Republican Legislature to Hispanics: Get Out Now

Republicans in the state legislature are sending to every single Latino in the state, legal or not, a loud and clear message: “Take yourself, your family, your kids, your companies, your culture, your tax payments, the jobs you create and not just get out, but get the hell out and get the hell out now!”

I’m not Latino, but if I were, I would be extremely concerned about the lunacy coming out of the Republican legislature. Under the guise of immigration control, the trespassing legislation would have police raid family picnics, soccer games and wedding receptions to hunt down supposed illegal aliens and haul them to jail.

If I were a Latino business owner, I can’t think of a better incentive to move out of the state than the threat of police harassment of my business, family and workers. No long-term history of living and running a business legally is worth remaining in a state where “acting tough” is better than “acting rightly” in an equitable manner and protecting citizen’s freedoms and rights.

I’m only talking about American citizens, no one else. Even the police believe this is a bad idea that will allow other crimes to go unreported because of perceived or trumped up immigration charges.

If I were a Latino and I was thinking about staying in Arizona, I would be thinking about who I can elect to make sure I, as a legal resident, do not have to live in the fear encouraged by the Republicans in the legislature. If this isn’t a wake up call for Latinos to vote, I don’t know what is and I hope they do.

Are There John Birch Members in the AZ Legislature?

I was going through some of the bills offered by our illustrious Republican legislature and I came across one that makes me wonder who exactly we have running the store here. Do we have rational people in the legislature or are they fear-mongering conservative populists touting an extremist agenda. Read the following and then decide.

SCM1002: Urging the Congress of the United States to enact H.R. 1146, the American sovereignty restoration act of 2005

SCM1002 is a "Senate Concurrent Memorial" that if passed will be "transmitted" to the U.S. Congress that expresses the belief of both houses of the Arizona legislature that the U.S. is somehow losing its sovereign identity because the U.S. is a member of the United Nations. The language is full of questionable language and fear-mongering that has no basis in fact--even loose ones.

Whereas number 5 says "Whereas, the Charter of the United Nations purports to supersede the independence and sovereignty of the United States and the Constitution of the United States of America and to usurp powers delegated in the Constitution..."

A reading of the UN Charter Article 2, Section 1 states "The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members," and Article 2, Section 7 which states "Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll."

Now, those calling for the US to get out of the UN, such as our Arizona legislators, claim that the UN can use US forces willy nilly and for whatever purpose. Then riddle me this Batman, how come Chapter 7, Articles 43 and 44 give member states the right to opt-out of any military involvement. I guess they've forgotten how many UN members opted-out of the GWB Iraq war. The "memorial" is so wrong in fact that I cannot imagine that a single one of the sponsors or cosponsors bothered to read the relevant sections of the UN Charter. That begs the question of who's behind the "Get the U.S. out of the UN" movement.

If you look on Google, the primary sponsor is...get this...The John Birch Society (JBS). Yup. Remember them? They are the ultra-conservatives from the late 50's and 60's who saw conspriacies and communist plots under every rock, including the Civil Rights movement.

Don't believe me? Look for yourself.

Do yourself a favor and check out the WikiPedia discussions on the JBS and check out the subsidiary links. Other well known Birchers: Phyllis Schlafly, and none other than the key sponsor of House bill our Arizona legislators want to pass, Texas Republican Ron Paul. The Honorable Rep. Paul graced the JBS at their "Special Council Dinner" last year at JBS headquarters in Appleton, Wisconsin.

Bob Dylan wrote a song about the JBS, the Talkin' John Birch Paranoid Blues."

So who are the Arizona legislators (all Republicans, btw) sponsoring this bill?

Sponsors:
Sen. Karen Johnson (D-18)
Rep. Doug Quelland (D-10)

Cosponsors:
Rep. Andy Biggs (D22)
Rep. Tom Boone (D4)
Rep. Eddie Farnsworth (D22)
Rep. Pamela Gorman (D6)
Sen. Ron Gould (D3)
Rep. Trish Groe (D3)
Sen. Jack W. Harper (D4)
Rep. Rick Murphy (D9)
Rep. Russell Pearce (D18)
Rep. Colette Rosati (D8)
Sen. Thayer Verschoor (D22)

Think about it: we have a sense of the state of Arizona that the US should get out of the UN for reasons that are unsubstantiated in the UN Charter, sponsored only by Republicans, most of whom live in the East Valley, endorsing a position that is being championed by the John Birch Society.

If it walks like a duck...

Tax cut Irrationale #7

God bless the E.V. Tribune. Even when people make cogent arguments on the short-sightedness of conservative tax cut plans, they can't force themselves to have either an honest discussion on the topic (highly unlikely) or tone down the rhetoric (less likely). It's like they have tourettes and just can't stop themselves.

Today's lesson comes in a real stretch of a commentary from good 'old John Semmens. Not sure what his background is, but it's clear his thinking isn't mainstream. Why do I say this? Because in today's opinion section, John juxtaposes violence with taxes and argues that the percentage of people being killed in violent attacks is, get this, declining. Why? Because there are more people, which means the body counts are lower, which means a less violent society.

Huh?

My sentiments exactly.

Mr. Semmens quotes an author named James Payne, (no relation to Congressional District Candidate Herb Pain, thankfully) who originally argues those points in a book titled "A History of Force." Payne's self-published book, which you can order from Amazon and get it in "4-6 weeks," really does make this obscene argument.

Now, "Professor Payne" really isn't a professor anymore. According to his publishing web site, he hasn't been formally "professor" since 1985. Let's see, that's twenty one years. I guess that's about as good a title as someone who gets an honorary degree and then calls himself "Doctor." The good Professor Paine has also written children's books that tell kids that government's role is, and I am NOT making this up, "to do harm."

Got it where Mr. Semmens political ideology is coming from? Somewhere between extremist libertarianism and the teachings of the John Birch Society (more on them in a future post).

So back his silly premise that more people on the planet means the per-capita exercising of violence is in decline, since as a percentage, fewer people are being harmed. As a result, people should stop saying the world is less safe because it's actually more safe. Hey, do the math!

Okay, so we now know that government intends only to do harm and therefore since government, Semmens equates government's collection of taxes as a violent act. And since violence is on the decline, that means tax collections need to be on the decline because "tax cuts are very popular." And since everyone is getting more and more income, they will be pushed into higher tax brackets, which means "they will be targeted by tax collectors."

Clearly Mr. Semmens has ignored the recent GAO report that shows the rich are getting rich and the poor are getting poorer. I guess he's missed the Dept. of Commerce report that shows income levels adjusted for inflation are lower today than when President Bush took office. Mr. Semmens, if anyone, should understand that controlling for time and inflation, numbers tell a different story. After all, he started it.

So, to tie this insane argument together, Semmens says the legislature should pass House Bill 2489, which is the Goldwater Institute's factually unfounded 10 percent tax cut. As I stated in an earlier post, this bill means a whopping $117 dollar tax cut for people making $70,000 and tens of thousands for people making over $1 million.

Guess how much those making less than $40,000 get in a tax cut? Nothing. Nada. Zip.

Semmens is simply on another planet. That the East Valley Tribune gives this guy a continued voice is more evidence that there are people in charge here and in the legislature who are way off the proverbial reservation.

Is there a pattern here?

I'm listening and reading about all of the people who are at the head of some form of conservative movement, ranging from President Bush to Tom DeLay to a woman named Jan LaRue who heads a conservative Right to Life group, and they all seem to have one thing in common: addictions.

President Bush: alcohol and drugs
Tom DeLay: Alcohol
Jim Ramstad: Alcohol
Jan LaRue: Alcohol, drugs and sex

I'm glad they appear to be over their problems. But what's interesting is how people who have addictive personalities find themselves connected to a movement with many others, also in recover, also with addictive personalities, who are trying to change society to oppress those things with which they once (and maybe still) do find compelled to partake: evangelical Christianity.

I'm not the first one to wonder this, but doesn't it seem odd that the compulsions and obsessions continue only with a new focus? What concerns me is they blame everyone else for their problems. There is no accountability. There is no facing up to the truth. There is only denial.

Maybe someone needs to develop a new 8-step program for politicians.

Tax Cut Irrationale #6 - The Rove Edition

The Republican playbook that Karl "The Architect" Rove sang out of at a speech to the Republican faithful was the same old song and dance that simply shouldn't work again. Ol' Karl wants to label Democrats as "tax-and-spenders" again. I have to give it to him, he had a pretty witty way of saying it:

Democrats haven’t seen a tax cut they like or a tax increase they oppose. They see tax increases as a virtue. They believe taxes should be raised in times of decline and in times of prosperity. During war and during peace-time. In even years and odd ones. During days of sunshine and days of rain. They believe every day is a good day to raise your taxes.

One problem...not a word of it's true.

And he knows it.

And he could care less.

I've reworked his quote to be something a bit more accurate:

Republicans haven’t seen a lobbyist or tax break they oppose. They see lobbyists as a necessary way to get money and tax breaks for those who have hired the lobbyists and rich folks as a virtue. They believe lobbyists and their clients should receive tax breaks in times of decline and in times of prosperity. During war and during peacetime. In even years and odd ones. During days of sunshine and days of rain. They believe every day is a good day to give tax breaks to lobbyist's clients and rich people.

Now that's an accurate statement.

Why is it that so many people continue to buy Rove and the Republican's argument and completely ignore the realities of the truely reckless fiscal policies of this administration and the unchecked "spend-and-borrow?" Are we so clueless that we can ignore the massive increase in debt, massive increase in pork spending, and the largest increase in Congressional hutzpah in our lifetimes?

Short answer? Yeah. That's what they're banking on.

Old GOP habits die hard

It seems that even when the GOP has the Abramoff albatross around its neck, it still can't bring itself to do things out in the open or do things that help America's seniors.

Today's Washington Post printed a story that described House and Senate GOP negotiator meetings behind closed doors "agreed on a change to Senate-passed Medicare legislation that would save the health insurance industry $22 billion over the next ten decade." Instead of passing a bill that saves money for seniors, the GOP cow-towed to the health insurance lobbyists and restored $22 billion of the Senate-passed $26 billion in cuts. I guess we can see who butters who's bread!

White House spokesman Scott McClelland said during a 4 January press briefing that he would get back to reporters on whether Jack Abramoff attended any staff meetings. During the 17 January press briefing, McClelland said "I won't get into discussing staff meetings." I'll take that as a "yes."

Abramoff and President Bush had numerous photos taken together at the White House and the White House has decided not to release them. I wonder why...

Too many bad ideas for 100 days

If it wasn't for the Goldwater Institute, I'd certainly have more free time because I wouldn't have to beat them up on some of the truly brainless ideas they throw about. In Wednesday's (18 Jan 2006) free advertisement in the East Valley Tribune, the Institute's president and CEO, Darcy Olsen hands down from the mountaintop their "100 ideas for 100 days." That's the amount of time the Arizona Legislature is supposed to be in session.

Since there are 100 of their "ideas" and they're pretty short, I'll attempt to do the same here. Not that all of them are bad, but some are downright silly. Here goes.

Dumb education ideas:

#4: "Early education funding should be modified into direct education grants to families."
Why it's a dumb idea: First, what new State bureacarcy will handle administration of these grants and ensure they will be used as intended and not to buy a car or bills? Second, why not give it to the schools, which already has the systems in place to manage them, and let them enhance existing programs, especially since most parents will likely send their kids to public schools anyway.

#5 "Create the nation’s first statewide system of direct education grants, allowing parents to use their child’s portion of state equalized base funding to pay tuition at a school of their choice."
Why it's a dumb idea: Again, uses money to create a new state bureacracy (isn't this more and bigger government?) to allow rich folks to underwrite their tuition fees with taxpayer's funds because they know most parents don't have the time to haul their kids to private schools when the public school bus comes directly to the neighborhood.

#6 "Consider creating education savings accounts for families, providing more cost effective use of funds, greater choice for parents, and a wider range of opportunity for students."
Why it's a dumb idea: Parents already have this capacity. There's also the "Gifts to Children Act" that is a great way for parents and grandparents to set aside money for their kids education.

#9 "Require the Arizona Department of Revenue to honor requests of tuition scholarship organizations to post their financial information so donors can review salary, overhead, and related administrative expenditures."
Why it's a dumb idea: I can't find any reason why these tuition scholarship organizations can't post their financial information if they want to. We need to grow the bureaucracy to do this, too?

They have 25 “ideas” for education and 18 require increasing the size of government to implement those “ideas.”

“Idea” 37 would eliminate corporate income taxes. Corporations should then pay for their own sewer systems, police and fire protection and educate their employee’s children, too.

Of their 51 “Economic Prosperity” ideas, 22 have to do with tax cuts or reductions in rates. Of those 22, 15 would reduce revenues to the state that would make their 25 educational “ideas,” among others, impossible to implement for lack of funds.

Goldwater would eliminate state medical oversight. They would tax freeway use for people who live in “congested” areas. They want a new State bureaucracy to manage conversion of HOV lanes to a toll-road. They think private sector management of state services is always less expensive (remember Halliburton?).

Comedian Lewis Black called Republicans “the Party of bad ideas.” Since so many of Goldwater’s “100 ideas” grow the size of government while at the same time starving it and destroying existing capabilities, they clearly prove his point.

Did Tax Cuts Really Drive Arizona’s Growth?

Much like the proverbial “third rail” of politics, the notion that tax cuts drive growth is at the core of Republican economic policy. Since our state has a projected budget surplus of somewhere around $750 million, the rhetoric coming out of the Republican side of the legislature is “tax cut, tax cut, tax cut.” The Goldwater Institute and the allied Arizona Free Enterprise Club are calling for them as well. All three use supply-side economics theory and previous tax cuts and the growth that came behind them to justify a new round.

While that sounds good, have we really questioned whether the tax cuts alone were the engine of the state’s growth? A review of the facts reveals something Republicans don’t want you to know: they weren’t. It was a combination of things, among which tax cuts were one, but a lesser factor. The real reason is a fundamental change in Arizona’s core economy from tourism, mining and agriculture to high-tech, services and real estate with the accompanying increase in firms and jobs as a direct result. If you don’t believe me, go look at the U.S. Bureau of Labor “State at a Glance” data for Arizona and see for yourself.

The notion is so simple it could appear on the fourth-grade AIMS test. The State starts out with jobs that pay lower wages and there are few people in a geographically large state. Ensuring state services are available throughout will be more expensive because of the distances required to travel to offer or receive them. Let’s say that there are one million people who pay taxes in the state and each pays one dollar in taxes. You do the math.

Now let’s suppose a new industry moves into the state, say microchip manufacturing. That industry attracts more highly skilled workers who get paid more money and pay more in taxes. These employees need new homes built, new schools to attend, new roads to drive on, new shopping opportunities, new places to eat, new cars to buy, new clothes to wear, etc. Real estate values increase because what used to be agricultural lands are now housing developments, office parks and retail shopping centers; all of which pay taxes at higher rates than the old land use. New business will spring up to take advantage of the new market opportunities created by these new citizen’s needs, and the cycle repeats.

So instead of one million people paying taxes, due only to population growth you now have two million taxpayers. Of that, one million pay $1.50 in taxes versus $1, which results in an increase in state income tax-based revenues. Remember, real property tax revenues increase too. The point is that more revenues are coming into state coffers without any change in rates. It is the growth everyone wants that generates more revenue, not excessive tax rates.

During the evolution of the state’s economic base, tax rates that could reasonably be reduced were reduced. These reductions did contribute to economic growth, but to say they alone were the cause is simply disingenuous and overstates their impact.

This begs the question of whether tax cuts are truly needed in the first place. Polls show that most Arizonans would rather the surplus be used to pay back money the legislature borrowed from other accounts when the state was running a $1B deficit. We know schoolteachers are paying for supplies out of their own pockets. We know police and border security needs to be enhanced. We know roads and water projects need to be improved or built. Why not use the surplus to pay for those things?

Here’s why: without tax cuts Republicans have no economic issue upon which to run for reelection. They can’t talk about economic growth because it was the Governor who vetoed many of their anti-growth bills and helped to attract companies like Google. They can’t talk about how Arizona schools rank nationally, because they’re not improving. They can’t talk about how health care costs in Arizona are under control, because they’re not. Do Republicans really think people making $70,000 need a $117 tax cut? Wow, that’s three tanks of gas. What a stimulus!

Republicans need an issue to deflect the discussion away from their lacking domestic policies and they’re using tax cuts as the diversion. Even when voters tell them to use the surplus wisely, or even if tax cuts are unnecessary, they cannot bring themselves to admit that the people are right. Our economy is growing and there is no proof tax rates are excessive or a drain on the economy. What’s so wrong with putting the surplus to good uses and rebuilding the rainy-day fund? If the whole truth be told, not a darn thing.

Tax Cut Irrationale #5

Steve Voeller, Director of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, is so wrong on so many levels in his pitch for tax cuts it's scary. To use Charles Goyette's phrase, he needs to "avoid the Kool-Aid."

Voeller continues the lie by saying that the tax cuts alone made the State grow simply ignores reality. Arizona's economy moved from agriculture, mining and tourism to high-tech in the 80's and 90's, which increased the size of the tax base and expanded the real estate market because of the increase in employment. It doesn't snow here, so many people moved here for the climate figuring they'll get a job in the growing tech economy. So is it a shock that people in real estate, computer sales, defense satellite systems, marketing and sales are successful here? Nope.

Why were taxes higher in the first place? Because Arizona didn't have a diverse industrial or economic base back then. We do now. More business means more firms, more jobs and more people contributing to the State treasury. That's what grew revenues, not tax cuts.

According to The Tax Foundation, Arizona's rates are "competitive among all of the states," we rank 39th in income tax rates and we're at the national average with regards to tax burden. Voeller says people making between $50K and $70K should be happy with an additional $117 --per year-- and those with lower incomes would get less. Wow, time to start that investment account or buy a couple tanks of gas.

Most research that looks at why businesses move or why they're started in the first place do NOT includes taxes at the top of the list. It's the market, cost of labor, cost of land, and cost of benefits that lead the list. Does Voeller really expect us to believe that someone will not start a business because of personal income tax rates? Does he think we're stupid? Close. He thinks we're gullible.

Good corporate citizens understand paying taxes makes sure their streets are paved, their businesses are safe, their employee's children are educated and they have safe drinking water, among many other things. Can they be too high? Sure. But Arizona has lower taxes than two-thirds of the States and we have a surplus. LetÂ?s use it wisely on things we need to support the ongoing growth Mr. Voeller can't see is already there.

AZ Republic Letters - Love the Rich, Hate the Poor

In Thursday's Op-Ed section of the Arizona Republic, someone named Michael Slater assumes the poor are poor by choice. What an amazingly uninformed opinion. Research studies (like Peter H. Rossi's classic "Why People Move" and the follow-up "Why Families Move") show the poor don't even like living next to each other. It amazes me people believe some choose to be poor. It's as if a husband and wife sat down and said "Let's be poor and live off the public. Let's live in high-crime areas. Let's live where the school's are crappy." Amazing ignorance.

He also presumes the rich are that way because they work hard. I wonder exactly how Mr. Slater is using the words "rich" and "work." Maybe he should read the Bible for a little perspective.

Deuteronomy 14:21-29 mandates that food be shared with "aliens, orphans, and widows." Hebrews 13:5 states "Make sure that your character is free from the love of money, being content with what you have; for He Himself has said, "I will never desert you, nor will I ever forsake you...” Lack of support for the poor and needy is what got Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed (Ezekiel 16:46-50), not just being selfish. Matthew 25:31-45 describes how we will be judged for how we treat the less fortunate.

God and Jesus tell us we are to care for the poor. I can’t tell whether Mr. Slater is a Christian, but he’s certainly a Conservative. I wouldn’t want to be him or others like him on Judgment Day.

Arizona Republic Argues for Election of More Democrats

Okay, well not exactly...

In today's (1/5/06) lead editorial, the powers that be at the Arizona Republic argue that changes need to be made to change a system that is a "...very flawed, money-driven representative democracy into a far less noble pursuit" into something where lawmakers remember who they work for.

Since Abramoff has "sterling Republican Party connections," doen't it seem plausible that Democrats should take the places of all Republican tainted by the current and coming scandals? Doesn't it seem right that voters should toss out those members of Congress who, as the Republic states has gone through "...the dangerous devolution of a democracy from a system of voters and elected officials to a system that has slipped hired guns in between?"

The Republic says that "Out of the coming headline-grabbing scandals, "reform" will certainly come. We ought to be wary of that, too." Using the typical conservative spin, why change the system with the current batch of people who will cover their own behinds in an effort to stay in office. I say elect Democrats to those seats and then do the reform.

Throw the bums out!

Creationism redux

In today's Arizona Republic, Robert Robb makes the claim that Intelligent Design (ID) really IS science and is not the same as creationism. He criticizes Federal District Court judge John E. Jones III (a GWB appointee, by the way) for tossing out the Dover School Board policy of teaching ID after painstakingly dissecting their arguments. He belittles the judge for becoming an authority on ID "based upon the extensive expertise he professes to have acquired in the course of a six-week trial."

So let me get this straight, the Dover School Board brought in the best people in the ID movement to testify on their behalf and for their position before this Bush-appointed judge and even though the judge heard their testimony, Robert Robb thinks the judge still got it wrong. Robb thinks there is so much more evidence that he personally knows that was somehow missed by the Dover School Board and their experts that should have been presented before the court that if the judge had been doing his job would clearly have discovered and ruled in favor of ID. He argues that even "some" scientists can't get the start of life quite right.

Since Mr. Robb can't seem to buy a clue, I'll give him a couple.

1. The title of Darwin's book is "The Origin of Species" --NOT-- "The Origin of The Species." Big difference.

2. Evolution explains how life adapts to changes in environments. If someone would actually read Darwin, it concerns itself more with species and how they got to where they are today, not so much how it began.

3. Darwinism's "explanation" of the birth of all life is NOT included in "The Origin of Species." It is an additional theory developed by other scientists using Darwin's theory and going backwards. To criticize Darwin's theory for being wrong on the creation of life is to clearly not know Darwin's theory.

4. The father of the ID movement, Phillip E. Johnson wrote "All I want them to do is to be candid about the disconfirming evidence and admit, if it is the case, that they are hanging on to Darwinism only because they prefer a shaky theory to having no theory at all." Shouldn't the same statement apply to "creationists?" Shouldn't the same statement apply to ID folks?

If Mr. Robb would read the Kitzmiller v. Dover School Board decision, he'll see the judge based his decision on the testimony before him. That Robb and others still think there's other evidence that could have turned the decision, shame on the ID folks for lying to the court, exaggerating points, and bringing a conservative judge to rule against ID. Maybe, just maybe the judge made the correct ruling.

The bottom line to all of this is that no matter what, no one will ever know the answer. If faith is what drives you, then faith will drive your thinking, much like if you want proof, science will drive your thinking. At the end of the day, we will all be dead before we learn the answer. At that point, it's too late to phone home.

Tax cut irrationale #4

There are so many misleading statements in Tom Patterson's East Valley Tribune (State doesn't 'invest'; it spends) commentary today (Tuesday) it's hard to know where to start.

Mr. Patterson says the state surplus will be in "the $1 trillion range." Odd, I was at a meeting where one of the Governor's staffers spoke last month and they said it would be closer to $500 million. There's a pretty big difference $1 trillion and $500 million. Not that I know the correct number, but wouldn't it be nice if someone who's pitching another tax cut could at least get an accurate figure? So let's say it's the lesser number. What does that do for Patterson's tax-cut pitch? In my view, it doesn't help his case.

Next, Patterson states that government can't invest because in his dictionary it means "using money to generate interest or profit." According to the "Dictionary of Modern Economics," the word investment describes "the flow of expenditures devoted to projects producing goods which are not intended for current consumption. These investment projects may take the form of adding to both physical and human capital as well as inventories. (p. 224)" Not quite the same thing, is it?

From a government perspective, adding to physical capital clearly means roads, school buildings, police cars, fire trucks, sewer and water systems, waste handling and the like. I'm constantly amazed that people like Mr. Patterson seem to think this stuff just appears and has no cost. He talks about the importance of growth but seems to have zero clue as to the public infrastructure required to support that growth at all levels. Buying things like fire and police stations and school buildings are, Mr. Patterson, an i-n-v-e-s-t-m-e-n-t and one that you should be supporting.

He makes the misleading comment that if the legislature passed a 10 percent tax cut that this would magically result in all taxpayers being able to "boost their investing and spending." Again, I'm amazed that someone who's supposed to be running an economic analysis organization would make such a silly statement. Maybe Mr. Patterson hasn't noticed the price of gasoline. Maybe Mr. Patterson hasn't seen the cost of kid's clothing. Maybe Mr. Patterson hasn't seen the cost of food lately. After people are done "spending" on necessities, they don't have money left over to use for Mr. Patterson's definition of "investing."

The Congressional Budget Office published a report on December 1, 2005 that shows that the supply-side theory used by Patterson with regards to increases in government revenues doesn't work. Addressing supply-side theory, the CBO states "there is insufficient theoretical and empirical basis for (supply-side) effects to allow CBO to incorporate them in (its) analysis." Isn't that interesting that Mr. Patterson says there is "economic research that tells a different story.” How come the CBO can’t find it?

The CBO report shows, in its best case, a 10 percent tax cut made up only 25% of the lost revenue, which means a higher deficit in near and long term. Patterson simply ignores the increased risk of debt should revenues not keep up with required i-n-v-e-s-t-m-e-n-t. What happens if the economy gets rough again? Then what, Mr. Patterson?

I tried to find Richard K. Vedder's research, but even using Google, I couldn't do it. One paper I did find and read made the comical assertion that taxes had a negative impact on people's income living under the poverty line and that was a bad thing.

Well, duh.

Of course it has an impact because a five percent tax on an income of $12,000 per year is a much bigger bite that five percent on an income of $150,000, and that doesn't account for the itemized deductions the person making $150,000 gets to take. Maybe that's why tax cuts should go to the lower income people and not the upper income crowd. It seems to me rather insincere for Mr. Patterson to feign worry about poor folk's incomes while at the same time championing higher personal investment. As if...

Continuing to live in the past, Patterson cites a 1997 study that shows when tax rates were cut, the Arizona per-capita income and earnings per-employee improved. What he doesn’t say is that Arizona’s current tax rates, according to The Tax Foundation, are “competitive compared to other states.” He also doesn’t mention that Arizona’s income tax rates ranks 39th out of 50 states and the tax burden is right at the national average.

Clearly there’s no pleasing Mr. Patterson. We have a growing economy with lower tax rates than in the last decade and we have a surplus. Good for us. It could be worse. We also have a clear need for more investment in community infrastructure and yes, programs. Since the real definition of investment means expenditures devoted to improving physical and human capital, maybe putting money where it’s needed and paying down debt is a good idea. Who knows when we may get the chance again.

The Impact of the War on Christmas

Maybe there really IS a "liberal War on Christmas." In case you've had your head in the sand, the conservative talking heads like Fox's John Gibson and Bill O'Reilly say "it's all part of the secular progressive agenda ... to get Christianity and spirituality and Judaism out of the public square." He then added: "[B]ecause if you look at what happened in Western Europe and Canada, if you can get religion out, then you can pass secular progressive programs, like legalization of narcotics, euthanasia, abortion at will, gay marriage, because the objection to those things is religious-based, usually."

I have to say I was very skeptical. After all, I haven't heard anyone want "abortion at will" (other than conservatives), or legalizing narcotics (other than conservatives), but it wasn't until I saw the devastating impact on Santa here in Arizona I started thinking maybe there was something to it. To show you what I mean, I took these disturbing photos of Santa here in Arizona. Needless to say, Santa here has been devastated. The only possible answer must be "the War on Christmas."



"I feel like the all of the air has just been taken out of me" said one Santa, who refused to allow himself to be identified. "I can't even get the reindeer to eat. Look at them, they're so boney. You can almost see right through them. Look at me, I've fallen and I can't get up."



The second is another startling picture (please don't show the children). This distraught Santa is so out of it that he is barely able to keep himself from jumping off the balcony of this home! "Nothing matters any more," said this Santa. "Those liberals have simply robbed from me the power to stand on my own anymore. Even the Christmas trees can't get juiced up over the holiday anymore."

From what I understand, it's not just Arizona. It's everywhere. Santas, Christmas trees, snowmen and even elfs have had the wind knocked out of them by this "war on Christmas." Clearly, the holiday won't be the same, anymore.

Oh, Happy New Year!