Carter was neither a sponsor of any of the bills cited nor did her vote have any impact on the outcome
PHOENIX – Desperation seems to be setting in for Rep. Heather Carter, R-Dist. 15, who recently unleashed a new ad campaign with a big photo of three unidentified people on signs that state, “We support Heather” and “Vote Heather Carter.”
The ad campaign is paid for by the Vote Heather Carter Political Action Committee (PAC), of which Carter is the chair and treasurer.
So, basically, Carter is the “we” supporting herself.
Carter has also put up new signs indicating she is endorsed by the chamber of commerce.
Much like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, state and local chambers have become increasingly liberal and beholden to big business, while they no longer devote much effort toward fostering economic growth or creating jobs in the community.
The chamber typically endorses amnesty for illegal aliens to keep wages down, and is usually linked closely to local politics, with overlapping membership with other civic organizations such as Kiwanis.
The chamber often lobbies the legislature on issues of taxation and revenue, as well as subsidies for businesses that relocate, or remain with a subsidy such as reduced taxes.
A recent mailer sent out by Carter claiming she voted to cut taxes, lists bills she voted for, without bothering to mention other bills she voted for to significantly increase taxes, such as the Medicaid expansion bill, as part of Obamacare, which will vastly increase the number of people eligible to enroll in the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS), knowing Arizona taxpayers will have to foot the bill after the first three years of federal funding expires.
Carter was neither a sponsor of any of the bills cited nor did her vote have any impact on the outcome.
However, the bills she did sponsor tell a different story.
For example, Carter was the sole sponsor of HB 2672, tax credit; public school projects, to create the public school innovation project program, with an innovation project selection committee to award project funding on a competitive grant basis.
The bill never made it out of committee.
HB 2599, drug treatment alternative; prison; fund, of which Carter was a prime sponsor along with 10 Democrats and one other Republican, sought to establish a qualified drug treatment alternative to prison programs for persons with multiple drug convictions, or one or more felony convictions, and currently charged with possession of methamphetamine or a nonviolent felony property offense connected with or attributed to drug use.
It too never made it out of committee.
Carter was the sole sponsor of HB 2548, which sought to expand the certification of auricular acupuncturists who only treats alcoholism, substance abuse or chemical dependency to also treat those with post traumatic stress disorder.
It too was held in committees.
Carter colluded with Democrats in her sponsorship of HB 2137, seeking to restrict municipalities from adopting a zoning ordinance that allows tobacco retailers to be located within 300 feet of a child care facility, a public or private school or accompanying grounds, a public playground or public recreational facility.
It never made it out of committee.
Carter was one of the prime sponsors of HB 2147, which would have provided employers with a tax credit for hiring a veteran of the armed forces of United States, providing the veteran received an honorable discharge and is collecting unemployment insurance at the time of hire.
The law came with numerous restrictions, including not being allowed if the employee hired is a relative of the taxpayer.
The bill was held in the Senate.
Carter was also a prime sponsor of SB 1209, which would have required AHCCCS administration and the governor’s office to collaborate to identify goals and benchmarks to reduce the incidence of Diabetes.
It would have required AHCCCS to submit a semi-annual report to president of the senate and the speaker of the House stating the financial impact of diabetes on each agency, the state and political subdivisions of the state.
The report would need to include the number of persons with Diabetes who are receiving services from an agency or the state and family members who are impacted by prevention and Diabetes control programs implemented by an agency.
It required comparisons of the financial impact of Diabetes and its complications on any programs in place to other chronic diseases or conditions.
The bill also required development of a detailed budget identifying needs, costs and resources required to implement the plan and all related options.
Nineteen of the 21 prime sponsors of the bill, which was held by committees, were Democrats.
The other Republican was Cave Creek’s Sen. Steve Pierce, R-Dist. 1.