the size of the deficit will be the impetus we need to get the state to focus on a long ignored part of the process, the income side of the budget, which for the most part means taxes, and reforming Arizona's 20th century tax system. At the same time Arizona's budgeting process needs to be overhauled, perhaps going to four-year budget, with annual renewals and revisions, that run the length of each governor's term. It seems clear to some experts that the reason that Arizona's budget deficit is the worst in the nation, only a couple years after having record surpluses, is primarily because of an antiquated tax system in combination with a budget process that focuses on the last year's income.

In terms of the big picture it is clear that some expansion is needed, but given the deficit and without knowing the extent of the problem (the cost), this not the time to do it. To this end, knowing that over 60 cents of every health care dollar spent comes from the government, we need to get a handle on how much it will cost and then how much we can afford (as opposed to would like to spend) to spend, while at the same time paying for other essential services. The opposition against universal or health care is that it is socialistic and services will decline; however, we already have a 60% universal system, because the private market has shown it has failed and the only folks that are making money are the insurance companies. In a sense we have the worst of all words we are spending 60% of each dollar spent on health care, but finding that it is buying less and less because we have no control of the costs. It would seem that the two should go hand and hand if we are going to fund health care, whether it is at the 60% level or more, we, government, ought to have a say in the quality, accessibility and cost of services, and that can come from regulation, rather than the vagaries of the marketplace.

No. My view that this is just a red herring, particularly since we already have a law on the books that deals with this, to draw folks attention away from the real issues of the day, like the giant budget deficit and a failing economy.

Since this is primarily a federal issue, pressure needs to continue to be put on the congressional delegation and the involved federal agencies to fulfill their obligation, which includes: (1) securing the border, by the increased BP agents, (2) selected and targeted use of the "fence" to include the virtual fence, (3) augmenting BP with use of military personnel, to include National Guard units (3) increased prosecution (as opposed to catch and release) (4) appropriate sentencing (5) real cost reimbursement to hospitals and medical personnel for treatment provided to illegals (5) real cost reimbursement to border area county, city and town law enforcement for additional enforcement efforts needed in response to illegal immigration (6) implement, revise and use current guest-worker program (7) move checkpoints closer to the border, perhaps no further than 10 miles from the border (8) continue to have local law enforcement arrest illegals for violation of local and state laws, with an emphasis on prevention of violent crimes and (8) adopt and include in BP training and other law enforcement training, the idea that they are also ambassadors for our country.

(1) We begin with it is one of the state's primary responsibilities to have statewide water and air quality standards (2) in terms of water there are too many agencies involved, and this needs to be consolidated into one agency, that is responsible for insuring the quality and quantity of water to all Arizonans (2) we need to have an inventory of all the state's water, including quality, and availability/quantity, (3) we need a water plan, what we can use, what areas can be developed, etc. and how their use will affect availability, etc. (4) in terms of natural open space preservation, normally that is a local issue, but the state Legislature needs to make sure that local government has the tools via enabling legislation, like zoning, and impact and development fees, to properly manage sustainable growth (5) in doing this the Legislature ought to also consider if there are some issues re: open-space preservation, that might be better handled at the state level as they involve what is in the best interest of the whole state, like for example a statewide night-sky ordinance, given the state's interest and reputation for viewing the stars and universe, which while is an enjoyable pastime also means millions of dollars to the state, as has been experienced by Kitt Peak observatory and more recently by U of A's involvement in the Mars probe.