text: Pioneer TS-D6802R 6"x8" 2-way car speakers Zoom Front Back Photos Videos Does it fit my car? Item #: 130TSD6802 Review Summary 14 people say In Stock Free Installation gear for most cars Free Crutchfield lifetime tech support Free Shipping Your price $149.99 pair Add to cart + Add to wishlist Email me alerts for this product Buy this item and earn up to 150 Rewards points See more offers and ways to save Special Financing Available x By buying this product you'll earn up to 150 Rewards points. When you sign up for a Crutchfield account, you'll be enrolled in Crutchfield Rewards. You'll earn one point for every dollar you spend on gear from us. You can turn your points into Rewards Cards that you can use toward future purchases. You can sign up for an account now, or after you complete your purchase (you'll get credit for the points either way). Sign up for a Crutchfield account Overview Details Customer Reviews Q&A Articles & Videos Accessories Our take on the Pioneer TS-D6802R by Buck Pomerantz Why replace your car's original speakers? The speakers that originally came in your car were made from inexpensive materials, designed to create acceptable sound at the lowest possible cost to the manufacturer. If you love music, you deserve better. Name-brand aftermarket speakers deliver fuller, richer sound with considerably more detail and nuance, and they're capable of playing louder and cleaner than factory speakers. Connect new speakers to your factory radio and you'll get the best possible sound from your dealer-equipped system. Pair them up with a new car stereo for a level of enjoyment that can rival a high-fidelity home audio experience. Car audio enthusiasts know that replacing your factory speakers is the first step towards better sound. Pioneer TS-D6802R 6"x8" speakers sport innovative technologies and materials that'll put your car's sound miles ahead of where it was. The journey begins with the innovative woofer a high-tech composite material made from basalt and Aramid creates a rigid, lightweight cone. This design supplies solid midbass punch with exceptional midrange definition, while its rubber surround ensures smooth cone excursion. An extra-thick stamped metal basket supports the woofer cone, dampening vibrations and resonances that can unduly color your music's natural sound. The soft-dome tweeter radiates impressive highs, aided by a special wave guide that improves off-axis performance meaning you'll get better stereo imaging throughout your car. A sealed rear chamber allows the tweeter to reach lower into the midrange to improve the definition of vocals and instruments. The tweeter's compact and powerful neodymium magnet provides excellent performance even when the power levels are cranked. See more info on this item Highlights:2-way car speakers for 6"x8" locations (pair)Aramid/basalt fiber composite woofer with rubber surround1-1/8" soft dome tweeterextra-thick stamped steel frame reduces resonancefrequency response: 30-32,000 Hzrecommended power range: 2-60 watts RMSpeak power handling: 260 wattssensitivity: 88 dBtop-mount depth: 2-3/4"warranty: 1 yearOur 60-day money-back guarantee Priced per pair Hands-on research from the Crutchfield Labs (what are the Labs?) Features and specs chart | What's in the box? | In-depth notes Features and Specs General Design 2-way Tweeter Design 1-1/8" Soft Dome Tweeter Composition --- Woofer Composition IMX Basalt/Aramid fiber Woofer Surround Butyl Rubber Parts Warranty 1 Year Labor Warranty 1 Year Specifications Sensitivity 88 dB at 1 watt Frequency Response 30 - 32k Hz RMS Power Range (Watts) 2-60 Peak Power Handling (Watts) 260 Impedance (Ohms) 4 Top-mount Depth (Inches) 2 5/8 Bottom-mount Depth (Inches) 3 Product Research What's in the box? Download owner's manual Two 2-way speakers Two 12" lengths of speaker wire (each has quick-slides on one end and bare wire on the other) 8 Self-tapping screws (4mm x 25mm) Two 11" plastic zip ties Warranty information Our Product Research Team At Crutchfield, you'll get detailed, accurate information that's hard to find elsewhere. That's because we have our own in-house Product Research team — they open the box, verify contents, check the owner's manual, and record dimensions, features and specs. We stay on top of new products and technologies to help people make informed choices. Features Woofer Cones: The woofers have dual-layer IMX (Injection Molded Matrix) Aramid/Basalt fiber composite cones. The Basalt fiber is made from natural rock and is interwoven with aramid fiber. This Aramid/Basalt fiber surface layer material is very rigid and maintains an accurate, detailed music reproduction. Butyl Rubber Surrounds: For a smoother response and improved durability, the woofers use butyl rubber surrounds. 1-1/8" Soft Dome Tweeters: Each speaker has a 1-1/8" soft dome tweeter with magnetic fluid and a 0.4 ounce Neodymium magnet. The tweeters are encased in a specially-designed anti-resonant sealed rear chamber. The waveguides in front of the tweeters provide wide sound dispersion. Tweeter Enclosure: The rear chamber tweeter enclosure extends mid-range frequency for improved vocal imaging and staging. Glass-Imide Voice Coil Bobbins: Each speaker has a Glass-Imide Voice Coil Bobbin for higher power handling. Built-in 2-Way Crossovers: A 12 dB/octave high-pass filter and 6 dB/octave low-pass filter are attached to each speaker to improve the transition from mid to high frequency. Audiophile-grade capacitors and inductors are used. Review this product Submit a review and then enter to win a $500 rewards card Pioneer TS-D6802R Reviews Average Customer Review: 14 people say: Review this product: Thanks for taking the time to share your experiences about this product. Please be sure to focus your comments on the product itself. Read our Review Guidelines for more information. Review title * Email Your email won't be visible. Please use the email address that is associated with your order. Display name (e.g., JohnD) Your review will be signed using the display name and location * Your location (e.g., Charlottesville, VA) * Your rating Click on a star to rate the overall product on a scale of 1-5 1500 characters left * Your review Attach a YouTube Review Crutchfield Video Review Guidelines Only submit videos that you made or are authorized to use. Do not submit videos that contain music, video or visuals that are copyrighted and belong to someone else. Please see our Review Guidelines for more information. Submit the URL of your YouTube™ video review or product demonstration. e.g., "http://www.youtube.com/v/o79TWHh598U" 500 characters left Pros 500 characters left Cons * Agree to Terms By checking this box you agree your review becomes the property of Crutchfield, that you are over 18 years of age, that you own or have owned this product, and that you are located within the United States or its territories. Please see our Review Guidelines for more information. We reserve the right (but are not obligated to) review all submissions and edit or remove any review in any manner which we deem necessary. Your review should be posted within seven days. Filter by rating: 5 Star: (0) 4 Star: (0) 3 Star: (0) 2 Star: (0) 1 Star: (0) 5 out of 5 Pioneer TS-D6802R are GREAT SPEAKERS Written By Phil, South Central, ARkansas on Tuesday, August 05, 2014 Crutchfield Customer Review (What's this?) Crutchfield, thank you for such a good product at a reasonable price for a radio and speakers. I have a 2006 Mustang GT and I needed to replace my factory radio. The Ford dealer gave me a price which was quit-a-bit higher than your radio. So I decided that I would replace my radio and speakers. Your price was still less. In June of 2014 I bought your your "Kenwood DPX500BT" and "Pioneer TS-D6802R", and "Pioneer TS-A6885R" Speakers. Before I place my order I called in to your technicians for advice on my set up. I was going to get all 4 Pioneer TS-D6802R for my car, and that is when the technician advised me that those speakers would not fit in the front, but ok for the back. With that in mind he and I came to the decision of the Pioneer TS-A6885R speakers for the front door. WOW they are great. In the reviews that I read when I was narrowing down my speakers, there were comments that the speakers were a little weak on BASS. Let me tell you, with my setup they are great, and have plenty of BASS, enough to rattle my windows at ½ volume. Treble is great too. I just wanted to say that my combination is a GREAT setup for me and my car. I will say that my Mustang was a little more difficult to install than I expected. Ford does not make it easy to take out and reinstall the speakers; I had to take apart just about the entire inside to install them. Pros: Great Speakers, Good Sound and Instruction for Installation were very correct and helpful Cons: Don't know of any Was this review helpful? Yes | No 5 out of 5 outstanding stock replacement Written By joe, jamol calif. on Friday, April 25, 2014 Crutchfield Customer Review (What's this?) fantastic sound good bass great mids. and highs, with the stock 6-cd ford head,they do fit in the front doors of the 04 f 250 crew cab,i put them in the back too. huge improvment over stock Pros: great sound with stock 6 cd changer good bass, plenty of volume for an old guy,hendrix fan, just what I was looking for Cons: bend the pins on the adapter plug toward the open side slightly if they don't slide togather easy,no biggey ,no cons 1 out of 1 people found this helpful Was this review helpful? Yes | No 5 out of 5 great speakers! Written By cello, collingdale, pa on Saturday, April 12, 2014 Crutchfield Customer Review (What's this?) These speakers sound great. Mid bass pounds hard, had to use the eq to turn out down a tad. Pros: Great speaker, even better on a amp! Cons: Tweeters could be a little better. 1 out of 1 people found this helpful Was this review helpful? Yes | No 5 out of 5 Pioneer TS-D6802R in 2008 Mazda 3 Written By Big Bobby P, Mount Joy, PA on Thursday, September 05, 2013 I have a 25 mile commute each way and I recently started driving my wife's Mazda 3 for my commute instead of my truck due to better gas mileage. The stock stereo was awful so the first thing I did was change out the stereo HU for an aftermarket JVC HUr. That alone made a huge improvement in sound quality due to the increased power and EQ capabilities. I was still wanting better sound so I knew the speakers were the next step in the evolution. I had a set of Pioneer TSD1720c component speakers in a my previous car. Those speakers sounded excellent for the price so I almost went with those since they come with 6x8 adapters. The problem was that I wanted a straightforward install and I would have to mod to get them to work. One of the only drawbacks with those comps were that the tweeter was rather harsh when mounted at ear level so I actually ended up moving them to my kick panels where the tweets sounded much better off axis. Because of these 2 things I decided to just try the 6x8 coax in the TSD model. These are the same tweeters at the component set and there is an actual crossover (not just bass blockers) for this coax system. This essentially IS a component set that is mounted coaxially. Lows and mids go to the woofer and are crossed over so they blend perfectly with the tweets that play the highs. These sound ALMOST as great as those components. For a straightforward, great sounding 6x8 coax, this is it. Probably the best "coax" speaker on the market. Pros: Sound Quality, Ease of Install, Quality Crossover, Powerful midbass, Smooth highs Cons: Not Components! 2 out of 2 people found this helpful Was this review helpful? Yes | No 5 out of 5 Great upgrade Written By Byron S, Issaquah WA on Thursday, May 30, 2013 Crutchfield Customer Review (What's this?) A great upgrade, sounds great. Just changed speakers with the original factory head unit, no additional amps or subs. Easy direct mount and hook up. By no means a custom big system sound but $$$ well spent on the daily driver. 07 Mazda 3 Pros: Good balanced sound, speakers are no longer the weak spot in the system. Cons: Have not found any yet 2 out of 2 people found this helpful Was this review helpful? Yes | No 5 out of 5 Great speakers for a Ford Ranger Written By Kyluckyman, Hopkinsville, KY on Friday, April 05, 2013 These speakers are a great value and sound fantastic in our 2011 Ford Ranger. They are driven by an Alpine CDE-134HD head. We do not have them amped as we like our music a bit loud but not rattling the neighbors knickknacks off their shelving. We listen to everything from old Aerosmith to "X" and all types of country and blues. These speakers deliver an excellent soundstage n the truck and are a joy to listen to. Pros: These speakers on paper spec out really nice with a range on something like 30 to 35000 Hz and a efficiency of around 90. They sound so good I think I will pass on getting an amp and a subwoofer but an equalizer might be a consideration. Cons: I didn't buy them sooner! They make me want to drive around listening to music all day long! 5 out of 5 people found this helpful Was this review helpful? Yes | No 5 out of 5 Great Speakers Written By Steve, Texas on Tuesday, April 02, 2013 Crutchfield Customer Review (What's this?) Put these in a convertible MX5 with a pioneer FH-X 700BT. sounds great together. Pros: Came with wiring kit , fit no problems Cons: none 1 out of 1 people found this helpful Was this review helpful? Yes | No 5 out of 5 Speakers Written By G&A, Texas on Friday, November 23, 2012 Crutchfield Customer Review (What's this?) sound great, cut the crud out of my hands installing however. However, after turning the instructions the right way, all went well. Pros: Sound 1 out of 6 people found this helpful Was this review helpful? Yes | No 5 out of 5 Great sounding speakers Written By HotRodder, MN on Monday, April 23, 2012 Put these in my 2010 Mustang GT Convertible. The sound is MUCH better than the originals, and a lot better than the Kicker KS680s. Decent bass, low mids and crisp highs. Shop around for better pricing but these are very good speakers. Pros: Reasonably priced upgrade over stock. 4 out of 4 people found this helpful Was this review helpful? Yes | No 5 out of 5 sweet upgrade Written By wilm, boston, ma on Sunday, February 26, 2012 Crutchfield Customer Review (What's this?) love the overall sound and power. we ran speakers in front wired to a factory cd/radio. had a set of component pioneer speakers installed in last car and these 2 -way speakers sound just as good and clear Pros: great improvement in sound quality for minimum investment Cons: none Was this review helpful? Yes | No 5 out of 5 Pioneer is the way to go! Written By RyanF, Lathrop, CA on Thursday, July 21, 2011 I installed these in my 2008 Mazda 3 and there was NO fitment issues. I have these paired up to a Pioneer DEH - P8300UB deck and i could notice a slight improvement in clarity. Although i dont know there true power because i dont have them amped up yet, but im 100% sure they'll sound crispy clear once they are. Also i talked to a car audio specialist prior to buying these and he said he installed them in another car and sounded great. I dont think you can go wrong with Pioneer! 1 out of 2 people found this helpful Was this review helpful? Yes | No 5 out of 5 Replacement for Factory 2002 Ford Ranger XLT 4x4 Written By Tim A, SE Michigan on Monday, December 06, 2010 Crutchfield Customer Review (What's this?) Great DIRECT replacement for my Ford Factory 6x8!! YES IT FITS! Terrific Buy!~ I wanted a system that would - be reasonably affordable, be simple to install, sound great - all while not altering the factory wiring/trim. ALSO: While researching, I looked at adding an external amp as a - FUTURE option - not as an immediate need/necessity. COMPARED TO FACTORY - I LOVE the sound - it's an incredible difference - I cannot believe I did not upgrade sooner! I paired these speakers with head unit, Pioneer DEH-P6200BT. Upon consulting Pioneer manuf website, I found that THESE speakers classify as a "Stage 3" (3 out of 4; 4 being highest) - and they work VERY well with Pioneer "Stage 3" head unit DEH-P6200BT - speakers still fit nicely in factory speaker position - no modification necessary. Pioneer also rates this set up as being MUCH BETTER than the also available - Pioneer ("Stage 2") 4-way 6x8's TS-A6882R's! This application rated the TS-D6802R to sound better - EVEN without an external amp! Cost of upgrade is mild - but speaker is rated much, much better by the manufacturer. NOTE: Crutchfield online catalog currently shows the TS-D6802R does NOT fit application - it does fit perfectly in mine and is rated Pioneer's "6x8 for Ford/Mazda"! I am personally VERY HAPPY with this system. Last - See my review on the Pioneer DEH-P6200BT head unit and the (5x7) baffles that I installed on this application as well~ 14 out of 15 people found this helpful Was this review helpful? Yes | No 5 out of 5 2010 Ford Mustang Install Written By Nat, San Diego, CA on Friday, July 16, 2010 Crutchfield Customer Review (What's this?) These speakers are a much needed improvement from factory speakers for a 2010 Ford Mustang. These speakers do so much to improve the sound clarity and provide clean and powerful sound over the factory speakers. The install went very well thanks to the Mastersheets, although the 2005- 2009 Mustang was close enough to do the speakers. The head units are completely different, so that is not applicable from the mastersheets. The sound has been a significant improvement over the factory speakers and provide much cleaner and crisper sounds with much deeper bass. Lyle was very helpful in verifying the install specs for these speakers. My car now has much better sound now and is that much more of a pleasure to drive. These speakers will definitely compliment any of the factory shaker systems and give a definite improvement from the sound orginally provided in the car. 13 out of 13 people found this helpful Was this review helpful? Yes | No 5 out of 5 great replacements for factory Written By Chris, MI on Tuesday, June 08, 2010 These are very good speakers, nice sound, decent bass for 6x8's. thanks to crutchfield for the installation kit to make it simple, 2 out of 4 people found this helpful Was this review helpful? Yes | No 1 question already asked Why would I get these instead the $80 4-way pioneers the same size? [ Bobby Apr 04, 2014 ] 1 answer Thanks for your question. For information on comparing two or more models I would recommend reaching out to an Advisor by phone (1-800-324-9695) or online chat. They will be able to help determine the differences and help you make the best choice for your system and your budget. [ Krissy Staff Apr 05, 2014 ] Add accessories for the Pioneer TS-D6802R Add Accessories Add a Warranty Reduce ambient road noise and your vehicle's "rattles," for better sound inside your car. See all categories & accessories Reduce ambient road noise and your vehicle's "rattles," for better sound inside your car. Sound Deadening You'll need speaker wire to connect your speakers to your amp. Speaker Wire Keep your speakers clean and dry. They compress to fit behind your speakers. Foam Speaker Baffles These speaker connectors are handy if you're running new speaker wire or if your speakers have oversized terminals. Speaker Wire Connectors The right tools will help keep your installation simple and clean. Tools Connectors If your stereo doesn't cut the deep bass from your full-range speakers, a set of bass blockers can help prevent distortion and give you cleaner bass too. Bass Blockers Dynamat 10415 Xtreme Speaker Kit Two 10-in. x 10-in. Sheets 45 people say Your Price: $26.99 Add to Cart Dynamat 10435 Xtreme Door Kit With four 12" x 36" sheets covers two doors 31 people say Your Price: $99.99 Add to Cart Dynamat SuperLite Tri-Pak Triple package 3 sheets, 12 square feet (Model #10612) 17 people say Your Price: $69.99 Add to Cart T-Spec 16-gauge Speaker Wire Black/white jacket priced per foot 13 people say Your Price: $0.69 Add to Cart T-Spec 12-gauge Speaker Wire Black/white jacket priced per foot 29 people say Your Price: $1.99 Add to Cart Stinger PRO Series Speaker Wire Priced per foot (16 Gauge) Options 16 Gauge-$0.39 14 Gauge-$0.65 Priced per foot (16 Gauge) Priced per foot (14 Gauge) 50 people say Your Price: $0.39 Add to Cart XTC 6"x8" Speaker Baffles Protect your speakers 34 people say Your Price: $8.99 Add to Cart Boom Mat 6"x8" Speaker Baffles Protect your speakers Regular and slim-line sizes (Slim-line: 3-1/2" depth) Options Regular: 4-1/2" depth-$9.99 Slim-line: 3-1/2" depth-$9.99 Protect your speakers Regular and slim-line sizes (Regular: 4-1/2" depth) Protect your speakers Regular and slim-line sizes (Slim-line: 3-1/2" depth) 32 people say Your Price: $9.99 Add to Cart Metra Female Quick Slides An assortment of female quick slide connectors for connecting to speaker terminals 47 people say Your Price: $1.99 Add to Cart Metra Crimp Tool and Connectors Package contains crimp tool and over 150 pieces 15 people say Your Price: $19.99 Add to Cart S&G Wire Cutter/Stripper Tool Cuts and strips 12- to 22-gauge wire 15 people say Your Price: $19.99 Add to Cart S&G Tool Aid 87615 Window and Door Clip Removal Tool 12 people say Your Price: $7.99 Add to Cart S&G Tool Aid 87650 Door Trim and Panel Removal Tool 68 people say Your Price: $9.99 Add to Cart Bojo Trim Panel Tools Set of 6 pry tools helps remove interior and exterior trim and door panels 52 people say Your Price: $24.99 Add to Cart Skewdriver Pro SPK4042 Ratcheting straight and offset screwdriver set with 40 bits (Skewdriver Pro with ratchet handle, pictured) 8 people say Your Price: $49.99 Add to Cart Spec Tools SQR-200a Squeeze Wrench Narrow space ratchet kit with 18 sockets 1 person says Your Price: $49.99 Add to Cart Bojo Trim Panel Tools Set of 6 pry tools helps remove interior and exterior trim and door panels 2 people say Your Price: $29.99 Add to Cart Posi-Products Car Speaker Connectors 8 connectors for installing car speakers 18 people say Your Price: $11.99 Add to Cart DEI Heat Shrink Tubing Black 4-foot length (Assortment) 6 people say Your Price: $24.99 Add to Cart Bass Blockers Pairs (300 Hz cut-off) 83 people say Your Price: $9.99 Add to Cart Why choose SquareTrade? The #1-Rated Protection Plan Thousands of people have reviewed SquareTrade Protection Plans — and made us #1. 5-Day Service Guarantee & Free Shipping We'll repair or replace your item in five business days or less after we've received it, or your plan is free. And, as always, we pay for all shipping. Protection from Normal, Everyday Use Repairing your average mechanical or electrical failure can cost as much as buying a new device. With SquareTrade, you're covered — including parts and labor. 3 Year Protection Plan Your Price: $20.99 Add to Cart For a more in-depth review and enhanced detailed information on the Pioneer TS-D6802R, please visit the Crutchfield website product page (/ISEO-rccbcspd/p_130TSD6802/Pioneer-TS-D6802R.html ). × Front Back Searches related to the Pioneer TS-D6802R 6"x8" 2-way car speakers Pioneer Pioneer 5"x7"/6"x8" Speakers Best 5"x7"/6"x8" Speakers 5"x7"/6"x8" Speakers under $150 Pioneer TS-D6802R reviews Pioneer TS-D6802R vs Kicker 40CS684 Pioneer TS-D6802R vs Infinity Kappa 682.11cf Pioneer TS-D6802R vs Kicker 40CSS684 Pioneer TS-D6802R vs Rockford Fosgate Punch P1683


text:
HOME Kyle Busch Gear Kyle Busch Mens Kyle Busch Mens T-Shirts Sale Items (10 items) Product ID: 1115416
Main Content
This item ships within one business day.
Show off your style and NASCAR pride with the Chase Authentics men's Applique T-shirt. On the chest are bold printed and appliqued graphics that combine to invoke a tough, western feel. The shirt is finished off by a decorative yoke on the back featuring a driver number.
- 100% Cotton fabric
- Decorative yoke on back
- Large printed graphic and applique on chest
- Made in Pakistan
- Officially licensed
- Short sleeve T-shirt
Busch Customers also liked:
Reviewed by 1 customer
- Soft
- Unique Design
- Low Quality Material
Best Uses
- Sleeping
Comments about Chase Authentics Kyle Busch Men's Applique Tee:
I bought this shirt at the race 3 months ago and have only worn it twice since. I washed it yesterday for the first time and I have 4 holes in it. This is the 2nd item of Kyle Busch's that has gotten holes in it. Poor poor quality! What a bummer!
Special event items are produced by manufacturers only after the outcome of a game or event. These are advanced sale items and will ship immediately after they are received in our warehouse.
Manufacturer direct items are shipped directly from the manufacturer. These items are not available for international or expedited shipping.
Customized items can be personalized with options such as your name, your favorite number, and/or designs. Some options may be limited by league rules.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Main Content
You'll always be a Dale Earnhardt fan and the weather will never stop you from showing that! Block out the cold and rain on those nasty days with this water-resistant Endurance hooded midweight jacket from Chase Authentics. This stylish full zip jacket features a super soft Sherpa lining and Earnhardt's replica signature and famous number embroidered on the left chest. Plus, you'll have plenty of room to store all of your race day accessories with the two vertical zip pockets on the chest and the two front pockets. The soft lined hood, hook and loop fastener straps at the cuffs and contrast panels and piping will keep you looking great while you stay comfy. In this jacket, you'll show everyone that you'll always be Dale Earnhardt's most dedicated fan!
- 100% Brushed polyester lining
- 100% Nylon shell
- Adjustable hook and loop fasteners at cuffs
- Contrast piping and panels
- Full zip jacket
- Imported
- Interior bungee cord to tighten jacket
- Lined hood without drawstring
- Officially licensed NASCAR product
- Quality embroidery
- Two front lined pockets
- Two vertical zip pockets at chest
- Water-resistant hooded jacket
Earnhardt Fanatics also liked:
Special event items are produced by manufacturers only after the outcome of a game or event. These are advanced sale items and will ship immediately after they are received in our warehouse.
Manufacturer direct items are shipped directly from the manufacturer. These items are not available for international or expedited shipping.
Customized items can be personalized with options such as your name, your favorite number, and/or designs. Some options may be limited by league rules.


text:
Get 10% Off When You Sign Up To Our Newsletter
Look no further than DP's Luxe collection for catwalk-inspired pieces, feminine detailing and statement prints. Featuring a range of fashion-forward shapes and styles, from chic tailoring to on-trend dresses, Luxe is the ultimate capsule wardrobe.
Showing items 1 - 6 of 6
Showing items 1 - 6 of 6


text:
Last week Tim and I went on a backpacking adventure. Our original plan was flattened when the trail we chose turned out to be a mess of overgrown, tangled, scratchy brush that towered over my head in most places. It was disappointing to say the least considering the area we were in was gorgeous and crowd-free. Oh well.
Lost in the brush – can you see me?!
We turned around and immediately scanned our hiking book for another option. Luckily we weren't too far away from Bend, OR, one of our favorite outdoor recreation destinations! Yay! So, we settled on camping that night on the banks of Devil's Lake and then climbing to the summit of South Sister (Oregon's 2nd highest mountain) the following morning. Good choice!
Full moon keeping us company by our campsite
Despite the never-ending steepness of the trail, reaching the top was a mighty wicked reward. We hiked the same trail six years ago and it was fun to revisit the area. The best part about the South Sister climb is that you don't need any special mountaineering equipment (depending on the season, of course). You just need determination, lots of water, sustaining snacks, and a good set of lungs! The trail is 12 miles round trip and takes a whole day, but it doesn't matter because the beautiful scenery makes you forget the struggle. Take a peek!
Early part of the trail – flat for maybe a mile…
Climbing higher…
A gorgeous glacial lake about a mile or so from the summit – Tim and I actually dipped into this lake on our way back down – it was FREEZING (literally). The day was hot and sunny and all the climbing made the quick dip a worthwhile decision!
Getting closer (see the trail cutting into the red rock near the top of the photo?)…
Tim climbing…
Tim walking across the crater of South Sister – we're almost to the summit!!!!
We made it! Top of South Sister: 10,360 feet. You can see Middle Sister and North Sister behind us. If you look closely, Mt. Jefferson is a tiny speck above the point of North Sister. The smoke on the left of the photo is from a forest fire nearby. It was WINDY!
An unobstructed view of Middle and North Sisters
That's the trip! The way back down was much faster, but harder on the knees. Thank goodness for trekking poles!
What are some of your favorite hiking places?


text:
With Free Shipping
Both Ways
Product Features
What do you think about the 2014 Metalstorm Black Dragon Senior League Baseball Bat: MSBDA534 ?
|or Cancel
1 Product Reviews
Questions and Answers
Got a question about the 2014 Metalstorm Black Dragon Senior League Baseball Bat: MSBDA534? Ask our team of experts, and they will respond within 24 hours.Ask A Question
This bat looks like a two-piece design sort of like DeMarini's. Does it look like this for a reason even though it is one-piece?
The 2014 Metalstorm Black Dragon: MSBDA5 Senior League is a one-piece alloy bat. We will update our website with the correct photo.
Is this a one-piece bat? The description says end loaded one-piece, but the picture looks like a two-piece?
The 2014 Metalstorm Black Dragon: MSBDA5 Senior League bat is a one-piece alloy design.
Which one would you most recommend for power, the Metalstorm White Dragon or the Metalstorm Black Dragon?
The 2014 Metalstorm Black Dragon: MSBDA5 Senior League is going to be better for a power hitter, because of the one-piece stiff feel.
Product Description
New for 2014! Players had only good things to say about Metalstorm's White Dragon after it was released. Now, Metalstorm looks to reach even more players with the release of the -5 Black Dragon! The one-piece Black Dragon is made entirely from Metalstorm's exclusive Extreme Impact Tech-9 X830 Alloy. This alloy gives players extreme performance and durability, while maintaining a light swing weight. The barrel is capped with a Quad-Cross reinforced end cap that improves durability and allows for a GIANT sweet spot. Metalstorm bats are also renowned for having the right amount of stiffness and a comfortable knob and grip that gives them a perfect feel. For a little extra power, the barrel on the Black Dragon is ever so slightly end-loaded, but feels well balanced through the hitting zone. POP, feel, and durabililty all contribute to why Metalstorm provides for extra inertia at contact! Metalstorm: Take the Diamond By Storm! The Black Dragon features the USSSA 1.15 BPF Stamp. It is backed by a Full Twelve (12) Month Manufacturer's Warranty. Free Shipping!
About Metalstorm Industries
All I can say is WOW...........you shipping was quick!!!. My son had a game last night and I didn't even consider the bat being here in time for it..Well, we got the bat in 2 days and he was able to use it last night. This bat is great and you guys were awesome in getting it shipped. I recommended y'all at our game last night.. and I already know of one order I got for you on the same bat I ordered. That bat is due in today and that boy has a game tonight... so I'm sure he'll be happy as well... Sincerely,
Related Products
Shop With Confidence
You just checked out the 2014 Metalstorm Black Dragon Senior League Baseball Bat: MSBDA534. What would you like to do next?Order Now or Browse More Bats


text:
HOME San Francisco 49ers Gear San Francisco 49ers Ladies San Francisco 49ers Ladies Ladies San Francisco 49ers Ladies Ladies Sleepwear $10 to $20 (11 items) Product ID: 795671
Main Content
It's no secret that you're a huge San Francisco 49ers fan. You would rep your favorite team's gear every day if you could, but you have a 9 to 5 — it wouldn't be appropriate. Well, you can keep your fanaticism undercover with these Renaissance tri-blend underwear featuring the 49ers logo printed on the front. It can be your little 49ers-spirited secret.
- 57% Cotton/38% Modal/5% Spandex
- Elastic waistband & leg holes
- Imported
- Officially licensed NFL product
- Screen print graphics
49ers Customers also liked:
Special event items are produced by manufacturers only after the outcome of a game or event. These are advanced sale items and will ship immediately after they are received in our warehouse.
Manufacturer direct items are shipped directly from the manufacturer. These items are not available for international or expedited shipping.
Customized items can be personalized with options such as your name, your favorite number, and/or designs. Some options may be limited by league rules.


text:
Restrictions, Mandates, and the Arizona Budget
Prepared by David R. Berman, Ph.D.
Senior Research Fellow, Morrison Institute for Public Policy Professor, Department of Political Science
Prepared for
The Arizona Republic
April 2004
The assistance of Rob Melnick, Nancy Welch, Bill Hart, Cherylene Schick, and Karen Leland is acknowledged gratefully.
Restrictions, Mandates, and the Arizona Budget
Table of Contents
Limitations on Debt, Spending, and Taxing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Debt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Spending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Taxing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Spending Mandates from Voters, Courts, and the Federal Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Voters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Courts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Federal Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 3 4 4 5 6 7
Controlling the Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 The Big Picture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 The Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 The Earmarking Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 The Situation for Local Governments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . General Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Property Taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mandates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 12 12 13
Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Restrictions, Mandates, and the Arizona Budget
Arizona is emerging from one of the worst state budget crises in the nation. Entering 2003, its projected deficit, measured as a percentage of the general fund, was the fifth largest in the country.1 The state had slashed spending in 2002 in the face of a $900 million deficit, but still faced a $400 million shortfall for fiscal year 2003 and an estimated $1 billion deficit in fiscal 2004. Although improved revenues have reduced the anticipated gap, fundamental underlying problems remain concerning the ability of lawmakers to control the budget. Some observers consider this a revenue problem, others a spending problem. Our concern in this paper is whether state lawmakers have enough control over either revenue or spending. Arizona officials concerned with budgeting must live with a variety of financial restrictions. Some are of the "thou shall not" type in regard to borrowing, spending, and revenue raising; others are of the "thou shall" type, requiring spending on particular programs or services. Some, such as the limit on general obligation bond borrowing, stem from long-standing provisions in Arizona's constitution. Others originated in recent voter-approved measures that require greater spending in certain areas or make it more difficult for the legislature to raise revenues. In addition, recent federal mandates and court decisions have further restricted Arizona lawmakers' discretion by requiring Arizona officials concerned with budgeting must live with a variety spending in the areas of health care and school of financial restrictions. Some are construction. The bottom line, many feel, is that budget of the "thou shall not" type in makers, especially legislators, have lost considerable regard to borrowing, spending, power to raise revenues, control the level of spending, and and revenue raising; others are of set spending priorities. These serious developments could the "thou shall" type, requiring radically affect Arizona's future, but their complexity and spending on particular programs the complicated connections between the budgets and or services. mandates make them a tough topic for public debate. Disputes over financial restrictions and mandates reflect conflicts between people with differing philosophical views concerning the role of government, between direct and representative democracy, among branches of government and among levels of government -- battles that all have deep roots in the politics of the state. Broadly, the debate has been: Who should decide? The debate also raises the question of how financial decisions should be made, in particular whether budgeting can be a comprehensive process where everything is "on the table," subject to the same budgetary mechanism, and participants can measure the value of one alternative against another. Of particular concern to many observers is the growing role of voters in financial matters. The development is particularly salient in Arizona, because the 1998 Voter Protection Act made voters' decisions on initiative or referendum measures almost impossible for the legislature to alter, no matter how much the measures affect revenues. Voters
Restrictions, Mandates, and the Arizona Budget 1
adopted the act as Proposition 105, following the legislature's reversal of a previous voter-approved measure reducing the penalty for drug use. The Voter Protection Act requires a three-fourths vote in both legislative chambers to make any changes in measures adopted by the voters, no matter what they wind up costing. Moreover, any change must "further the purpose" of the original ballot proposition. All propositions passed in and after 1998 enjoy this protection. Given these barriers, those seeking to change measures adopted by the voters have little alternative but to challenge them in court or to ask voters to reverse or modify their previous decisions. In this paper we identify the existing types of financial limitations on lawmakers, evaluate their intended and unintended effects, draw comparisons to other states, and explore possible courses of remedial action. We first look at restrictions on debt, spending, and taxing, then at spending mandates. Third, we consider the impact of these on the making of the state general fund budget, which is comprised of revenues from sales, income, and other taxes. Finally, though our main concern is with state government, we note problems at the local level.
Limitations on Debt, Spending, and Taxing
State constitutions and statutes place various types of restrictions on state and local debt, spending, and taxing. Many of these limitations date from the beginning of the twentieth century. Others were prompted by the taxpayers' rebellion sparked in 1978 by voter approval of Proposition 13 in California, a measure that limited property taxation. Proposition 13 led to demands for taxing and spending limits throughout the country. Debt When it comes to borrowing, state constitutions and laws impose two general types of restrictions: maximum limits on the amount of debt, and requirements that public referenda be held to permit the issuance of bonds. Debt limits most often apply to borrowing through general obligation bonds, which are paid for out of general revenues backed by the full faith and credit of the issuing government. Limits are often expressed as a percentage (from 15 to 25%) of the value of the property within the jurisdiction, but may also be stated in specific dollar amounts. Arizona has an unusually low debt limit. Under Article 9, Section 5 of the state constitution, the state may borrow more than $350,000 only "to repel invasion, suppress insurrection, or defend the state in time of war." This restriction goes back to the original 1910 constitution 7and applies by court rulings only to general obligation bonds; its effect has been to encourage the state to turn to revenue bonds, which are secured by a specific revenue source such as that generated by a project for which money is borrowed. Revenue bonds usually cost the government more in interest because investors see them as more of a risk than general obligation bonds. Arizona law does not limit the amount the state can raise by revenue bonds, but does require public approval of them. Currently, the state has a debt of some $5 billion. Debt payments now
Restrictions, Mandates, and the Arizona Budget 2
take $71 million out of the general fund, and thus reduce the use of the fund for other purposes. Much of the debt involves long-term financing for items such as school, road, and prison construction. Although the dollar numbers may appear impressive, the latest rankings by the U.S. Bureau of the Census (FY2000) place Arizona 49th out of the 50 states in per capita debt outstanding. Arizona officials, like those in other states, get around both the debt limit and the need for voter approval by issuing certificates of participation (COPs) and entering into complicated lease-purchase agreements. The government leases what it wants -- for example, a new building -- from a private firm or other third party, then takes title to the building at the end of the lease. Alternately, the state might sell a building to a third party, then put the money in the general fund and lease back the property. In both cases, the lease payments are not considered as debt, but as operating expenses paid for out of annual appropriations. However, as they accumulate, such payments could have a considerable impact on the general fund. While COPs offer flexibility, they are usually more expensive to issue than bonds because of the involvement of third parties. Spending A restriction added to the Arizona constitution in 1978 -- in response to the taxpayers' rebellion -- confines state spending to no more than 7 percent of residents' gross personal income.2 This percentage may be adjusted to reflect developments such as increased expenditures due to federal mandates or state assumption of local functions. Currently, it stands at 7.41 percent. Spending has thus far never exceeded the limit -- as a percent of income it amounted to 5.6 percent in 2004.3 Insofar as legislative discretion is concerned, the situation could be far worse. Colorado, for example, limits state government spending to changes in inflation plus population. Colorado's Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR), approved by voters in 1992, also requires that voters approve any new state tax or increase in an existing tax, and that revenues over the amount the state can spend be refunded to taxpayers unless the voters decide otherwise. The law imposes similar restrictions on local governments, limiting local spending to changes in population and property values. Taxing A far more effective constraint on the ability of Arizona legislators to adjust to changing needs than the spending limit is Proposition 108, a constitutional amendment adopted by the voters in 1992. This requires a two-thirds majority of the total membership of the House and Senate to increase any tax or revenue source or to make any "net increase" in the state's revenue collection -- a requirement that, in effect, makes even the smallest increase very unlikely. Previously, changes of this nature required only a majority vote. This measure has made it much more difficult to raise taxes than to cut them -- the latter still requiring only a simple majority. Whether the two-thirds requirement applies to the elimination of tax exemptions -- the state has been losing $4.2 billion a year in sales tax exemptions alone -- awaits legal clarification.
Restrictions, Mandates, and the Arizona Budget 3
Because of the law, the best alternative for those seeking to increase revenues is to take their case directly to the voters. In recent years several groups have done so, asking voters to approve new or increased taxes for particular programs. Legislators, in part because of Proposition 108, have also passed tax decisions on to the voters. It is much easier to secure the legislative votes to put a measure on the ballot -- only a majority is required -- than it is to round up enough supporters to increase taxes. Indeed, Proposition 108 might be expected to lead to more and more basic tax decisions being made by the voters. Most states still require a simple majority in the legislature to increase revenues.4 Arizona is one of 11 states that require a supermajority vote; some of the other 10 impose a three-fourths requirement and some posit three-fifths. Critics charge that supermajority requirements make it difficult for the legislature to respond to emergencies, encourage it to shift costs to local governments -- done by a simple Most states still require a simple majority vote -- and may even bring more wasteful state majority in the legislature to increase revenues. Arizona is one spending.5 This last result occurs, critics say, because of 11 states that require a supermajority requirements increase the difficulty of supermajority vote; some of the building support for new or expanded taxes, and thus other 10 impose a three-fourths increase the bargaining power of individual legislators. requirement and some posit Some lawmakers may be tempted to hold back their three-fifths. support until they can exchange it for leadership support of their own favored projects. There is some evidence of this type of bargaining6 in California -- a state with a twothirds vote requirement not only for tax increases but for the adoption of the budget and related budget bills. In Arizona the most evident effect of the supermajority requirement has been to take talk of tax hikes through direct legislative action off the table.
Spending Mandates from Voters, Courts, and the Federal Government
Spending mandates are legal requirements that state lawmakers spend money for certain purposes and certain purposes alone. They take decision-making out of the hands of lawmakers and hinder their ability to plan for or respond to financial emergencies. Not all spending mandates, however, are the same. Some are selfimposed by the legislature and can be changed by altering a statute or evaded through budgetary techniques that divert the flow of existing funds. More difficult to control are mandates imposed by voters (especially those protected by the Voter Protection Act), court orders, and the federal government. Voter-approved measures, court decisions, and federal requirements and mandates -- particularly pronounced in recent years -- have required the state to fund programs and services often without providing the revenues to do so.
Restrictions, Mandates, and the Arizona Budget
Voters In recent years, voters have bypassed the legislative process by approving several ballot measures that create a new tax or increase an old one and dedicate the revenues to particular programs. Voters have also approved proposals that require the legislature to pay for new or expanded programs out of general revenues, thereby leaving less money for other programs. Some measures reached the ballot through the efforts of private groups such as health organizations that used the initiative route to take their case to the voters. Often, though, the legislature itself has asked voters to tie its hands by submitting referendums that earmark funds beyond legislative control or commit the legislature to spend large amounts of money out of general revenues. In 1994, for example, a coalition of health organizations persuaded Arizona voters to raise tobacco taxes and dedicate the proceeds to a variety of health care programs, beyond the reach of the legislature. Later, however, the coalition became unhappy over the legislature's raiding of the tobacco fund for purposes other than those for which it was intended. The group contemplated asking voters to approve a similar but expanded plan that, because of the Voter Protection Act, would be out of the reach of the legislature. Lawmakers headed this off by developing a proposal acceptable to the group and submitting it to the voters in a referendum. Voters went along with the second tax hike on tobacco in 2002, the proceeds of which are earmarked for particular programs. On the plus side, the shifting of support for some existing programs to tobacco taxes saved the general fund budget an estimated $63 million in the first year alone. On the minus side, the programs slipped out of the control of the legislature. Voters in 2002 also supported an Indian gaming measure that several tribes had negotiated with Governor Jane Hull, but which the governor could not get through the legislature. Taking the initiative route, the tribes won voter approval of a new gaming compact under which tribes will share 8 percent of their gaming revenues with the state. These funds are earmarked for a variety of specific purposes, such as reducing school class sizes, wildlife conservation, and health care. This is expected to generate $54 million for fiscal 2004 and over $80 million for fiscal 2005. The two voter-approved measures that have thus far made the largest impact on the general fund were adopted in 2000, making them tamper-proof by the legislature. One was Proposition 204, which expanded eligibility for benefits from the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS, the state's Medicaid alternative) to all residents at or below the poverty level; eligibility had previously extended up to about 35 percent of the poverty level. The proposition added thousands more Arizonans to the program and increased costs by hundreds of thousands, but provided only some $80 million per year from the state's share of the nationwide tobacco lawsuit settlement. This, as it turned out, was not enough. The legislature in 2003 was left with the problem of finding additional millions in the general fund to finance the program's growth. The second measure, Proposition 301, increased the sales tax to 5.6 percent from 5 percent for 20 years to fund the public education system and earmarked the funds so that they were not subject to legislative appropriation. Proposition 301 was developed by Governor Hull and put on the ballot by the legislature after it was unable to come up with the two-thirds
Restrictions, Mandates, and the Arizona Budget 5
vote required by Proposition 108. The measure created a dedicated revenue stream of some $440 million in new funds, much of it for teacher pay raises. The measure also required the legislature to increase the base level of state aid to K-12 education by $94.5 million in 2002 and to adjust it annually by 2 percent or the inflation rate, whichever was less. These expenses were to come out of general revenues. Courts Both state and federal courts have deeply impacted state budget-making around the country. State courts in general have become more active since the 1980s in reviewing the decisions of elected officials and administrators. One reason for this is that the U.S. Supreme Court has encouraged the resolution of issues in state courts under state law. In addition, various groups Both state and federal courts have have found that litigation in state courts, while expensive, deeply impacted state budgetis much less costly than intensive lobbying in the making around the country. State legislature and administrative areas and is also likely to be more successful. As a result, state courts have become courts in general have become more active since the 1980s in more actively involved in making general policies reviewing the decisions of elected governing the operation of schools, prisons, and other officials and administrators. public institutions. With this increased activity, they have antagonized more groups and have often provoked negative reactions. The Arizona Supreme Court historically has not been among the most active courts when it comes to finding state laws in violation of the state constitution or in expanding state constitutional rights.7 But it has made some important decisions that have forced changes in the state's spending priorities. A prominent example occurred in 1994 when the state Supreme Court ruled, in response to a 1991 suit by the Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest, that the legislature must reduce gross disparities among school districts concerning the conditions of school buildings, equipment, and other capital needs.8 The court, in a 3-2 decision, found that such disparities violated the state constitutional requirement for a general and uniform public school system. The court ordered the legislature to fix the system "within a reasonable time." Over the next 4 years, the court rejected several legislative proposals to remedy the problem until, in 1998, it threatened to end all public school financing unless the legislature corrected the inequities. In that same year, the legislature came up with acceptable legislation, called "Students First," which assigned the state most of the responsibility for school construction and maintenance -- moving the expense of some $2 billion from local property taxes to the state. To pay for it, the legislature used revenue bonds, lease-purchase schemes, and general revenues, the latter mostly to pay off the debt. Since then, however, an almost continuous stream of litigation has claimed that the program's building-renewal fund, which provides school districts money to make repairs, has not been properly funded and has been illegally raided by the legislature to cover budget deficits. The legislature used $69 million from the Student's First building-renewal fund to help balance the
Restrictions, Mandates, and the Arizona Budget 6
fiscal 2002 budget, and, despite a court ruling to the contrary, $90 million to balance the 2003 budget. For fiscal 2004, it decided to temporarily stop putting money into the fund. The Arizona courts' struggle with the legislature over Students First was nothing compared to their decades-long effort to compel the legislature to live up to its agreement to improve funding for mental health services. The principal case, Arnold v. Sarn,9 was begun in 1981 and was resolved as far as the legal issues were concerned in 1989. But only in recent years have any funds been forthcoming. The courts have also produced results in regard to class action tax litigation. In 2001, the state Supreme Court made it easier for taxpayers to band together and file class action lawsuits challenging tax laws and decisions; the court did so by ruling that plaintiffs do not have to first individually exhaust available administrative remedies.10 In 2002, the state lost a class-action lawsuit regarding the taxation of dividends from outof-state corporations11; in 2004 it must begin refunding $350 million in taxes. Governor Janet Napolitano has sought, thus far without success in the legislature, to prohibit or at least slow down such suits. Also pending is a suit by 140,000 public employees who claim they were illegally taxed by the state. In passing, one should note that Arizona has recently had some difficulty with federal as well state courts. A costly example was the 2000 Flores v. Arizona decision by a federal district judge, who ruled that the state's underfunding of language-acquisition programs in Arizona public schools violated the federal Equal Education Opportunities Act.12 In fiscal year 2003, the state spent $44 million to comply with the decision. Federal Government In the mid-1970s, the federal government, faced with budgetary problems of its own, began using regulatory mandates rather than subsidies to encourage states and localities to take various courses of action. These laws compel state and local governments to comply with certain policies -- and thus often to absorb various costs -- under the threat of civil and criminal penalties. Costly federal mandates have been enacted in areas such as air and water quality, solid waste, hazardous waste, transportation standards, labor management, health care, courts, and corrections. Specific examples of congressional legislation creating unfunded mandates are the Americans with Disabilities Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and National Voter Registration Act. Mandating allows federal officials both to claim credit for acting on a variety of issues and, by shifting much of the costs onto state and local governments, to reduce pressures on the federal budget. As a National Governors Association official put it: "The idea is that they get the credit, we get the bills."13 Faced with growing discontent among local officials, Congress in 1995 passed the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, which was intended to make federal mandating more difficult. Although the act appears to have focused greater congressional attention on the issue, state and local officials continue to complain about expensive federal directives.
Restrictions, Mandates, and the Arizona Budget
Researchers also commonly categorize expenses associated with federal grants, such as state matching requirements, as mandated spending. One can argue that this is an inaccurate designation, because states are not forced to take federal aid and, therefore, come up with matching grants. In practical terms, however, states have found it difficult to turn away federal funds. And once tied into a federal program, they find it difficult both politically and financially to give it up. But being linked in this manner means that state budgets are significantly impacted by not only requirements for matching funds but also by federal changes in service level requirements; state lawmakers also often feel compelled to fill in for cuts in federal spending. Arizona is perhaps most importantly tied into federal policy making through the joint federal-state Medicaid program, which provides health coverage to the poor. Federal funds make up about two-thirds of the $3.5 billion AHCCCS budget. The state spends over $600 million each year on the program out of general funds, mostly in matching grants. State and local governments are subject to regulations and controls that come as a condition of accepting federal aid. All grants, for example, are subject to certain crosscutting requirements, such as one that bars the use of federal funds to support programs that discriminate against racial minorities. In other situations, state and local governments have been subject to crossover sanctions. These can curtail federal aid to state and local governments unless they adopt policies that are related only indirectly, if at all, to the aid program in question. Congress, for example, has threatened to withhold federal highway funds unless states adopt a 55-mile-per-hour speed limit, raise the drinking age to 21, and, most recently, modify DUI laws. Any costs involved have been absorbed by the states. One recent federal measure with an expensive impact on state budgets is the No Child Left Behind law that took effect in January 2002. The statute was designed to improve overall academic performance and to end chronic gaps in achievement among students in different districts and between disadvantaged and more-advantaged students. It puts considerable pressure on states to design and implement standardized testing programs, and on local school systems to improve achievement across the board -- or face consequences ranging from having to pay for private tutoring to having the state take over their schools. The program may well cost Arizona more than $100 million just to comply with the testing requirements. Other costs include those for data collection, developing higher teacher and curriculum standards, and upgrading tutoring and reading programs. If Arizona chooses to ignore the law, however, it could lose over $300 million annually in federal funds for financially needy students. In another example, Arizona lawmakers have long complained about federal laws that require state and local governments, particularly along the Mexican border, to pick up some or all of the costs of health and educational services for both legal and illegal Mexican immigrants.
Restrictions, Mandates, and the Arizona Budget
Controlling the Budget
In Arizona as in most other states, most of the public's attention concerning state financial matters centers on legislative, gubernatorial, and agency activity in the making of the general fund budget, which is based on revenues from sales, income, and other taxes. But while this exercise features a balancing act that requires a great deal of fund shifting and imaginative accounting -- especially in times of economic stress -- it directly accounts for only a portion of what the state spends each year. Though legislators have more influence over spending than is commonly assumed, much spending is mandatory. The budgeting process, moreover, falls far short in terms of comprehensiveness or thoroughness. The Big Picture In recent years, the general fund budget has accounted for less than half of what the state spends annually. In FY 2003, for example, the general fund portion was 38 percent. The remainder consisted of: federal funds, the spending of which is largely controlled by the governor and agency heads, some 28 percent; and funds built up from fees or Arizona Total Operating Budget -- FY 2003 from earmarked taxes for Amount ($ billions) % particular programs, 34 percent. General Fund 6.2 38 Examples of the latter include Earmarked Fees and Taxes 5 .6 34 the earmarking of motor fuel and highway user taxes for Federal Funds 4 .7 28 transportation purposes and, as Total Budget 16.4* 100 already noted, of tobacco taxes General Funds -- Non-Discretionary 3.9 24 for health programs. At last General Funds -- Discretionary 2.3 14 count, there were 270 non*Budget figures may not total $16.4 due to rounding. appropriated special and Source: Joint Legislative Budget Committee. revolving accounts. Approximately 60 percent of state spending takes place outside the general fund. Within the general fund, moreover, another 60 percent is essentially non-discretionary, in that it is automatically programmed to increase or decrease according to formulas in the laws creating various programs.14 Much of the growth in the general fund budget in recent years has come because of formulas calling for increased spending as the number of school children increase or as more people go on AHCCCS. It is in these areas where voter-approved spending measures -- Propositions 204 and 301 and Students First -- have had their greatest impact in terms of both increasing expenditures and limiting legislative discretion. Overall, the picture appears dismal when it comes to legislative control of spending. In fiscal year 2003, for example, Arizona had a total operating budget of $16.4 billion and a general fund budget of $6.2 billion. But within the general fund budget, lawmakers
Restrictions, Mandates, and the Arizona Budget 9
could be said to have had discretionary control of just $2.3 billion -- or some 14 percent of the overall total. On the other hand, the situation is not so dire in practice because the legislature, by changing or suspending statutes, can tap into off-budget funds to balance the general fund budget. It also can change the formulas driving general fund spending -- though not those approved by the voters in recent years. The Process In Arizona, as in all other states except Vermont, the general fund budget must be balanced each year.15 The adoption of the budget requires a majority vote of the entire membership -- 31 house members and 16 senators. A few other states invite stalemate and lengthier sessions In Arizona, as in all other states by imposing a greater hurdle -- a three-fourths vote in except Vermont, the general fund Arkansas and a two-thirds vote in California and Rhode budget must be balanced each Island. In terms of decision-making, the Arizona budget year. process, like that in Colorado, often takes the form of "a succession of responses to revenue forecasts."16 In Arizona, dueling revenue projections typically come from the governor and the legislature. The size of the deficit, if any, is usually a matter of some dispute. When there is consensus that revenues are likely to lag behind a desired level of expenditures, the budget is "balanced" through a variety of moves: borrowing money, selling state property (with or without lease-back provisions), making transfers into the general fund from other state funds, shifting expenses to federal programs, and performing various sleightof-hand accounting moves such as counting revenues not yet received or postponing payment of bills to the next fiscal year. An example of the latter is the education "rollover," through which the legislature postpones payments to schools from one fiscal year to the next to make the budget appear balanced. Sometimes legislators have been lucky: In 2003, for example, Arizona was able to create a budget for fiscal 2004 without tax increases or major cuts with the aid of a one-time federal bailout of $308 million. Even earmarked funds are not all that secure. In 2003, for example, the legislature sliced the share of the state income tax earmarked for municipalities from 15 percent to 14.8 percent, and diverted some highway fund money going to localities into the general fund. Still, when cuts must be made, attention is likely to be first drawn to the most vulnerable of the programs supported by general revenues. In 2003, much of the money controlled by the legislature went to the Department of Corrections. Cutting this budget, however, was politically off limits. The number of prisoners had been steadily rising because of population growth and because of get-tough measures adopted by the legislature that increased both the number of people sent to prison and the length of time served. But few lawmakers seemed willing to reduce costs through early release programs that would put convicts, even those not considered dangerous, back on the streets. In the end, the most vulnerable funds were those for the university system and some non-protected spending for K-12 education and other social services.
Restrictions, Mandates, and the Arizona Budget
Somehow, the budget gets balanced. But the process is far from ideal when it comes to making a comprehensive evaluation of the state's spending programs. Lawmakers periodically express concern that so little of what Arizona spends is directly subject to legislative review through the general fund appropriations process. Some have proposed "Truth-In-Budgeting" acts that would bring federal dollars and various agency funds into the appropriation process. Governors, who control many of the funds through their agency directors, have successfully resisted such proposals. It has not been a partisan issue. In 2003, Democratic Governor Napolitano vetoed such a measure passed by the Republican legislature. In 1996, an earlier Republican legislature passed a similar act, only to have it vetoed by Republican Governor Fife Symington. Even legislators themselves have not been altogether willing to abandon the idea of earmarking funds and keeping them out of the general fund appropriation process. In part, this is because individual members are uneasy about what their colleagues might do to particular earmarked programs if they had to compete for funding. In 1994, for example, lawmakers resolved to bring several non-appropriated funds under legislative control. The following year, however, they wound up agreeing that funds for several favored programs -- notably the Arizona Commission on the Arts -- should stay earmarked to ensure that they were not "zeroed out" and appropriated for other purposes. The Earmarking Problem Arizona has been considerably above the national average for earmarking. State officials have been earmarking about 31 percent of revenues in recent years, while the national average for states has been about 22 percent.17 Much of the earmarking is self-imposed by the legislature; lawmakers could change the statutes, but are reluctant to do so because of pressure from affected groups and because of their commitment to Arizona has been considerably particular programs. above the national average for
been earmarking about 31 Earmarking has value in providing a relatively secure and percent of revenues in recent stable source of funding for a program or activity. In the years, while the national average case of motor fuel taxes, it reflects the idea that those for states has been about 22 who benefit from how tax monies are used (highway percent. users) should pay the taxes. In a practical sense earmarking is also useful in helping secure voter support for new or increased taxes -- taxes are more acceptable when tied to a popular program or cause, such as education reform. On the negative side, the practice gets in the way of comprehensive budgeting -- where, ideally, legislators weigh all funding proposals against each other -- and makes it more difficult for lawmakers to adapt to changing social and economic conditions. The lack of flexibility may be particularly harmful in regard to the highway fund. Placing gasoline taxes in the highway fund guarantees a certain level of support for road building and maintenance. But the practice ties up a great deal of revenue and thus limits lawmakers' ability to respond to other pressing problems. Restrictions, Mandates, and the Arizona Budget 11 earmarking. State officials have
Finally, by removing programs and services from the periodic review of the appropriations process, earmarking slants state governmental activities in favor of priorities that the legislature fails to reexamine or weigh against new concerns. Conversely, programs not protected by the practice become more vulnerable to budget cuts when conditions are tough.
The Situation for Local Governments
General purpose local governments -- counties and municipalities (cities and towns) -- share many of the problems of the state government when it comes to limitations on their ability to raise and spend funds, though an overall assessment of their impact on local budgets has yet to be made. Many of the restrictions have to do with the property tax which, in Arizona, is almost exclusively a local tax. In addition to restrictions on borrowing, spending, and taxing, local budgeting is impacted by mandates coming not only from the usual suspects -- voters, courts, and the federal government -- but from the state government as well. General Limitations Constitutional provisions and state statutes impose controls on nearly all aspects of local financial management: assessment, taxation, indebtedness, budgeting, accounting, auditing, and fiscal reporting. State law also places various restrictions on borrowing -- limits are expressed as a percentage of the assessed property value in a jurisdiction; localities cannot exceed these limits without public approval. On the whole, Constitutional provisions and however, local governments are freer to borrow money state statutes impose controls on than the state, and in the aggregate do about three times nearly all aspects of local as much. As for spending, a 1980 amendment to the financial management: Arizona constitution limits local government expenditures assessment, taxation, indebtedness, budgeting, to the levels that existed in FY1979, as adjusted annually accounting, auditing, and fiscal to reflect changes in population and the cost of living. The reporting. law exempts certain expenditures, such as for bond principal and interest payments. Spending in excess of the limits must receive a two-thirds vote of the governing body, as well as voter approval. In practice, this formula has had an adverse effect on municipalities that have experienced rapid growth since 1980 and the accompanying need for greatly increased infrastructure and other expenditures. However, cities and towns can seek voter approval to adopt an alternative way of setting the expenditure limit by, for example, making a permanent base adjustment based on current spending. Approximately half of Arizona's cities and towns have persuaded voters to approve alternative systems. Whatever choice they make, every city and town must comply with a uniform state reporting system and file an annual report showing its compliance with either the state or local expenditure limit.
Restrictions, Mandates, and the Arizona Budget
Property Taxes The taxpayers' revolt also spawned provisions added to the state constitution in the late 1970s limiting increases in property tax rates, property assessments, and overall property tax levies. The limits apply to the primary property tax, which is used to support general governmental operations. The secondary property tax, drawn upon for bond issues and other specific purposes, is not subject to these limits. Under the Arizona constitution, increases in the value of the property drawn upon to fund local government operations are limited, generally to 10 percent each year. In addition, the total amount of taxes drawn on such property by counties, cities, and community college districts can grow by no more than 2 percent from one year to the next, plus an amount concomitant with new construction. However, local governments may approve property revenue increases in excess of these limits through override elections.18 An additional restriction in state law limits the primary property taxes homeowners must pay to all local jurisdictions to a combined 1 percent of the value of their residence. Still another restriction is a "Truth-in-Taxation" law that requires local governments to roll back primary property tax rates to reflect increases in assessed valuation and provide public notice before voting to increase a rolled-back rate. Restrictions on property taxes have made life a bit more difficult for local decisionmakers. The restrictions, plus the unpopularity of the local property tax, have encouraged local governments to turn away from this source and use less restricted revenue sources, particularly fees and sales taxes. Mandates When faced with budgetary problems, state officials have looked favorably upon imposing mandates on local governments -- both by passing along federal mandates and by enacting their own. Local governments, at the end of the path of "one-way federalism" -- or what some call "shift and shaft federalism" -- wind up paying many of the costs of government. In Arizona, county officials in particular have objected to costly mandates in the area of health care, and to the propensity of state officials to dump "the ugly jobs" on them. In the FY 2004 budget alone, counties absorbed a $55 million hit, picking up state responsibilities for several functions. According to the best estimates, 80 percent of the expenditures of the average county are mandated. Municipalities enjoy a more independent status vis-a-vis the state and are not as heavily impacted by mandates. Even when local officials sympathize with the goals of state mandates, they are aware that all mandates distort local priorities, restrict local managerial flexibility, and impose costs that have to be paid through local revenues.19 Arizona, like many other states, has a fiscal note process that is intended to call attention to the costs imposed on localities by unfunded state mandates. In Arizona, fiscal notes are prepared by the Joint Legislative Budget Committee at the request of a member of the legislature. Local officials, however, complain that reliable cost estimates have not been produced at all or have been done too late to influence legislative
Restrictions, Mandates, and the Arizona Budget 13
decision-making, and have called for a strengthening of the process. Several states, but not Arizona, combine fiscal notes with a constitutional or statutory requirement that the state reimburse localities, in full or in part, for the expense of undertaking the mandated activity. As a deterrent to unfunded mandates, a requirement for reimbursement is more effective than a simple requirement for cost estimates.20
Conclusions and Recommendations
The impact of restrictions and mandates may not be unusually severe in Arizona as compared to California or Colorado, but they do present certain governing problems. On the surface, governors and legislators have lost considerable control over the budget because of formula-driven expenditures, largely for education and health care, mandated by the voters. The recent decline in general revenues has made finding The impact of restrictions and discretionary money in the general fund particularly mandates may not be unusually severe in Arizona as compared to difficult. All other things being equal, the problem will California or Colorado, but they do lessen as the economy improves, or if the state can present certain governing somehow tap into new general revenue sources. At the problems. same time, one should not discount the amount of control or potential control lawmakers have over budgetary matters even when the economy goes sour. By changing a few statutes or implementing some budgetary techniques, they have access to several funds built up from earmarked taxes and user fees. Governors and legislators have been remarkably agile in balancing the budget without either making major spending cuts or tax increases. Overall, though, there are areas where more general flexibility is needed, particularly in regard to borrowing money and raising taxes. There is also a more profound need to move toward a more comprehensive general budgeting process in which lawmakers can more sensibly weigh the relative merits of programs and proposals and balance spending and revenues. Arizona elected officials have always been a bit ornery where the federal government is concerned, and have taken complaints about the federal mandates and related matters to Washington; they have voiced them directly or funneled them through national organizations and the congressional delegation. Arizona governors and legislators have also often been at odds with judges because of court rulings on mandates and other questions. However, the legislature, if often grudgingly, has had to somehow adjust the budget to courts' demands for increased spending. Still, the legislature is not altogether powerless. It can, for example, change laws dealing with class action lawsuits in tax cases. More generally, it can minimize the possibility of lawsuits by living up to its obligations -- for example, by properly funding programs to which people are entitled by law. The initiative process has enjoyed increasing use in recent years. In the 1980s, groups initiated a total of 63 statewide initiative drives. In the 1990s, this swelled to 155; 30 more were begun in 2000 and 2002.21 Less than 20 percent of these have made it to
Restrictions, Mandates, and the Arizona Budget 14
the ballot and, of those, only about half were approved. Still, voters have had a significant impact on Arizona's financial well being through the initiative process. They have approved the creation and extension of the state lottery, increased tobacco taxes for health care, and expanded eligibility for health care. Voters using the initiative process also limited the ability of state legislators to raise taxes.22 In addition, voters have had to decide the fate of proposals placed on the ballot by the legislature. In fact, the number of financial measures on the ballot will likely increase, as Proposition 108 encourages advocates to take their case for a tax increase to the voters. While there may be good practical reasons to turn to the voters, what is known as "ballot box budgeting" is something of a nightmare. It involves making major program choices and funding policies one at a time, in a vacuum, without consideration of how they relate to other policy alternatives, overall priorities, or their impact on revenues. Indeed, opposing groups have both placed their cases before Arizona voters -- one side asking them to make raising taxes more difficult and the other asking them to spend more on government programs -- and the voters have given both sides what they wanted. The Voter Protection Act requires those who are unhappy with particular voter-approved measures to take their case back to the voters for modification or repeal. To guard against making mistakes in the first place, some groups have called for a constitutional change prohibiting a ballot measure from going into effect unless it is approved by the voters in two consecutive elections. To reappraise ballot measures over time, some have advocated that the constitution be amended to require that ballot measures be reauthorized on a periodic basis, such as 5 or 8 years. Others -- particularly those concerned about unwise and excessive spending -- have called for making the adoption of ballot measures dependent on a two-thirds vote. To protect against budget problems that have surfaced with some ballot measures, particularly Proposition 204, a good idea would be to require that all initiative or referendum measures mandating spending also identify a source of revenue for that spending and, if the source proves to be insufficient, allow the legislature to reduce expenditures to the amount of funding actually supplied. A measure along this line will appear on the November 2004 ballot. In addition, to increase legislative flexibility in raising revenues and possibly reduce the need for voter action, Proposition 108 should be repealed, returning the requirement for the approval of tax measures in the legislature to a majority vote. The state also could benefit by amending the constitution when it comes to debt. That is because the limitation on general obligation bond borrowing has not only reduced legislative flexibility but also has encouraged it to turn to more expensive and complicated methods of borrowing money. Finally, for local governments, there may be a need for a more effective fiscal note system and, perhaps, one backed by a constitutional provision requiring reimbursement.
Restrictions, Mandates, and the Arizona Budget
1. Public Finance in Arizona, Report prepared by Center For Business Research, L. William Seidman Research Institute, College of Business, Arizona State University, January 2003 p.23. 2. Arizona Constitution, Article 9, Section 17. 3. Joint Legislative Budget Committee, "State Appropriations Limit," February 16, 2004. 4. National Conference of State Legislatures, "Supermajority Requirements to Raise Taxes," 2003. 5. See commentary in Voters Check This Out, pamphlet compiled by the Arizona Secretary of State for General Election, November 3, 1992, pp. 54-55. 6. California Citizens Budget Commission, A 21st Century Budget for California: Recommendations of the California Citizens Budget Commission (Los Angeles, Center for Governmental Studies, 1998), p.3. 7. Susan P. Feno, The Role of State Supreme Courts in the New Judicial Federalism (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1987) . 8. Roosevelt Elementary School District No. 66 v. Bishop, 179 Ariz. 233, 877 P. 2nd 806, (1994). 9. 775 P. 2nd 521 (Ariz. 1989). 10. Arizona Department of Revenue v. Dougherty, 200 Ariz. 515, 29 P.3d 862, (2001). 11. For background on the litigation on a complaint filed by Helen H. Ladwig see Arizona Department of Revenue v. Dougherty, Ibid. 12. Flores v. Arizona, United States District Court for the District of Arizona, 160 F.Supp. 2nd 1043 (2000). 13. Quoted by Neal Peirce, "Angry States Left with Tab for Social Services," Washington Post syndication, August 1989. 14. It is mandatory spending in the sense that it cannot be changed without changing a statute. See: Joint Legislative Budget Committee Staff Memorandum, "Mandatory vs. Discretionary Spending," from Jennifer Vermeer, Assistant Director to Richard Stavneak, Director, October 8, 2002. 15. Arizona Constitution, Article 9, Section 3. 16. Scott Moore, "Budgeting in Colorado: The Unspoken Crisis in 2003," paper delivered at the 2003 Conference of the Western Political Science Association, p.3. 17. Dedicated State Tax Revenues: A Fifty-State Report (Bethesda Maryland, Fiscal Planning Services, June 12, 2000. This study uses financial information from the 1954 to 1997. 18. Details on these restrictions are found in An Explanation of Arizona Property Taxes, Arizona News Service, Inc. and The Arizona Tax Research Foundation, 2003. 19. As an alternative or supplement to shifting costs to local governments, the state sometimes takes away revenues it has been giving to local governments, for example, reduces the local portion of a shared tax, or takes over funds collected by local governments and uses them to support state programs. 20. See: David R. Berman, A"State-Local Relations: Authority, Finances, Cooperation," The Municipal Year Book 2002 (Washington: The International City/County Management Association, 2003) 45-61. 21. "Initiative Drives Since 1970," Arizona Capitol Times, 5 September 2003, p. 12. 22. One initiative proposed in 2000 that did not make it to the ballot, to the relief of many public officials, would have phased out the state's corporate and individual income taxes --- at the time the state was collecting $2.6 billion a year in income taxes. The measure was taken off the ballot after state courts found that it failed to conform to the single subject requirement of the state constitution. See: Taxpayer Protection Alliance v. Arizonans Against Unfair Tax Schemes, Arizona Supreme Court, No. CV-OO-0300-AP/EL.
Restrictions, Mandates, and the Arizona Budget
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.


text:
To view this video download
Flash Player
Stony Plain debut record Deeper in the Well crosses musical genres as the singer offers his audience hope and optimism.
Eric Bibb's new CD for Stony Plain may well be one of the most important roots music albums of recent years. Not only does it cross genres — folk, gospel-infused acoustic blues, and down-home country — but it offers a sound steeped in the rural ... Read more in Amazon's Eric Bibb Store
Show availability and shipping details
There's a problem loading this menu right now.
Learn more about Amazon Prime.
Your Shopping Cart is empty.
Give it purpose—fill it with books, DVDs, clothes, electronics, and more.
If you already have an account, sign in.
There's a problem previewing your cart right now.
Check your Internet connection and go to your cart, or try again.


text:
Main Content
Rip Curl's Daily Dosage boardies ensure that you get your daily requirement of surf and sand. Their soft buttersuede fabric and tie front keep you comfy as you dominate the waves. Rip Curl embroidery on both sides take these shorts to the next level. Best part of all — you don't even need a prescription.
- 100% Polyester fabric
- 9" Inseam on Size 30
- Engineered print
- Imported
- Lycra fly
- Quality embroidery
- Sewn-in bungee lanyard with bottle opener/wax comb/fin key
- Side pocket with hook and loop fastener closure
- Tie front with four grommets
Other Customers also liked:
Special event items are produced by manufacturers only after the outcome of a game or event. These are advanced sale items and will ship immediately after they are received in our warehouse.
Manufacturer direct items are shipped directly from the manufacturer. These items are not available for international or expedited shipping.
Customized items can be personalized with options such as your name, your favorite number, and/or designs. Some options may be limited by league rules.


text:
to Texas BBA
Home ·
BBA Home ·
BBA International Programs ·
Programs Overview ·
Short-Term Programs ·
Summer- MPA Short-Term ·
MPA Buenos Aires
tMPA: ACC381 required, 380K.11 recommended
iMPA: ACC355M, ACC356M, ACC358C, ACC359
Course Language: English
Faculty & Staff: McCombs & UT
TEXAS MPA students will earn 6 graduate accounting/business credits at the elite Universidad de San Andrés (UdeSA), one of the top business schools in Argentina. The only MPA program offered in Latin America, students will experience the city of Buenos Aires, often called the "Paris of Latin America" and known for its colorful and lively culture.
Enroll Now Lottery Opens October 1.
Page last updated: 10/1/2014
By phone: (512) 471-5921
By mail:
1 University Station, B6000
Austin, TX 78712-1178
In person:
2110 Speedway
Austin, TX 78705
©2014 McCombs School of Business, The University of Texas at Austin | Technology Resources | Contact Us


text:
Narrow By Clear All
- RST Outdoor (8)
- $75 - $100 (1)
- $100 - $150 (1)
- $150 - $275 (4)
- $275 - $300 (1)
- $300 & above (1)
and we can tell you what's
- Free Shipping(1)
- Shipping(8)
- Sears (3)
- Michals Marketplace (2)
- Sam's Discount Deals (2)
- ProSales (1)
- All Discounted Items (5)
- 20% off and more (3)
- 30% off and more (3)
RST Outdoor Hammocks & Accessories
All Products(8)
Sears Only(3)
+Earn Points
+Earn Points
+Earn Points
+Earn Points
Marketplace Item | learn more
Sold by Sam's Discount Deals
+Earn Points
Marketplace Item | learn more
Sold by Michals Marketplace
+Earn Points
Marketplace Item | learn more
Sold by ProSales
+Earn Points
Marketplace Item | learn more
Sold by Michals Marketplace
+Earn Points
Marketplace Item | learn more
Sold by Sam's Discount Deals
Enjoy backyard comfort with hammocks from Sears
Relaxing outdoors can become a more enjoyable pastime when you can spend hours in one of our hammocks, patio gliders or happily seated on our casual patio chairs. Hammocks have always been an easy fix for fatigue; just set one up between supports and stretch out for a nice rest or nap. Single hammocks are perfect for a satisfying nap by yourself, while double hammocks let you and that special someone spend time relaxing side-by-side.
If you live in a hot climate, rope hammocks are a good option for you. The open weave of the sling allows air circulation, keeping you cool as you lounge. String up one of these lightweight hammocks in the shade of a leafy tree or gazebo, install an outdoor mister to blow cooling vapor over you and you'll beat the heat no matter how hot the weather.
Chair hammocks are yet another fun option that is gaining popularity. Many of our casual patio chairs and outdoor dining sets feature deep cushioning for extra comfort. Our swivel rockers and patio gliders are always in high demand whenever family and friends visit. Be sure you have enough chairs at your next social event from famous furniture designers like Ty Pennington, Lexington and La-Z-Boy.
When you are ready for total relaxation, have a seat on our patio gliders. These are even more fun than a rocker because you have the gentlest of to-and-fro motion to soothe every bit of your fatigue away. Many patio gliders are also combined with a swivel action, which is nice to use when you are talking with several people on different sides of your chair. Many of our designer patio gliders are so beautiful that you will want to have them inside your home. Select upholstery styles with deep cushions, traditional wood or metal gliders, high-back gliders or double glider patio chairs. Patio gliders are available in brilliant colors and in peaceful neutrals, so you have many design options.
Of course, even the mildest of springs and summer have days that are too hot, cool or rainy to spend a lot of time outside. Don't sacrifice comfort when you're napping indoors; bring home a memory foam mattress from Sears. The advanced foam padding adapts to the contours of your body, cradling you in perfect comfort. Looking for something bouncier? Try a pillowtop mattress with a built-in layer of plush padding that you'll love to sink in to.
Create a backyard or patio retreat designed for pure relaxation by adding hammocks, gliders and our casual patio chairs and accessories to your outdoor living areas. There is always room on the deck for a set of patio gliders or casual patio chairs. We have them all at Sears, ready to be delivered or for you to pick up at your convenience.


text:
During Fall Fashion Week in New York on Saturday, February 9, we're partnering with Shapeways on an interactive encounter of technology and design that explores how digital technology can revolutionize the future of fashion — with Michael Schmidt, Dita Von Teese, Material ConneXion and some of today's most forward-thinking CAD artists and analog jewelry designers.
An interactive bespoke jewelry bazaar pairs jewelry designers including Ten Thousand Things, Verameat, Ursa Major, In God We Trust, Lindsey Adelman, Anna Sheffield and Chris Habana with CAD modelers Kostika Spaho, thefuturefuture and Duann Scott to offer participants the chance to realize their own custom-made pieces, made before their eyes with MakerBot 3D printers.
At 2pm in the lobby, we host a group discussion for students about 3D printing and fashion's future with designer Michael Schmidt —creator of wardrobes for luminaries like Lady Gaga, Rihanna, Deborah Harry and Madonna, and of the rope installation in the lobby of Ace Hotel & Swim Club — and 3D design evangelists Michael Curry and Duann Scott from MakerBot and Shapeways, respectively, and Brooks Hagan, textile artist and Acting Head of the Textile Department at RISD. All students are welcome to attend.
Material ConneXion presents a gallery show focused on the materiality of fashion to come, and Michael Schmidt — creator of wardrobes for luminaries like Lady Gaga, Rihanna, Deborah Harry and Madonna, and of the rope installation in the lobby of Ace Hotel & Swim Club — with Computational Designer Francis Bitonti unveils a fully articulated 3D-printed gown to be debuted by Dita Von Teese as muse and model at a party to herald fashion's forthcoming digital future.
We'll be posting interviews, inspiration boards, studio visits and more here in the days leading up to the big shebang.


text:
This is a personal blog with some art thrown in sometimes, but mostly I just post whatever strikes my fancy.
My ask box is always open so feel free to send me a message, and if there's ever anything you want me to tag so you can savior it, please let me know!
See my TAGS page for information about my fandoms and ships!
My Video Games/Art blog is PunchFlower!


text:
And the winner of my Supernova giveaway (drawn from those who linked up a completed quilt to this post) is ... #9! Julie of Distant Pickles!
Yay Julie. : ) I'll be contacting you for your mailing address. Have a wonderful weekend everyone, and thanks for participating!
Friday, May 13, 2011
Supernova Giveaway Winner!
Labels: Giveaways, quilt alongs, Supernova
7 comments:
O.M.G.!!!!! I cannot believe I actually won. WOW! Thank you Lee!!!ReplyDelete
Congrats, Julie! Enjoy.ReplyDelete
Congratulations, Julie. And thanks, Lee, for having such a lovely incentive to get my beautiful project completed.ReplyDelete
Yay for Julie!ReplyDelete
Way to go Julie - enjoy your prize, you earned it. I'm still now done with my quilt :)ReplyDelete
Yea!!! Congratulations Julie!!ReplyDelete
Congrats Julie! This was a great experience Lee--thanks for hosting.ReplyDelete
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)


text:
Read It
Most Watched
Watch It
Get 4 Free Issues!
12/02/2002 at 01:00 AM EST
•originally published
Share this story:
Your reaction:
Hamm and Westfeldt step out for the opening night of Billy & Ray in N.Y.C. Plus: Alicia Keys, Kate Middleton & more!
Copyright © 2014 Time Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


text:
Relaxing in this solid oak, full length, upholstered chair provides the comfort of days gone by. With the quality of old-fashioned comfort and impeccable durability, this stain-resistant mahogany chair holds up to 400 pounds. Choose between any of 14 luxurious fabrics that come in different textures, colors and designs.
Reception Chair Specs:
- Full length, fully upholstered, arched back lends style and comfort
- Built with a 1" thick solid oak frame and extra thick seat and back cushions for comfort and durability
- Choose from 14 designer fabrics with Teflon stain repellent finish or four antimicrobial vinyl's
- Assembly is a breeze with our unique slide brackets, no tools are required
- Weight Capacity: 400 lbs. per seat
Finish: Dark Red Mahogany
21.5"W x 37"H x 26"D
Furnished Over 1 Million Homes Since 1997...
I was very satisfied with One Way Furniture Service. I have referred them to many friends, family, and customers. Thank you. Kathy A. Eisele, Boston, MA
Product Review - Dakota Wave Prairie Dark Red Mahogany Sled Base Chair
Furniture Brand
Wooden Mallet Office Furniture provides clever and stylish storage and seating solutions for any business. Browse here for Wooden Mallet sofas, wall displays, benches, file holders, chairs, coffee tables, extinguisher cabinets, magazine holders and racks, sled-based sofas and more. One Way Furniture offers high quality Wooden Mallet office furniture at discount prices. All Wooden Mallet office furniture ships right to your door. Wooden Mallet
Weight & Size
Reference - Sku: DW7-1MH - Dakota Wave Prairie Dark Red Mahogany Sled Base Chair by Wooden Mallet