Good evenin and welcome to Arizona Horizon.

I'm Ted Simons.

Among the proposed measures on November's general election ballot is proposition 316, which looks to restrict taxes on groceries.

And joining us now is State Representative Leo, who supports the proposition.

And we should note that we invited prop 316 opponents to join the discussion.

But those invitations were declined.

We thank you for joining us.

Good to have you here.

Thanks for having me.

So what exactly does prop 316 call for?

So what we're trying to do is I think everyone can agree grocery prices are through the roof.

They have been for a while right?

Under both administrations I think we haven't seen any kind of relief.

So this bill was first trying to bring relief to families that are trying to buy groceries and put food on the table.

So this bill only applie to really the essential foods.

You go to the grocery store.

So bread, milk, eggs.

And it's saying is we I don't believe that there should be a tax on something like essential groceries on those foods.

So this doesn't touch fas food, doesn't touch restaurants.

This is literally just food you're going to get from the grocery store.

So what we're doing is we're saying, look, we're going to put a sto to this, the state of Arizona.

We remove this tax as a state.

But of course, cities and towns got creative.

They started to add this tax at the local jurisdiction.

So we are now saying, look if you're a local jurisdiction you have this tax, we're freezing it.

And then anything moving forward can never be more than 2%.

If you go to the ballot a the local level to approve it.

So cities can't up the sales tax by more than 2% over the base price.

And if it's already at 2%, that's it.

That's ball game.

You can't do anymore, right?

That's correct.

And there's also in here, if you're at 1% and you want to get it to 2%, you need to have a vote on it, correct?

Yeah.

And that's something we can do, a compromise.

If it was up to me, I would get rid of the tax altogether.

I think it's a regressive tax.

I think it's just a bad tax in general.

But the legislature is, you know, doing these shows.

It's all about compromise.

How do you get to a point where we can all agree?

So the agreement was we're going to let them keep it, but if they want to raise it, they have to go to their local voters and prove their point and go to the ballot at the local level to approve it up to 2% max again.

And if a city wants to g 3% or wants to go 4%, you can't.

It doesn't matter wha the voters say, it stops at two.

What if you are already at four stops?

They're no more.

Correct?

So right now, anybody who is at four because I think the highest one is 4% right now it's frozen.

At that rate.

They can never go higher.

They can never go to the ballot to to go higher than the 4% they're at.

So they're literally stuck at that percentage moving.

Forward retroactive to this year like July.

Yeah.

So 2025 was when.

Oh 2025 okay.

So you had to do it before then you had to raise it to whatever you wanted.

So I don't know if any citizen towns did that.

But yeah.

Moving forward now if this passes the ballot frozen.

Why i this a good thing for Arizona?

I think the biggest thing to say is let's say you're on food stamps.

Snap.

We already don't tax food at all.

Does it matter where you're at?

Does it matter what city doesn't matter.

They do not get taxed at all.

The reason it's such a great thing is I thought to myself, A lot of people don't qualify for Snap or food stamps, but we believe that they shouldn't be taxed if you are.

I think we all should be treated the same, right?

If you're able to save somebody two, three, $400 a year, you're talking about sending your kid to soccer, your daughter to ballet.

That's putting more money into the pockets of every Arizona citizen to think they were taxing something that you need to survive, like food.

It just doesn't seem like the the right thing to do, in my opinion.

And yet critics will say that rural areas, smaller cities, they're going to get hit especially hard.

Some of these places don't have property taxes.

I mean, you can raise property taxes in certain spots to make up for this loss of funding.

But some of these smaller towns, they don't have that.

Does it make sense to do something like this?

If it means they're just going to turn around and institute a property tax?

Yeah.

I mean, I think one of the biggest pushbacks I got from city mayors, that's exactly what you said.

They said, you know, this funds our police, this funds are fire.

And so I did research.

I wanted to make sure.

And then I realize that's not necessarily the case.

So 70 of the 90 roughly cities have attacks on their food about 20 or so.

Do not.

When you look at those 20 cities that do not have a food tax at all, you're talking my hometown, Lake Havasu City, Kingman, Arizona.

Bouse salon.

Quartzite.

City of Phoenix, city of Tucson, so big and small do not have a food tax.

So I push back and say, okay if a small city like let's say quartzite, Arizona, how are they able to do it without a food tax?

How are they able to survive?

How can they pay for their police?

So to me it's a spending problem, not a revenue problem, because you see it from al all sides of the aisle, right?

Big cities, small citie are doing it without a food tax.

But are you saying it's a spending problem that includes infrastructure.

It includes public safety public services, all of these.

That's wha the cities and towns are saying.

They're saying.

And again, some can handle this better than others.

Does it make sense to do a blanket 2%.

That's it.

That's ball game.

Yeah.

Because for me it would be zero right.

And because I've seen it I see cities that are small that maybe don't have the revenue like Phoenix.

Phoenix not having one makes 100% sounds right.

They have a lot of revenue coming in.

But how you have the argument, how do you push back when you say a city like quartzite or Lake Havasu or Kingman?

They don't have one but they still have the revenue.

To have the police to have the fire have the essential services.

They're not complaining.

They're not coming back and pushing back.

None of them have fought back on this at all, that they can never put a food tax in.

They said, look, we can handle it.

We're generating revenue to t supply monies for these things.

So I don't see that as being a good argument.

And yet some would say and critics would say that's quartzites decision.

Quartzite made that decision and they went with it.

And the voters voted in the people that made the decision.

And they keep those people in there.

But other areas, they have local leaders who see things differently.

And again the emphasis on the word local.

Why should the state, in this case, by way of statute, through a measure, come in and tell a local municipality something as basic as this?

Right.

And I think the biggest counter that's going to be I'm a firm believer as a Republican.

Right.

The more money you have in your pocket as a resident, the better off you are.

I just I don't think the government knows how to spend money better than anybody else.

So this is why the compromise was made.

Let's let the local jurisdiction decide.

And even with this ballot referral, I'm letting the people of Arizona decide, do you want to move forward in ending this tax and putting a cap on this tax?

If you don't, you can vote no.

But I think majority are going to agree.

You can tax us on things like TVs or cars or these other items.

But when you talk about food we're we're already singling out of population of snap.

Why are we.

Why are we punishing somebody else who doesn't maybe qualify and they have to pay the tax.

But that brings me back to my other question is why?

Why should the state be involved in a city's budget?

Sure.

So that's wha the legislature is for, right?

And we do it all the time.

We do it.

We make laws.

Is that a good thing?

Is that a good.

Thing when we have to?

Yes.

And when it comes to taxing 100%, I think sometimes we need to step in and say, look, you are over reaching o something like increasing taxes.

This is why the stat got rid of it completely before.

So the state doesn't charge, right?

So now we saw the cities get creative and something I think we intended on stopping a long time ago.

They have got creative.

And they said we're going to do it at the local level.

This is why I think sometimes you have to step in.

Same with housing.

We've tried.

We do it a lot where we step in and say, right, right you know, whether it's Airbnbs.

So sometimes you have to step in, I believe at the state government to solve some problems.

So last question.

When opponents and critics of this say you mentioned overreach they're saying this is a state overreach here as Republicans don't like federal overreach.

This is state overreach.

Let's go on.

How do you square that, sir?

I think you come back and say, if I was going to come in and say you have to raise taxes, you have an argument, I'm coming in and saying, stop with the overreach to the cities and towns.

Let's be reasonable.

2% is I think I think it's too much.

I'll get rid of it completely.

But something I think the government needs to come in and say, slow your roll.

The local authorities, this is food talking about food.

So overreach is defined in many different ways.

Representative Leo agai in support of proposition 316.

So good to see you.

Appreciate you.

Thank you.