Arizona B.S. Meter

Crazy Season 2010

2010-03-26T07:09:00.001-07:00

As we head into another election cycle here in Arizona, all things that are ideological and nonsensical seem to rise to the surface as our state's elected officials seems to want to "out conservative" one another. The result is what those in the business refer to as "Crazy Season," a time where bills or "memorials" that should never see the light of day get discussed and passed. Not because they are doing anything good for the state, rather it's to keep their "conservative" credentials intact.

Sure don't want common sense to get in the way, now do we?

So as a service to all moderate Arizona voters, I'm going to attempt to catch up with the legislature and keep you informed of who is doing what to Arizona to kill jobs, waste money and legislate our state back into the 1970's.

Stay tuned. It'll be a bumpy ride.

Thinking about 2010

2008-12-29T22:08:00.002-07:00

I've been reading Ted Prezelski's blog and there was a post about a Goddard/Pederson primary for Governor and it got me thinking about how Democrats are thinking about the race in 2010 and what could possibly go wrong (at least from the Democrat's perspective). My concerns center around the notion that Jan Brewer will be the Republican's standard bearer in 2010. I'm not so sure.

We need to be prepared for a case where Brewer is challenged in the primary and may not win. From what I'm hearing, she's "not conservative enough" for some of the state's dominant Republicans who just don't seem to like women holding state-level elected office. If she has a primary, then there is no reason to believe it will be any prettier than a Goddard/Pederson primary insofar as the base is concerned. My point is we can't afford to be lulled to sleep by Republicans telling us it'll be Brewer in 2010 because it may not be.

Consider this scary Republican 2010 ticket:

Governor: Joe Arpaio (beats Brewer easily in a primary)
Secretary of State: Jack Harper (beats Kunasek closely)
Attorney General: Andy Thomas (beats Horne safely)

I won't even get into their replacements right now, but that's a real good news/bad news story, too.

Arpaio likely believes he can beat anyone at this point--even Brewer. He believes he can use the Goddard investigations as leverage against Terry--who cares if none of the claims are true--he'll gladly bring it out expecting Democrats to do what we always do and not hit back with a sledgehammer or spend the money necessary to beat him.

Don't forget that Arpaio was thinking about running for Governor in 2002 and again in 2006, but didn't because he wouldn't run against Napolitano. I'll bet he has no such qualms with Brewer--especially if she vetoes some legislation he wants passed or somehow appears "soft on illegals."

Harper's already posturing for the SoS gig because he has (a) started an exploratory committee; (b) pitched Brewer on his being her replacement; and (c) is trotting out the pathetic "abusing voter registration" red herring. I don't know if you saw his op-ed in Sunday's East Valley Tribune, but it's an indicator of the distortions to come.

Andy may get reigned in by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, which means he can't have as much fun locking up Joe's adversaries as much as Joe would like, but my guess is Andy thinks he can beat anyone on the Democratic side having just turned back Tim Nelson, who had money and the support of Gov. Napolitano. In a head-to-head with Tom Horne, Andy wins with the right-wing-nut conservatives who bother to vote in the Republican primary handily. Why? County attorney who locks up illegals versus a former State School Superintendent. If you're a conservative Republican, who are you voting for? This is easy. This gives the Republican crazies a nightmare ticket that the Democrats will need to be loaded for bear to defeat. Just as the Democrats may be motivated to vote against them, Republicans may be just as motivated to vote them in. Remember, McCain did carry Arizona even though there are a lot of hard-right Republicans mad at him for the immigration bill he tried to pass. I don't think any serious analyst would disagree that Republicans are historically way better at turning out their base for their candidates than the Democrats.

I'm not saying this is a sure thing, but the notion some people have that "the voters of Arizona will finally wake up to the excesses of Republican rule in the next election" just seem too optimistic to me. It's as if we have to only tolerate two years and then it'll be a cake walk.

Think about it this way: if there was a year that should have happened, that Republicans should have turned on their own, it was 2008. It didn't happen (of course not targeting nearly 2/3rd's of the state's Democrats and Independents didn't help the cause). So what's to make us think just because we put up Democrats that the public will vote for them next time just because they're not Republicans--especially if they're unknown or less known names?

Absolutely nothing.

No out party has ever won control of government simply by being the party of "no." If we do things in 2010 like we did this last election, we run the risk of being frozen out of the majority for another 10 years. Why? Because Democrats won't be in any position to sufficiently influence the redistricting efforts. Yeah, there's a commission, but if the Republican legislature decides to change things and a Republican Governor approves, it'll be years getting through the courts and in the meantime more damage gets done. The current commission submitted maps that got held up through court challenges. Don't think it couldn't happen again.

There is a real risk that history may repeat and in my mind, that's an unacceptable risk. Democrats have to be prepared not only for what the Republicans want us to think, we also need to have thought through all of and we need to start preparing yesterday. Tomorrow is too late.

MCSO Insults our Intelligence

2008-04-11T07:10:00.003-07:00

Are you getting tired of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office spinning everything? In today's Arizona Republic opinion page, MCSO media spokesman Deputy Chief Brian Sands attempts to claim the Republic's Lori Roberts is insulting those deputies who participate in the MCSO's showboating "roundups." She didn't insult them, but that doesn't mean she can't be a target.

Here's my response to Sands' whining:

Out of these 898 arrests, how many convictions do you have? I would remind you that in the United States, you are innocent until --proven-- guilty. So let's see the conviction numbers before you take any credit for any success.

I also see you again skate the issue of the 41,000 outstanding felony warrants the MCSO is required by statute to serve. Bragging that the MCSO has in the last two years arrested 898 Class 4 felons while you allow murders, rapists, bank robbers and sexual predators run free is an insult to our intelligence.

The real insult to the MCSO deputies is their having to work for a boss who thinks his own media persona is more important than arresting 41,000 felons and 37,000 other criminals who really are making our community less safe. The insult is arresting people for the most minor of traffic infractions and then claiming you've captured "serious felons" when you know that the felony classification was an deliberate act by the legislature to make their being here sound worse than it is.

I will be so happy that come January 1, 2009 we'll have a new sheriff who knows what real crime enforcement means when Dan Saban is sworn in as the the Sheriff.

Tired of the whiners

2008-03-05T03:52:00.003-07:00

There's a letter to the editor in the March 5, 2008 Arizona Republic by some woman named Carol who argues that Democrats will raise your taxes. I thought about it and you know what? Carol's right. We'll be dead in a few years, so what do we care if we pile on massive debt to our children and grandchildren? What do we care if we pass the buck onto them? It's their money and future we're squandering. What do they need a stable economy for? At least we'll be able to say in the history books what a great generation we were because we kicked the Commie's rear ends. Why can't these kids show a little gratitude for a change?

Better to have it now when we want it so we can continue to make asinine points about the size of government and spending. It's much more important to teach our kids we don't give a rat's keister about paying our nation's bills when we can pass it on to them. It's better to borrow money for our current charades from those Commies who make all that cheap stuff we buy at Wal-Mart.

Seriously, though, have you ever been to one of these taxpayer group meetings? There's not a person in the room under 65. I for one am really getting tired of these old folks who think they know everything telling those of us who will wind up paying their bills what to think. I think they've messed things up enough because of their selfishness and ideology. This isn't about them, it's about our country and they're just too cheap to pay their bills. We wouldn't be in this mess were it not for the people THEY helped elect.

Shame on Carol and those who think like her for continuously trying to convince us they know that they're talking about. Nothing they've suggested has worked yet, so why should we continue to listen to them? It's the Republicans they've elected who have gotten us into this mess. It's the policies they've supported and championed who have caused our debt to rise to nearly $10 trillion dollars. They're wrong and selfish and shame on all of them.

More of the same isn't what we need.

2008-02-20T08:05:00.003-07:00

I know I'm not the first, but reading comments like those of Mr. James P. Giangobbe of Litchfield Park in the Opinion section of the Feb. 20, 2008 Arizona Republic explains the appeal of someone like Sen. Barack Obama has to large segments of the public including Democrats, Independents and Republicans. GWB has made conservative speeches and sermons for 7 years and look where it has gotten us. A war McCain wants to extend for 100 years, a federal deficit that puts generations into debt, an economy that's falling below world-class levels. We need a dramatic change and Republicans are incapable of going in any direction other than reverse.

You negative thinking, backward-driving, debt-creating, job-exporting, health care cost-raising Republicans have had your chance and you blew it on countless levels. Frankly, any change from you guys will be welcome.

Intellectual Laziness

2008-01-06T09:27:00.001-07:00

I’m tired of this intellectually lazy “it’s the law” immigration argument. How many of us exceed the speed limit when we drive? How many of us drank a beer before we were of legal age? How many of us regularly smoked a cigarette before we were of legal age? How many of us got the wrong change at a store and kept it and felt like we were stealing from them? If you did any of these, you are as much of a "criminal" as someone who crosses the border illegally. So where are the calls for speeding roundups? Where are the Sheriff's Posse patrols for beer drinking kids? Nowhere. How is that fair or just? This is nothing more than selective enforcement of a law for purely political purposes. It won’t solve the immigration problem, it won’t improve the economy, it won’t lower taxes and it won’t lower crime rates.

Fixing immigration means changing the focus of the discussion away from enforcement and towards solutions. The Republicans don’t want that to happen because they need it as a wedge issue. The Democrats seem incapable of deciding whether they want to lead on this issue because they’ll probably come up with some plan that will get labeled as “amnesty.” There are simple ways to solve this, but as long as we discourage people from talking about solutions, we’ll likely not get past this issue for a long time.

Republicans Don't Get Economics

2007-09-23T09:08:00.000-07:00

Robert Robb of the Arizona Republic has a column in today's paper that suggests that our Governor isn't following the right course in dealing with the surprising (surprising to whom, I've written about this coming since before the last election) reduction in tax revenues. Not that I'm disagreeing with Robb, but the bone-head tax-cuts-are-the-answer crowd have all chimed in to say in the comments section that secret to our survival are more tax cuts. This blinder mentality is what's harming Arizona and more people need to point out how stupid that notion actually is.

A poster called CooperG responded to another named JackD who said he knew what he was talking about because he (JackD) "ha(s) the mathematical background necessary to grasp the necessary concepts." I couldn't have said it better myself.

There's a joke that goes like this: what do you call someone who graduates at the bottom of his medical school class? You call him "Doctor." I would argue your understanding of the Laffer Curve has more to do with things you've learned from propaganda than reading the good Doctor Laffer's paper and understanding it.

While I won't waste my time on explaining it to you (you really don't understand it), suffice it to say that you need to pay attention to the assumptions Laffer makes. Like there is a point where tax rates reach an optimal point when increases in productivity produce equal increases in tax revenues. What you don't understand is it is a C-U-R-V-E, meaning reductions or increases in taxes will have the negative effect of either causing reductions in revenues or reductions in productivity. You Tax-Cuts-R-Us folks think you can cut taxes forever and get the same result. Hmmm, that sounds a bit like that old chesnut of doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

As for the other posters, if tax cuts are so good at increasing revenues at the state level (Laffer focused on the national economy), then how come the expected increases haven't appeared? When will it start showing up? Why are revenues down? With apologies to Ronald Reagan and Clara Peller, "Where's the beef?"

I'd bet money that every one of the people who posted messages on that web page that support tax cuts are retirement age and either live on investment income or pensions. But CooperG is correct, the Laffer Curve is a "curve" and not a flat line. Unfortunately for us, a flat line is what we'll get if we continue to listen to these legsilators who think cutting taxes is the only answer to revenue problems.

The unfortunate thing is that the nitwits in the legislature are already redirecting attention away from their failed strategies for increasing revenues at a time when we need them, to blaming it on ballot-required spending measures. How any of these so-called "friends of the taxpayer" can say that cutting revenues when we have no choice but to spend money on these things by cutting spending on things we need that are NOT ballot-required is plainly and simply reckless and irresponsible.

Arpaio Promotes Immigration Hot-line, Accomplishes Nothing

2007-09-16T22:37:00.001-07:00

The Arizona Republic, in its editor's desire to really inform the public of important news, has published a story in today's newspaper that Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has painted signs advertising his illegal immigration hot-line on trucks and vans. According to the story, he did this because "We had a problem because we were having trouble getting the number out to the public." Apparently not enough people get copies of his press releases.

So let me make sure I understand this: Sheriff Arpaio is spending taxpayer dollars on "rolling billboard" that advertise a hot-line that has a success rate of barely four percent? Out of 2,000 calls, he's arrested 85 "suspects," which means 1,915 were a waste of time of the officers he has assigned to answer the calls and chase after the leads. If I recall other reports correctly, these 85 arrests are a combination of hot-line calls and the result of other investigations. What will probably lower the number even more is the fact these are "suspects" and won't be "convicted" until they're through the court system.

Look, nobody likes it when anyone breaks the law. But for a sheriff who has over watched as the county’s murder, rape and property crime rates have increased well above the national average; sits on 45,000 un-served felony warrants; is the subject of 4,900 outstanding lawsuits he pays private lawyers millions of taxpayer dollars to defend; and spends over $500,000 a year for fancy office space in the Wells Fargo Bank building, that spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on a program that has a 4.25% success rate, it seems to me to demonstrate totally misplaced priorities and a lack of fiscal accountability.

Sheriff Arpaio is no longer entertaining or funny. He's not even successful at doing his job. He's now the joke and it's a really old joke that's getting older. It's time to retire Joe Arpaio.

Russell Pearce: Unfit for public office of any kind

2007-09-11T08:48:00.000-07:00

According to a front page story in the East Valley Tribune, it appears that Republican Representative Russell Pearce (LD-19) seems unwilling to let voters have an unaffected vote in their opinion of him. A Republican web site had posted a poll asking which candidate GOP voters preferred for CD-5; Jeff Flake or Russell Pearce. Upon learning he was behind, Pearce sent an email to a "couple" of his supporters (more likely mailing lists) with this subject: "I am behind in the poll," followed by detailed instructions on how to cheat the poll and roll up his numbers. According to the Tribune story, he instructed recipients to "Pass this to people you trust," an obvious recognition that this was not an honest way to participate in an opinion poll. For some reason it took Pearce three hours to realize he "made a mistake." Gee, I would have thought that notion should have crossed his mind at the beginning, but it didn't. Pearce then sent another email asking folks to ignore the poll. Unfortunately (or fortunately, in our view) for Mr. Pearce, that damage has been done.

There appears with Mr. Pearce an uncanny ability to not think, shoot first and apologize later. Voters may recall last year when Mr. Pearce forwarded an email containing quotes from the Neo-Nazi National Socialist Alliance to his supporters and then sending a follow-up email saying it was a mistake. His excuse was "he didn't read it thoroughly." Some people question Pearce's naiveté and there is recent evidence that his connections to extremist groups are more than meets the eye. Now Pearce plainly demonstrates that when he doesn't like public opinion, he drafts his "supporters" to "fix" the election. Is this really the type of person we want in --any-- elected office? Is Russell Pearce the type of representative we want in Congress? Does this demonstrate a person of integrity? Does this show a willingness of Russell Pearce to accept opinions of him that are not to his liking? No, it does not. This plainly shows that Russell Pearce has neither the temperment, the integrity nor the respect for the voters to be an elected public servant.

Attempting to fix an election or a poll is as undemocratic and unpatriotic and is unimmaginable and unforgivable for any public servant. Russell Pearce has demonstrated he is clearly unfit for public office.

Hey, Hey. Ho, ho. Joe Arpaio has got to go.

2007-09-05T08:11:00.000-07:00

Check out the East Valley Tribune's article "Seriff's office stars in TV cop comedy show pilot." The pilot, prepared for Fox TV (who else?) "is considering a comedic reality cop show whose pilot episode starred the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office." It seems that the criminals in Sheriff Arpaio's world, get to keep the prizes that lure them to jail. No, I'm not kidding!

Let me get this straight, "America's Toughest Sheriff" is "starring" in a "comedy pilot" where at the end of the day the "criminals keep the prizes?" There are over 45,000 unserved felony warrants and Arpaio thinks the only way to capture them is to reward them?

Crime is up in Maricopa County under his watch. Meth use is up under his watch. Auto theft is up under his watch. Property crime is up under his watch. His famous illegal immigrant hot line has a success rate of less than one percent and costs taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars. His lawsuit losses that are paid for by the taxpayers are close to $20,000,000. His solution: he wants to be on a comedy show! Who's the joke on? The voters? Seems like it to me.

Arpaio's past being entertaining. We need a sheriff who actually fights crime, not one that supports making it profitable for criminals. Hey, hey. Ho, ho. Joe Arpaio has got to go.

Arizona Lax on Charter Schools? This Is News?

2007-09-02T10:04:00.000-07:00

The Arizona Republic in today's (9/2/2007) paper has an article pointing out that charter schools are held to lesser account when it comes to how they handle taxpayer money. Well, duh. This is news? Apparently to the Republic. Where have they been? The article reports there have been examples of this going back years. What have they been doing? What have the Republican Legislators who own, operate or lobby for Charter Schools been doing? Opps, silly question. They've been lining their pockets with taxpayer money while making it look like they are for improving education. What was I thinking?

Charter schools in Arizona are nothing more than a way to subsidize private corporations and politician's efforts to use taxpayer money to undermine public education. The reason there are a lot of reports stating charter schools are deficient is because they ARE deficient. Anyone can cherry-pick one kid or one school, but overall, charters cannot compete with public schools.

Has the notion of competition worked? Yes, but only in the sense that someone is watching and waiting for educational systems to do better. However, at the end of the day public schools in Arizona are producing better educated children than charter schools. The numbers are out there. Go look at them. It's true! But here's a dirty secret: if you're an underperforming kid at a charter school, they'll kick you back into the public system so they look better. Boy's it's great to see how interested they are in each child, isn't it?

What the problem few people here recognize is Arizona --still-- ranks last in education. So arguments about saving money are assinine when our kids are not able to compete with children from other states or countries. THAT is what gets lost in this public vs. charter debate.

I will also point out that every other state in the country labels charter schools as an EXPERIMENT--except Arizona, where elected officials own or manage charter schools. There should be plenty of outrage about that, but why look at that issue when you should be looking at this shiny ball I have in my other hand. The PBS program NOW did an expose on charter schools in New Orleans and they're attrocious. In fact, one of the charter operators there that has been kicked out runs charters here. Where's the story on that?

People need to get their heads out of their (inappropriate term) and look at education as a way to prepare our kids for the future, not how can we give them the minimum of training at the lowest cost. It's not our future, it's theirs.

The real impact of 'universal' care is B.S.

2007-08-19T08:25:00.000-07:00

Reading “The real impact of ‘universal’ care,” (East Valley Tribune, 8/19/07 pg. F3) I’m not sure if the same Dr. Marc J. Rosen who wrote the first three-quarters is the same person who wrote the conclusion. In any case, the editorial board should have given Rosen a better lead.

Cherry-picking problems with universal care does nothing to address this simple fact: people in countries with universal care are healthier than we are. Does it matter that “elective” hip replacements are limited in Canada? Not when those who need them for non-elective reasons can get them whenever they need them. This is an important distinction you will never hear universal care opponents mention in public.

Although I am certain Dr. Rosen wants better health care for his patients, he spends time in his op-ed worrying whether the “multi-billion-dollar health insurance industry will survive.” Not that I understand the link between their survival and the birth of IBM or the implied link between universal care and Nazi Germany. But why worry whether insurance will find something else to insure against? Somehow I think they'll find something. So much for that conservative belief in a “free-market” allowing firms to live or die based on conditions of the day.

Physicist Thomas Kuhn wrote in “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” that significant and meaningful change in just about anything originates as the result of crisis and usually comes from people who do not buy into the majority way of thinking. Other countries have thought outside of the box and have determined that universal care makes more sense and their citizens are healthier and happier as a result. The reason folks like Dr. Rosen don’t get it is because their paycheck depends on them –not-- getting it. At least he admits it while, at the same time, complaining about it.

Prop. 13 Nonsense

2007-08-14T23:53:00.000-07:00

Bob Schuster is an editor for the Arizona Republic in the east valley. He's arguing in support of those crazies who think Arizona is California and therefore believe we need a Prop. 13 tax cut like California. He argues with one of the posters that people who want these cuts are simple folks who don't want the big bad government taking their money. The poster, CooperG, argues this:

Yeah, they are dangerous because the people behind it know no limits and have no concept of how much it costs to do things. They copy-cat California, which ain't Arizona. Maybe you can tell me exactly how Arizona's economy and California's are exactly the same. Betcha can't do it. Why can't rates go down? The Republicans control when that could happen, but they won't because they need the issue to sell to people who don't know any better and buy into bumper-sticker arguments. How is that good public policy?

As for Schuster's belief that all government is permitted to do is "protect your rights," I can't believe how naive that is. I know a very small minority of Arizonans buy into that narrow Libertarian opinion, but as an editor, I would think you have a better sense of history and the law. Did we somehow skip directly from the writing of the Constitution to 2007? Some pretty important stuff happened in those intervening years. I, for one, am tired of this ideological nonsense. Where has it gotten us? We’re last in education and tops in crime. We are near the bottom in health care and tops in Meth abuse. We have "America's Toughest Sheriff," but there are 45,000 felony warrants outstanding. Solutions to problems can't be purchased at Wal-Mart yet that’s what it seems these people want. How totally irresponsible can they get?

Especially in light of this:

http://knowledge.wpcarey.asu.edu/index.cfm?fa=viewArticle&ID=1421

Here’s a quote: While taxes and government spending in Arizona are often thought to be high, the state actually ranks last in state and local government spending per capita. And the state actually makes out well on federal money invested in the state vs. taxes paid. For every dollar in federal taxes paid in the state, the federal government returns $1.30 in spending.

Ya know, I have to agree with him.

What Arpaio Wants Us To Forget - He's a Failure

2007-08-12T08:50:00.001-07:00

It's comical that Sheriff Arpaio is telling us that "everyone forgets" (Critics of illegal immigration-tips hotline forgot they can't beat Arpaio) He wants us to forget the fact that his illegal immigration hotline has a .7 percent success rate. He wants us to forget the concept of "return on investment" by ignoring the fact that less than one out of 137 calls to the hotline leads to an arrest. Couldn't these officers' time be used more effectively? Couldn’t the money be used for something with a better record of reducing crime?

According to the FBI, serious crime has increased in Maricopa County every year Arpaio has been in office. Maybe that's why Arpaio wants us to forget the 45,000 outstanding felony arrest warrants he has failed to serve.

Hate crime is up in Maricopa County. Sheriff Arpaio should remind us how to reach his hate crime hotline phone number—except he doesn't have one. Just get those illegals, Sheriff.

Arpaio is great at turning any criticism of his failures into a criticism of the people pointing them out. But that doesn't lead to effective law enforcement. Arpaio wants us to forget his failures. That's the whole idea.

Making Flippy-Floppy

2007-08-09T07:05:00.000-07:00

Today's Washington Post carries an article telling us our President is thinking about sending up to Congress a corporate tax cut bill to Congress because he wants to make U.S. corporations more competitive in the global market (Bush May Try to Cut Corporate Tax Rates). Here are some of the reader's comments:

"I am bending over. Please, please someone kick me in the a$$ for voting for this dummy. Twice. Arrgggghhhhhhhhh!"

"OK he was weird then he was crazy then he was bonkers and now he's just sick."

"How can anybody still think he's good for this country? Seriously? Can we have THEM checked for mental illness?"

I don't know why people are so critical of the president: he has rung up the largest deficit in history; he’s in denial in Iraq; still can't find Osama; instituted the worst senior drug program imaginable; sat back and watched during the largest increases in medical costs in history; exported American jobs to Asia (can't keep them in Mexico anymore); and now he thinks tax rates are the reason U.S. corporations are not competitive? What'd you expect him to think? When will you people ever learn?

But seriously, I can't think of a more Republican really dumb idea than to think corporate tax rates in this country make them less competitive. How about equal prices? How about tariff increases? How about instituting other policies that encourage these U.S. businesses to reopen manufacturing plants here and pay American workers living wages? Ooops, there I go being reasonable again.

The rock band Talking Heads had a song called "Making Flippy-Floppy," that includes this lyric:

I can't believe it
And people are strange
Our president's crazy
Did you hear what he said
Business and pleasure
Lie right to your face
Divide it in sections
And then give it away

Need I say more?

Update on Conservative Post Stating More Voting Is Bad

2007-08-07T09:53:00.000-07:00

Just to let folks know, I posted a response to Red State Arizona's brain-dead belief that if more people voted, they'd elect more "liberals" and that the Arizona Advocacy Network is "radical left activist" for wanting to make sure people who are eligible to vote, can vote.

Needless to say, the moderator didn't see fit to post my reply--at least not almost 24 hours later.

Conservatives just can't handle the truth.

Conservative Blog Says More People Voting Is Bad

2007-08-06T15:21:00.000-07:00

The right-wing conservative blog "Red State Arizona" seems to like casting stones to make its readers feel better. Besides spreading lies about the supposed fact there is voter fraud in Arizona (there isn't), we're told that if you want to make sure that legal U.S. citizens who reside in Arizona can exercise their right to vote, you must be a "radical left activist." According to this guy:

"AZ Advocacy Network's goal is to register as many people to vote as possible, in fact they'd love to make voting a requirement, because it would benefit liberals. Since conservatives are more likely than Dems to make the effort to vote on their own initiative, groups like this know the surefire way to pick up more liberal votes is to practically require people to vote, because that drags in the people who don't care - who will vote liberal. "If you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on the support of Paul.'"

Uh, yeah. If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with b.s. Who knows where he gets this claptrap from, but there's no truth to any of it. Of course, when did the truth matter to conservative Republicans in Arizona?

I see nothing "radical left activist" about trying to make sure that legal and qualified Arizona residents are able to exercise their Constitutional right to vote by making sure the law (Prop 200) is followed properly and people get the chance to provide the proper identification. Why is this guy opposed to legal residents exercising their right to vote? Oh, that's right, conservatives think if more people register, they'll vote "liberal."

As for registering illegal immigrants, the Maricopa County Attorney, the Secretary of State and the Maricopa County Recorder have stated in response to the legal discovery process they have no proof (as in zero) that any illegal immigrant has ever attempted to register to vote or has attempted to vote in Arizona. If they’re lying and you know it, they have committed perjury. If you have any proof, maybe some Republican can explain why the senior law enforcement and election officials in the state don’t know about it.

As for other cases of voter fraud, I challenge conservatives to please cite a single case in the state of Arizona that has been prosecuted in the last 10 years that has (a) been brought to trial or (b) resulted in a conviction or guilty plea. That really hot place will freeze over before you can come up with a single example.

Since there is no proof of voter fraud in Arizona or illegals attempting to vote in Arizona, I think conservatives should be cheering the Arizona Advocacy Network for looking out for and protecting Arizona citizen's Constitutional right to vote. Lord knows no group from the "radical right" thinks voting is worth fighting for. As the author of Red State Arizona clearly states, Republicans are plainly more concerned with stopping it.

More Tax Cut Lunacy - Arizona is California

2007-08-03T22:39:00.000-07:00

We have folks here in Arizona who seem to think Proposition 13 in California should be replicated here because we have "the same problems" California did. Listen to them and they'll refer you to this Harold Jarvis cult-of-personality web site that attempts to make the case that Prop 13 worked wonders for California homeowners who were going to lose their homes due to high property tax rates.

Sorry, but I can't find a single measure where Arizona is anything like California--except maybe because we have more of them moving here with the profits from the sale of their home in California. So how can we have the same problems?

These Arizonans who call themselves "Friends of the Taxpayer" will tell you that our tax rates are, to quote intellectual wannabe Sen. Thayer Verschoor (R-22) "extraordinarily high." People will lose their homes, these folks say, because their property tax assessments will bankrupt them and because of this we need to roll back property rates --not assessments-- to 2001 levels. Why 2001? I dunno, cause that was when 9/11 happened? Actually,there is no reason other than that was before the real estate boom took hold in Arizona.

Never mind foreclosures are through the roof, driving home values down, and hence property assessment rates. Never mind that there is an average sell time of existing homes of 280 days, which is driving down rates and hence assessments. Never mind that credit is tightening up, which will make it harder for people to qualify for loans, which will drive down prices and hence assessments. Never mind the simple fact that Republicans control the County Assessors offices in this state and they set the rates and the Republican legislators write the rules regarding property assessments. So instead of holding them accountable, they'd rather run these red herrings up the flagpole so people who believe the B.S. this is rate problem when it isn't. When assessments go down, the problem goes away.

As for their other argument about high rates, here's the truth: Arizona's tax rates are in the bottom third of those in the U.S. Look at www.taxfoundation.org. Bottom third equals "high taxes?" Are they high? Too high for who? Them, obviously? Well some of us like police and fire protection. Some of us like bridges that don't fall out of the sky. Some of us want our kids educated at schools ranked higher than last in the nation. Apparently though, not these folks.

These folks think the increased revenues are due to high tax rates! Um, hello, it's because more people are paying into the system--that kind of comes with the territory of being the fastest growing state in the country. More people...more workers...more tax revenue. Can't make it any easier for you. If you don't get that, you'll never get it. Think lower taxes are good? tell that to Mesa police and fire officers. Tell that to Mesa school children. Tell that to people who have to drive on Mesa's roads. Wow, just what we need--to be just like Mesa.

More Philosophical Tax Bullshit

2007-08-02T23:38:00.000-07:00

I'm really getting annoyed with these ideological reporters who try to push theory on people as if it were fact. What's worse is reporters who support bad public policy either overtly or through the simple fact they give them column inches. I rarely agree with the Republic's Robert Robb and today is no exception. Today, he's talking about the two groups who are pushing California-style Propostion 13 initiatives here in Arizona in a column titled "Efforts to limit property taxes taking shape.

Gee Robert, don't you read the paper? Didn't you read the story about the bridge that fell into the Mississippi River? Didn't you read about the number of bridges and other public infrastructure that is in bad shape and need repair? Didn't you read how many bridges in Arizona are rated as unsafe as the I-35W Bridge? How are we going to fix these things if cheapskates with narrow, unrealistic views of revenue and spending keep cutting the funds to fix things out from under us? Where are these dollars going to come from? Didn't you read about the story about foreclosures? How about the story on another large mortgage lender going out of business? Do people need to die in Arizona to wake you up? What are the sponsors of these propositions thinking? Are they blind, stupid or both?

As for business taxes, Robb overstates the problem. According to the Tax Foundation, Arizona's overall business tax climate is among the best in the country. Look it up. But the reason we have higher property tax rates for business is other potential revenue streams are too small or non-existent or cannot be tapped because we have ideological Neanderthals with blinders on setting tax policy. Anyone with a clue will see that cutting taxes on corporations means taxes will be raised elsewhere (like citizens) because at the end of the day, someone has to repair the bridges. Arizona is not a high-tax state and it's flat false to claim it is. Let's stop being ideological and start being practical for a change.

Who really runs Arizona?

2007-07-24T06:04:00.000-07:00

Jan Brewer, our Secretary of State, has released new voter registration totals that cover April-June of 2007. It shows the continued slide in the percentage of Arizonans aligning with the Republican Party. but also the shows the growth in the Democratic and "other" registrations. The significant increase over the years in "other" voters has been touched upon in this space before, but to say neither major party is making great strides in convincing voters theirs is the party to choose would be pretty accurate and is likely something lost only on the Republican side of things. The Democrats recognize this and are working on it. That they outpaced Republican registration for the second quarter in a row hopefully demonstrates that something's working.

Here's today's thought:

With Libertarians making up such a small percentage of the number of registered voters, how is it then that the Libertarian viewpoint seems to dominate political discourse in Arizona? Many Republicans claim libertarian views and reporters such as the Arizona Republic's Robert Robb and the entire East Valley Tribune promote it persistently. Are these Republicans really Libertarians but can't be honest enough to admit it and change their voter registrations? Wouldn't that make them Republicans in name only (RINOs)?

Does this mean our state is really being run by a group of people that makes up seven-tenths of one percent of the total number of voters in the state? Is this because they know if they show their true colors they won’t get elected? Does anyone else see something wrong with this picture? How is this a good thing?

Conservatives Still Clueless on Iraq

2007-07-21T08:57:00.000-07:00

Why do the Phoenix area dailies have to print letters from boneheads on Saturday morning? Can't they print reasonable things to make people look at the issues from a practical standpoint? Why do they have to print letters like the one in today's Arizona Republic they titled "A few questions on liberals' war policy," (21 July 2007)?

If I had to guess, since the author lives in Peoria, he's somewhere in his 70's and thinks of military operations in an Eisenhower and McArthur context. This is the same age group as Rumsfeld and while they had a military strategy that worked 60 years ago, warfare against the U.S. has changed signficantly since then and they haven't kept up. This is a problem for them and for us.

As usual, conservatives miss the freaking point of terrorism and why traditional military operations do little more than create more sympathizers. Think about it, anyone who had any money or skills bailed out of Iraq right after the "end of military operations." All that's left are those who have to stay there. Are they the educated folks? Nope, they're the uneducated ones. They're the ones who are more succeptable to catapulted propaganda (kinda like here). They react emotionally rather than rationally (kinda like here). Therefore, when someone in their mosque gets them wound up with a speech/sermon, they go out in the streets and do things that are not in their best interests (kinda like here).

There's also the simple fact conservatives--still-- know little about the Arab culture, even after all of this time. When you kill someone in an Arab's family in a war, they don't chalk it up to bad luck. They look at the circumstance. If they believe their family member should not have been killed, whoever did the killing has an enemy not just for this generation, but for generations to come. They do not forget. So the "mistakes" we've made under GWB will haunt us for decades. If you don't think that doesn't feed into support for terrorism or guerilla attacks against our soldiers, you're blind AND stupid.

The point is Al-Queda will be a problem as long as we continue this boneheaded, testosterone-driven policy of "we won the war, you lost so get over it" military policy. It has never worked there before and it won't work here. So redeployment is a simple acknowledgment that doing something over and over and not getting the expected result isn't working.

These old guys who think the Middle East is like WWII are simply wrong. Bush's strategy was doomed from the start and, if you remember, Bush had to fire enough Generals until he could find some who would agree with him. If that wasn't a clue we were in trouble, I don't know what is. But until we deal with the many problems our Bush family "victories" are causing over there, we will always have a terrorist threat against our country. Forcing the Iraq government to take control of the situation by redeploying our forces to hunt Bin Laden is a fine start.

Stupid "It's My Money" Tax Argument

2007-07-18T07:25:00.000-07:00

I'm really getting tired of the silly argument these anti-everything (no money for schools, no money for health care, no money for road) types keep hyping that money we pay in taxes is somehow still "their" or "my" money. The Arizona Republic has fired up this quasi-debate again because they've printed a number of letters to the editor about in recent days. Here's my take.

There is a difference between "our" money and "my" money. Around here, some confuse the "our" to mean "my" because they only want federal and state dollars spent on things that only benefit them, personally. How is that "of, by and for the people?"

Groups that support no funds for schools, roads, public protection, and ridiculous notions like "only the things the founding fathers knew about in 1776 should be supported today," etc. are not "pro-taxpayer." They are anti-taxpayer, anti-civilization and anti-progress. Roads cost money. Schools cost money. Border protection costs money. If we want those things, we need to pay for it.

Should we be careful how we spend it? Sure. Should be looking for deep discounts or government on the cheap? You get what you pay for--look at Mesa. But the dirty truth the anti-everything crowd wants you to ignore is that we are all in this together and solving problems require all of us to pitch in and be smart about it.

Remember "United we stand, divided we fall?" The anti-everything crowd wants us divided. Some patriots they are.

E.J. Montini and Supporting our Soldiers

2007-07-17T04:48:00.000-07:00

E.J. Montini writes today about "Our failure to deploy support for troops. He got a call from a woman who was concerned about the lack of support for a bill that would limit the amount of time between deployments of military personnel. Seems the woman wants a little "home time" for her husband. Unfortunately, a load of Republicans voted against Senator Webb's bill because "it would interfere with the work of the military commanders."

I have friends who have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan multiple times and the toll on their families is tremendous. I'm sure there thousands of marriages and long-term relationships have been destroyed by these deployments, but hey, “they did volunteer.”

Yeah, but they didn't volunteer for this. Many joined the Guard or Reserves long before 9/11 and before the run-up to the war. They did it to bring some extra money into the household or help pay for college (you know, "Be all you can be?"). They didn’t sign up to end their marriage, come home disabled, or worse, dead.

The woman is right; we don't spend enough time thinking about the actual burden on the soldiers. But how are we expected to care about them when we're not allowed to see their funerals or their flag-draped coffins? But it's not about the men and women in uniform. It's about rationalization. These military commanders are given their orders by politicians who wouldn't recognize a plan for success if it bit them. We're so caught up with winning we're unable to see what we're losing: military families, husbands, wives, fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters.

Iraq is a C.F. and there are few in the military that have been over there that would tell you otherwise privately. Most of them don’t say anything for the same reason this woman’s husband won’t: he doesn’t want to sound like he’s complaining. But this, too, is part of the problem: don’t say what you think because those with narrow views or small minds will loudly paint you into a corner as being non-supportive. Sorry, if Bush had a clue or a plan, we wouldn’t be having this discussion in the first place.

Wannabe Intellectual Criticizes Smart People

2007-05-08T07:21:00.000-07:00

Go check out today's E.V. Tribune. There's an op-ed by a guy named Rich Shields (Intellectuals Not Smartest Folks In Room) who attempts to make the truly tired argument that conservatives are smarter than "intellectual liberals." First of all, that's preposterous because there is no such thing as an "intellectual conservative," especially this guy.

That being said, it is entertaining to see someone who teaches economics at the DeVry Institute's Keller School of Management (only accredited though something close to osmosis) lecturing people who teach at real colleges and universities about not being as smart as conservatives. One must have a certain amount of chutzpah to criticize them for the exact thing he is asking the reader to do: believe he is an authority on anything.

If you want examples of Peter Pan and Neverland, you don’t have to look much further than Mr. Shields beloved conservatives. Only people in Neverland think the massive Republican federal deficit is a good thing, that we’re winning the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, or that Arizona’s last-place ranking in Education is an achievement.

As for the argument that conservatives see government as “an institution in the pursuit of self-interest,” I guess they would know. All one has to do is read the paper about folks like Republican Congressman Rick Renzi who appears to have used his authority to broker a sweet land swap deal or neocon Paul Wolfowitz breaking ethics rules to give his girlfriend a big raise, or Dick Cheney giving no-bid billion dollar contracts to his former firm Halliburton. Sounds rather self-serving to me, Rich. Give me people who can think any day.

Who's Your Buddy Now?

2007-05-07T19:58:00.000-07:00

I’ve been trying to make sense of how Arizona tax policy is framed for a while now and Saturday’s Arizona Federation of Taxpayers Association (AFTA) Defending the American Dream Conference helped me finalize my opinion: tax policy in Arizona is driven by ideology and theoretical economics and has precious little to do with the practical use of tax dollars. I couldn’t attend the entire program, but from the opening remarks through the first session it was clear to me that the legislators and AFTA leadership have little interest in taking into account the needs of the state and have only one goal: cut taxes regardless of the impact on the state now or in the future.

Don’t get me wrong. No one “likes” paying taxes, particularly high ones (which we don’t have in Arizona). But to ignore practical spending issues just to say you cut taxes is irresponsible in a growing state, especially in light of this year’s $600M tax cut and when raising taxes is almost impossible. Legislators who pledge to cut taxes while ignoring the demands of an increasing population cannot be called “friends of the taxpayer.” On the contrary, they are “Penny-wise and Pound foolish.” Their actions will cost Arizona much more in the future to deal with problems they choose to ignore today. If anything, they’re friends of mediocrity and enemies of progress.

Let’s start with their mantra: “Can government spend your money better than you can?” When this question was asked people booed, which would be expected. But the practical question of “spend money on what?” was never asked. Can government spend money on roads better than I can? Sure. I can’t afford them. How about car insurance? There I think I have an edge. What about Veteran’s care? Government wins on that one. My point is when you beg answers to questions that are grossly over-simplified, people do not think about the consequences of the instinctive “I can spend my money better than government.”

The simple truth is that in a modern society government has responsibilities and capacities that individuals do not. Therefore, it is disingenuous to argue that all government spending is bad when there is no other entity that could undertake the effort or raise the funds that serve the public good. They will argue the private sector can do many of the things government can do, only better. If that’s true, then why haven’t they solved health care yet? Why is Arizona ranked last in education? Some things the private sector can do and some it can’t. But it, too, is irresponsible to suggest the private sector is always the answer.

The three legislators on the morning panel (Jack Harper, Kirk Adams and Thayer Verschoor) agreed upon the need for an additional tax cut in the current budget. Why? As explained by Verschoor, we need to stimulate the economy. Isn’t Arizona the fastest growing state in the country? What exactly do we need to stimulate and why, Senator? Do we need revenue for something? Like maybe for schools and health care for children as the result of population growth? If so, then why cut taxes when we know revenues will be lower for the next few years due to the drop in real estate values? There will be less money to work with. Wouldn’t the prudent economic policy be not to mess with revenues? That’s like having a growing family where the kids keep coming and to cover the increased spending requirements the parents take jobs paying less money. What sense does that make? But no one asks these questions. Just cut taxes, they say. It is this lack of curiosity and reason that makes for bad tax policy.

I understand AFTA’s goal. I understand why some legislators want their endorsement. But keeping a tax cut pledge made to lobbyists just to get an endorsement seems contrary to the implicit promise of responsible budget management made to the voters. Our legislators should be asking practical questions to make sure the actions they take are fiscally sound instead of being slaves to a political ideology. Arizonans deserve better than the budget automatons we have now. These are “friends” Arizona’s future can do without.

Denial + Kool-Aid = Republican Voters

2007-04-28T22:19:00.000-07:00

When will the Arizona Republic stop printing letters like the one from Virginia Bruce who fears the devil and the Democrats? What exactly is the point? Do they not read the newspaper they print?

Members of the Bush administration are getting indicted or investigated all over the place and their ineptitude is becoming legendary. Republicans have screwed up the war, screwed up the economy, screwed up immigration policy, screwed up education, screwed up international relations, screwed up oil policies, screwed up the environment, screwed up the justice system, screwed up the defense department, screwed up trade policy and single-handedly destroyed the Middle Class, and she fears the Democrats!?! How can Democrats possibly do worse? Republicans make incompetents look good.

Who in their right mind could watch so many things get botched up so completely and then say "Trust the Republicans?!" Viginia, my dear woman, stay away from the Kool-Aid. Your party has made a complete mess of things. They do not deserve another chance. They've broken the bank. They have weakened this country. Admit it. It's time for a change and that change starts with the Democrats.

Republicans with short memories

2007-04-02T07:38:00.000-07:00

How short the memories are of Republicans when it comes to who controls the spending process or how it works. We have Republicans like Tom Patterson who makes his living complaining about taxes and state spending while conveniently forgetting it's his buddies in the Republican-controlled legislature who write and pass budgets –before-- sending them to the Governor. Being a former legislator and hotshot at the Goldwater Institute and all, you'd think he knew how it works, but apparently not.

We have Republican legislators who complain about pork spending in a supplementary Defense spending bill, yet forget that it's a Republican president and 12 years of Republican-led Congress that raised the national debt to historic levels through pork spending. They forgot the last Democratic President and Congress left office with a surplus. They forgot the Republican-authored 2005 transportation bill that included $28 billion in pork spending with $223 million for the infamous Alaskan bridge to nowhere.

Unfortunately, sometimes spending needs to be added to bills for them to pass. That's the way it works. That Republicans who promoted its use while they were in control are now criticizing it demonstrates there are two more things to like about Republicans: their face.

Republicans in Denial, Part Infinity

2007-03-17T09:04:00.000-07:00

The East Valley Tribune had a letter today's paper from some guy named Robert Lux in Scottsdale who thinks the world needs more Ann Coulters and Rush Limbaughs and that the Republicans are the party of small government.

Sure it is.

Had Mr. Lux been listening to the facts instead of the radio he would know the GOP is the “Big Government” party. The proof is the record-high federal budget deficit because President Bush did not veto a single GOP spending bill in his first six years in office. He would know that people are less supportive of the war in Iraq because the president and the GOP lied to us in the first place and allows things like Walter Reed Hospital to happen to wounded soldiers the GOP claims to support.

Had he been paying attention to the state capitol he would know the Arizona GOP controls the budget process, so his criticism should be aimed at Republicans, not Democrats. He would know that at a time when a growing state needs more prisons, roads, schools and support for its National Guard, the Arizona GOP wants to cut revenues. He would know it is the Arizona GOP that wanted to raid the state's Rainy Day Fund, the Arizona GOP that wants to take away citizen’s right to set legislator's pay, and the Arizona GOP that wants to limit the citizen's initiatives rights.

As your president says Mr. Lux, “Fool me once, shame, shame on me...Fool me twice...well, you don't get fooled again."

Tax Cuts Promote Illegal Immigration

2007-03-07T10:52:00.000-07:00

A different take on Republican tax policy and immigration.

It’s fairly clear that the Republicans have begun the 2008 election cycle. Randy Pullen’s comments about the “Governor and her Democrat pals,” the Arizona Federation of Taxpayers holding “Taxpayer Day” at the legislature, and the political posturing on taxes and immigration should hold more than enough proof. I’ve thought about this and I think we Democrats need to start loudly with our campaigns as well, and so I have an idea on how to start shooting holes in the Republican key issues of taxation and immigration by linking the two in one very clear ways. How can we do this? Here’s how.

As I mentioned, the Republicans and the Arizona Federation of Taxpayers are holding a confab at the capitol next week (March 15) to trot out one of their two issues: tax cuts. If you look at the flyer for the event, it lists as the first item “Passing income tax cuts to stimulate economic growth.” Apparently being the fastest growing state in the nation is insufficient economic growth for them, so they feel the need to push down the gas pedal even further to create new jobs, build more home developments, build more shopping centers, plant more trees, cut more lawns, etc. Think about that last sentence a moment. There are some significant impacts by having more economic growth. Especially in the creation of jobs in the construction and maintenance trades. Who do Republicans claim are taking all of these jobs?

Illegal immigrants.

So, the same policies that stimulate growth are the same ones that encourage workers to sneak into the United States to take those jobs. Put another way, tax cuts encourage illegal immigration.

Isn't that interesting. I wonder how many fire-breathing Republicans would do without tax cuts if it meant fewer illegal immigrants?

But then Republicans would not have any issues to run on.

Clueless Conservatives

2007-03-04T08:54:00.000-07:00

Have you seen or heard these statements lately? Are any of them true?

• "If we don't support the surge, the terrorists will win."

• "If we don't hunt down the illegal immigrants, our country will be taken over by Mexicans and we'll lose our sovereignty."

• "Teachers are polluting the minds of our young people."

• "Global warming is a con-job being perpetrated by liberals."

If you haven't, you need to get out more. These and other absurd statements are being treated as fact in the Arizona conservative community and the din of people repeating them in all media has increased greatly since the last election. There is nothing good about this and the Democrats need to get off their Asses and do something about countering these and other statements that damage our country and our state.

There's a new book by conservative talk show host Neal Boortz, who makes the declaration that he should not have to care about the poor, the national debt and other issues because "I am an individual." Apparently this is a county not "By the people and for the people," but "by the people and for the individual." This is common thinking in Arizona both on the extreme conservative side and the more crazed Libertarians. I've said it before and I'll continue to say it, the Republicans in the legislature are not Republicans in the Reagan sense. They are Libertarians in Republican clothing and they need to be exposed as such and we should not be bashful about it.

Democrats need to bombard the newspapers in Arizona with letters that expose these conservative beliefs as the misleading statements and lies they are. The party offices need to get people out in the public to vocally challenge each and every one of these statements and the legislators who spout them. For example, Thayer Verschoor, Karen Johnson, Russell Pearce, Jim Wieres, and others needs to have Democrats at each and every public meeting they attend to challenge their statements and to speak with moderates who will be there to disagree.

The 2008 election has begun. We need to register Democrats. We need to register Latinos as Democrats and those who are Republicans; we need to get them to change parties. If we don't get out there now, we stand a good chance of losing seats again. If that happens, shame on us.

SB1542: Verschoor's Opus to Ignorance

2007-03-02T05:26:00.000-07:00

In the AZ blogs, Arizona Republic editorial writer Bob Schuster says that while he doesn't like Verschoor's bill, he supports the notion that too many liberals "use their podiums as bully pulpits to impose their left-wing orthodoxy on their impressionable captive audience." Sorry Bob, but I don't buy into your or Verschoor's argument. It's as if the teacher is in front of the class with a swaying pocket watch saying "You are going to be Democrats. You are going to be Democrats." Uh huh.

I was a middle and high school student in Ohio during the height of the Vietnam War. We talked about the war in social science class every week when we discussed current events. I don't recall any teacher at any point in time talking about being against the war. They knew we should form our own opinions and often took different sides on an issue just to make sure we knew the world wasn't black and white (or right and left like it is here).

We also lived 12 miles from Kent State, so the smell of teargas in our back yard and the fact that our teachers were prohibited by the National Guard from going to their homes in Kent (I wonder how Arizonans would feel about THAT) lent a slightly different perspective that, still, not a single one of our teachers spoke out against in class. This and other facts were not lost on us students.

As a precursor and effect of that event, we had popular songs on the radio like "War," "Ohio" and others that were allowed to be on the radio that told the story from a young person's perspective, unlike now when such songs would be considered "unpatriotic" regardless of the facts of the message. My, what a long way we've come...

I was in college during the Reagan years studying political science and I don't recall one professor who was a "crazy liberal" who was forcing their views on anyone. So I question whether the blanket assumption so many people make around here make that all college professors are "liberals" who are all "trying to impact elections" is purely anecdotal and has no significant basis in fact.

Can someone explain how a high school teacher can impact an election? Aren’t most high school students too young to vote? Apparently Verschoor thinks kids are going to go home and indoctrinate their parents, which to me indicates greater problems with the parents than the teacher. But passing laws based on hypothetical situations or some obscure example of one teacher says one thing to one class is overreacting--something Thayer Verschoor seems to do a lot.

New Study Says Immigrants Less Likely To Be Criminals

2007-02-27T07:30:00.000-07:00

A new study released yesterday by the Immigration Policy Center says that legal and illegal immigrants are less likely than native-born Americans to commit crimes or be incarcerated. This report runs contrary to what the overheated and hot-headed Arizona politicians want you to think. In fact, this study supports what has been largely know, yet little recognized fact, that immigrants have been shown to be less likely to be criminals in studies going back over 100 years. The funny thing about facts is sometimes they get in the way...

Get the report here: www.ailf.org/ipc/special_report/sr_022017.pdf

Among the findings of this report:

Even as the undocumented population has doubled to 12 million since 1994, the violent crime rate in the United States has declined 34.2 percent and the property crime rate has fallen 26.4 percent.

Among men age 18-39 (who comprise the vast majority of the prison population), the 3.5 percent incarceration rate of the native-born in 2000 was 5 times higher than the 0.7 percent incarceration rate of the foreign-born.

The foreign-born incarceration rate in 2000 was nearly two-and-a-half times less than the 1.7 percent rate for native-born non-Hispanic white men and almost 17 times less than the 11.6 percent rate for native-born black men.

Foreign-born Mexicans had an incarceration rate of only 0.7 percent in 2000—more than 8 times lower than the 5.9 percent rate of native-born males of Mexican descent. Foreign-born Salvadoran and Guatemalan men had an incarceration rate of 0.5 percent, compared to 3.0 percent of native-born males of Salvadoran and Guatemalan descent.

Foreign-born Chinese/Taiwanese men had an extremely low incarceration rate of 0.2 percent in 2000, which was three-and-a-half times lower than the 0.7 percent incarceration rate of native-born men of Chinese/Taiwanese descent.

With the exception of Laotians and Cambodians, foreign-born men from Asian countries had lower incarceration rates than those from Latin American countries, as did their native-born counterparts.

The children and grandchildren of many immigrants—as well as many immigrants themselves the longer they live in the United States—become subject to economic and social forces, such as higher rates of family disintegration and drug and alcohol addiction, that increase the likelihood of criminal behavior among other natives.

The risk of incarceration is higher not only for the children of immigrants, but for immigrants themselves the longer they have resided in the United States. However, even immigrants who had resided in the United States for 16+ years were far less likely to be incarcerated than their native-born counterparts.

Thayer Verschoor - Stupid Legislator

2007-02-27T06:49:00.000-07:00

There's an old saying, "There's no such thing as a stupid question, but some come really close." This clearly doesn't apply to politicians, especially those in Arizona and more pointedly, District 22 Senator Thayer Verschoor. Sorry folks, there's no other way to describe this man. Clueless doesn't cut it. Misinformed doesn't quite get it right. The man's just cold, dead stupid. Or, as the kids would say it "stoopid." The reason for this label, among others, is Thayer's determination to pass SB 1542, the "Punish Teachers Who Make Kids Think Act."

For a quick review, the bill would provide monetary, civil and professional sanctions against any teacher who spoke out against anything remotely political or controversial. Ol' Thayer thinks it will stop teachers from saying things like "President Bush is an idiot," even though 70% of the public already know that. If you are convicted, it costs the teacher $500 and gets them labeled as "unprofessional." Thayer's other goal is to keep teachers from impacting elections. "That's the job of the parents," says Verschoor, not those "liberals" who are opening asking students to think for themselves--darn them.

You'd have thought that when someone had a bad idea for education and it got killed in committee that maybe, just maybe you'd decide that the bill is a bad idea. Like Verschoor’s resurrecting his bill to muzzle teachers from exercising their free speech rights at all levels. His original bill didn't pass the test of the committee that is supposed to review things affecting education, so Thayer, ideological master that he is, using his power as Majority Leader (which begs the question of what were the Republicans thinking) pulls the "strike everything" stunt to reintroduce it as SB 1542. Now SB1542 had better luck in the Senate Government Committee because that committee is chaired by one of the other geniuses of the Legislature, Sen. Jack Harper (R-Surprise), you know, the "Guns In Bars" guy, where it passed on a party line vote. Harper, if you remember, is the guy who wants to put 80-year-olds with shotguns on the border to protect us while making sure they have no access to medical care if they get hurt "protecting" us.

With the passage of SB 1542 out of Harper's committee, it now goes to the floor. Given the other ideologues living in the legislature, this P.O.S. of a bill is likely to pass, again on party line vote. After that, it goes to the Governor who will likely veto it, giving Thayer another reason to run for reelection.

The sad thing is Sen. Verschoor really has no clue of what the impact of SB 1542 would have. He can't think beyond the one or two people he talks to before introducing legislation. If you remember, he introduced a bill in the last session that would allow students to opt out of homework assignments if the --student-- objected to the material, and would require the instructor and the university to offer a different assignment and curriculum to that student after talking to ONE parent.

Gee, I wonder what Thayer would do if he listened to more people...

What "emboldens the terrorists?"

2007-02-24T08:07:00.000-07:00

Dick Cheney is at it again, saying that if you don't support what the Bush administration is doing in Iraq by sending in more troops means you are "emboldening the terrorists." What a crock. Can someone get him off the stage, please?

What "emboldens the terrorists" is how totally screwed up and incompetent the Bush plan/strategy/implementation was for Iraq and the simple fact our leaders had zero understanding of the history or the culture. We had a chance to get it right, but Bush/Cheney didn't have an ounce of a clue as to what would happen once Baghdad fell. I can’t find the words to describe what a C.F. Bush has made of Iraq and the Middle East for decades to come.

This argument that what gets talked about in public here somehow "emboldens the terrorists" is ludicrous. So far as I know, there are no English-speaking radio or TV stations in Iraq other than those run by the Bush administration for our soldiers. There are no English language newspapers in Iraq other than those run by the Bush administration. Therefore, next to no Iraqis have any access to what any American politician is saying at any point in time--unless they speak English and listen to Armed Forces Radio, which seems unlikely.

To those who say they DO hear what Arizona politicians say about the war, answer this: name every Arabic-language radio or TV station this side of the Mississippi River. Name every Arabic-language newspaper that can be purchased on any street corner this side of the Mississippi River, hell the Atlantic Ocean, for that matter. Provide a total of all of those people who speak Arabic in the state of Arizona who learned the language in a public school.

Show me that information and then maybe, just maybe, you can convince me that the average Iraqi or your average al-Qaeda sympathizer in the Middle East has any access to what any Arizona politician or any member of Congress says about the war or even cares. What they would care more about is what's happening outside of their front door and whether it’s safe. Improve that situation and you solve the terrorism problem. That may seem simplistic, but that’s all people are looking for.

It is the policies and practices of the Bush administration in Iraq and the Middle East that emboldens the terrorists. Not the exercise of Free Speech here in the U.S.

Republicans Threaten One Of Their Own

2007-02-21T14:53:00.000-07:00

I guess it was inevitable, but the Republican neo-con, neo-nazi, neo-clueless are now attacking and threatening moderate Republicans with the support of some sitting Republican legislators. Yesterday (Feb. 20, 2007) I was sitting in the gallery when Rep. Bill Konopnicki (R-Safford) read a statement telling his fellow house members that he and his family have received death threats over a vote last week to permit illegal immigrants to collect workman's compensation if they are injured on the job. I don't think anyone was expecting this and the emotion in his voice as he read his statement clearly showed he was greatly affected by the threats.

The revelation that the crazies were turning on their own was surprising enough. But what was more surprising was Speaker Weier's lame (in my view) response to Konopnicki who said essentially "we all get threats," giving no real indication that he was going to do anything about it.

I was also surprised by the tepid show of support Konopnicki's colleagues gave him in comparison to the standing ovation given him by the Democrats. I looked around quickly at the Republicans who applauded Konopnicki's remarks and one whom I did --not-- see applauding was none other than Russell Pearce (R-Mars). He was busy working on something at his desk. One can only wonder what was going on is his mind.

What should concern us all is that there are people here who believe intimidation is the way to make things go their way in this state. I would argue we have done precious little to alert the saner residents of our state to this growing problem and that something needs to be done to let people know this is not acceptable. It doesn't help that folks like Sen. Thayer Verschoor (R-Neptune) and Karen Johnson (R-Pluto) want to stifle political speech in our schools and universities, but that's what helps embolden these, shall I call them what they are, "domestic terrorists?"

Unless we do something, these mob-mentality threats will only increase in frequency and that harms our state.

Verschoor's SB1542 - Dumb and Dumberer

2007-02-17T22:50:00.000-07:00

My read of SB 1542 is the law does NOT apply to private religious (because they are not public) schools that promote the selection of "righteous" judges, that teach evolution is wrong, or that Christianity is the only "right" religion. This law would NOT apply to home-schooling parents who teach their children that Republicans are always right, that women should not have the right to disagree with their husbands or anyone who thinks otherwise is ignorant and should be called a childish name. This law does NOT apply to private schools of any type who promotes hatred of Hispanics, Blacks, Jews, or any other minority group. This would do NOTHING to stop private school teachers who teach children to protest outside of women's health clinics. So, while this law would handcuff public school and university teachers, it would have no effect on those schools where right-wing conservatives and political zealots indoctrinate their kids.

Verschoor's Bill ignores the simple fact that one must have reached the age of 18 to vote. Therefore, any the discussion of elections or positions or pending cases to people younger than 18 cannot have an impact on an election, now can it?

Like Verschoor's Bill of last year would have allowed students to opt-out of a homework because they don't agree with the point of the assignment and would have required schools to offer alternative programs, this Bill is based on a couple of conversations with a couple of people who overreact or see boogeymen around every corner. There is nothing more than narrow, anecdotal evidence that this is a problem. For those who don't know what "anecdotal" means, it means there's nothing more than people with a hunch or unproven belief that something is true, when it really isn't.

This country is based on freedom of speech. I doubt seriously this bill would ever stand up to a Constitutional challenge on free speech grounds. Unfortunately, any legal challenge would be at the expense of the Arizona taxpayer. Personally, I think the funds for any legal challenge should come out of the pocket of Thayer Verschoor.

Thayer Verschoor - Enemy of Free Speech

2007-02-16T10:39:00.000-07:00

You'd think that Republicans support free speech, but they don't. Republican Senator Thayer Verschoor's (R-22) original bill to muzzle free speech for teachers at any grade or school or university and fine them $500 per conviction of “unprofessional conduct” used to be SB 1612, but it got killed in the Education Committee on Wednesday. Not one to let a dumb bill die or give up on telling teachers what they can or cannot discuss, Republican Verschoor pulled the "Strike Everything" stunt and reintroduced the measure, word-for-word, as SB 1542. This is a dangerous and vague bill that is opposed by teachers, students and parents, yet Republican Verschoor insists it's necessary. Apparently he and some of his right-wing-extremist collegues think discussing political issues should occur and those bastions of knowledge: the legislature or the local KKK or JBS meeting.

Voice your objection to this bill by calling Senator Verschoor's office at 602-926-4136. Also, call your Senator and House members and make sure they know you disapprove of SB 1542. It's today's prime example of more dumb laws from the Arizona Republicans.

HB2663 - Today's Dumb Bill of the Day!

2007-02-08T23:56:00.000-07:00

Today's installment is HB2663, sponsored by Republican Representative Trish Groe (R-3), which mandates that on the initial contact with the family or family member who is accused of abusing a child, the CPS agent must inform the family they are under no obligation to let the CPS agent into the home OR to interview the child. Now, the staff backgrounder states:

"The law requires CPS to investigate reports of suspected abuse or neglect of a child, and to provide temporary foster care for dependent children who have been abused or abandoned. CPS workers may visit the home to discuss the report and talk with the family about its situation; suggestions may also be made about what services are available to assist the family."

So let me get this straight: the law requires CPS to investigate reports of abuse, but they can't enter the home or interview the child? That'll be a short investigation. So what do the sponsors believe will happen to the child when an abuser finds out that the child has told another adult or parent of abuse? Do they think the child will get a hug? How is CPS supposed to get any clear evidence of abuse if they're not permitted to interview the child? What happens if the abuser refuses to let the child out of the house or out of their sight? What if the abuser stops the child from seeing the other parent if visitation is permitted? Who do Groe and the 11 other Republican co-sponsors think they're protecting here? Sounds like the abusers to me.

So, today's "Dumb Bill of the Day" award goes to Republicans Trish Groe, Barto, Biggs, Burges, Clark, Kavanagh, McLain, Murphy, Nelson, Nichols, Pearce, and Yarbrough for HB2663, which further handcuffs CPS from determining whether children are abused.

Way to go!

How do the come up with these?

2007-02-07T19:53:00.000-07:00

This is turning into a daily event, so I figured I'd just title this "Dumb Bill of the Day." Maybe it should be "Dumb Bills from Dim Bulbs."

Today's installment, SB 1612, comes from the fertile and futile mind of Thayer Verschoor, (with co-sponsors Linda Gray and Karen Johnson). SB 1612 deals with that awful problem of teachers in public schools, charter schools and universities talking about current events. These three dumb law-makers believe teachers are overstepping their bounds and should not be allowed to:

a: discuss any political candidate or party
b: discuss any governmental program
c: discuss any law, regulation or rule
d: discuss any litigation pending anywhere
e: advocate any social or cultural issue

So much for political science and social studies classes or degrees. And where are Arizona students supposed to study our political process or engage in a balanced discussion of important issues? At Thayer Verschoor's house? The local KKK or JBS meeting? The Flat Earth Society? The Arizona GOP?

Any teacher convicted of doing any of these god-awful things is guilty of "an unprofessional act" and is subject to a fine of $500. Someone who --helps-- a teacher teach students about "Dumb Laws" is also subject to a $500 fine.

Let me remind you ol' Thayer was the author of one of last year's "Dumb Bills" that would have permitted any student who didn't like the lessons they were being taught could "opt-out" and request a different curriculum. Republicans must think it is better to keep people ignorant of their government than have the smarts to figure out what's going on. Thayer sure thinks so.

As sayeth Thomas Gray: "When ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly be wise." Need any more proof than Thayer Verschoor's SB1612?

So thank you, Thayer Verschoor, for SB 1612: today's "Dumb Bill of the Day!"

More Brilliance from JackAZ Harper

2007-02-03T14:57:00.000-07:00

Following up my earlier post on SCR1006, I took the time to check the facts on Sen. Jack Harper's claim that there are "23 states" who have state defense forces just like the one he is proposing for Arizona. The plain and simple truth is Harper doesn't know what he's talking about. I.M.H.O., there is no way Harper could have done a-n-y serious research into his claim. For someone who pontificates on the importance of telling the truth and how no one should be trusted at the Capitol who doesn't tell the truth, Harper is quite loose with the truth.

Here is the short version of what I found:

State-by-State Summary

Number of states examined: 23

Number of states with State Defense Forces specifically cited in state Constitution: None

Number of states where State Defense Force is under Legislature “direction:” None

Number of states where State Defense Force membership and organization is determined by a committee of the Legislature: None

Number of states where the State Defense Force is always active: None

Number of states where active State Defense Force members are not paid: None

Number of states that reimburse expenses of members of the State Defense Force: None

Number of states where State Defense Force is 100% exempt from the UCMJ or state equivalent: None

Number of states with discussion of sexual orientation policies: None

Number of states where State Defense Force CAN be called to federal service: 13

Number of states that exempt State Defense Force from federal service: 10

Conclusion

Number of states with a State Defense Force with an “identical force to SCR1006:” None

Tom Horne's Hypocrisy

2007-02-03T09:09:00.000-07:00

I have to say I'm troubled by Tom Horne's op-ed (Racist views are poor use of school funding, azcentral.com, Feb. 3, 2007) for a number of reasons. First, it's embarrassing that the Superintendent of Public Instruction seems to be able to write only single-sentence paragraphs. Not a very good example for the kids, Tom.

Second, in the same article where he states "...I have promoted prejudice reduction programs, such as "World of Differences," that teach kids to treat each other as individuals, not as a stereotypes of their ethnic groups," he effectively encourages people to accept his classification of anyone who is Chicano as not recognizing the "legitimacy of the United States." Maybe it’s me, but doesn’t that statement contribute to the very prejudice he earlier said he was fighting against? Maybe Mr. Horne is unfamiliar with the word “hypocrisy.”

It's unfortunate that Republicans like Mr. Horne find it necessary to demonize people and groups based on posts on web sites, innuendo and hearsay. Maybe if he spoke to the people wearing the t-shirts and not just the critics he might learn something that could help him address the very prejudices he supposedly opposes. Unfortunately, his op-ed does nothing other than fan the flames.

SCR-1006 Creates Vigilante Armed Force Outside of Standard Military Control

2007-01-27T08:37:00.000-07:00

Republican State Senator Jack Harper (R-4) and his ideological counterparts Thayer Verschoor (R-22), Karen Johnson (R-18), and Doug Clark (R-6) believe the answer to Arizona’s military preparedness problem is to put before the voters SCR-1006, which create “The Homeland Security Force,” a vigilante group under the control of the legislature and manned with any living human being over the age of 18. That supposed attack coming from the Mexican Army to take over the southwestern U.S. apparently has them spooked.

This nutty and dangerous legislation provides for the following:

The legislature decides the mission and makeup of the “Force” and plainly sets a political agenda that will compete with competent military objectives.
The legislature, not the Governor or other duly authorized military leaders, decides who gets to be members of the “Force.”
Member of the “Force” would not be required to undergo physical or psychological evaluation, which is required of all recruits of the National Guard or regular forces.
Member of the “Force” would not be subject to the Code of Military Justice or be called into regular military service
There is no age cap, which means our Republican legislators think it’s okay for 75-year-old men to be on the border with 50mm weapons.
Violates the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policies.

How any sane person who has a remote concept of proper military or criminal service can support this is scary. What’s worse is this thing is making it’s way through the legislature VERY quickly. It has already been read twice on the floor and Harper’s committee has scheduled a hearing for THIS Monday, January 29, 2007 at 1:30PM in Senate Hearing Room 3, 1700 W. Washington Ave.

Here are the contact numbers/emails for the sponsors of this crazy legislation:

Sponsor:
Jack W. Harper jharper@azleg.gov 602-926-4178

Co-sponsors:
Karen Johnson kjohnson@azleg.gov 602-926-3160
Thayer Verschoor tverschoor@azleg.gov 602-926-4136
Doug Clark dclark@azleg.gov 602-26-3018

Here is the current text of SCR-1006:

Be it resolved by the Senate of the State of Arizona, the House of Representatives concurring:

1. Article XVI, Constitution of Arizona, is proposed to be amended by adding section 4 as follows if approved by the voters and on proclamation of the Governor:

4. Homeland security committee; force; administration

Section 4. A. The homeland security committee is established consisting of three members of the senate who are appointed by the president of the senate, three members of the house of representatives who are appointed by the speaker of the house of representatives and three members who are appointed by the governor, with a preference for honorably discharged veterans.

B. The homeland security force is established under the direction of the committee. The committee shall regulate the membership and organization of the homeland security force.

C. After consideration of federal deployment levels of the national guard, if the governor determines that an emergency exists or that it is necessary to protect lives or property in this state, the governor may request able-bodied citizens of this state, except peace officers and fire and emergency personnel, who are at least eighteen years of age to volunteer for service in the homeland security force.

D. The homeland security force:

Shall be funded by legislative appropriations.
Shall not receive compensation, but members are eligible for reimbursement of expenses from the department of emergency and military affairs.
Shall have officers with prior military experience who are appointed by the governor pursuant to rules adopted by the homeland security committee.
Shall be under direct control of the governor and receive training from the adjutant general.
Shall attend required training on not more than one Saturday per month and be subject to the orders of appointed officers. Members of the national guard may assist in training.
Shall not be subject to federal active duty.
Shall be exempt from the code of military justice but are subject to the laws of this state.

2. Appropriation; homeland security force; exemption

A. The sum of $______________ is appropriated from the ___________ fund in fiscal year 2008-2009 to the governor for administration of the homeland security force.

B. The appropriation made in subsection A of this section is exempt from the provisions of section 35-190, Arizona Revised Statutes, relating to lapsing of appropriations.

3. The Secretary of State shall submit these propositions to the voters at the next general election as separate ballot propositions as provided by article IV, part 1, section 1 and article XXI, Constitution of Arizona, and section 19-125, Arizona Revised Statutes.

The Hoopla Around Pizza Patron

2007-01-14T11:18:00.000-07:00

What is it with some people in Arizona? A pizza place announces it will accept Pesos and you'd think the entire country of Mexico is moving to the U.S.

Anyone who has traveled overseas knows what a pain it is to change currency when moving from one country to the next. Many businesses like hotels and restaurants accept foreign currency from their customers for payment, often charging a premium for the convenience of exchanging the currency on the spot. I have lots of foreign currency from my travels lying around the house and if there was a way to use it up, I’d be happy to do so. Pizza Patron is doing something done in most other countries of the world by some of the world’s largest businesses: they’re making money on the sale of their pizza and on the currency exchange. That some people here find it worthy of death threats or condemnation indicates we Americans need to get out more and see what is common elsewhere poses no threat here.

Senator Karen Johnson Goes Off the Deep End

2006-12-03T11:04:00.000-07:00

Believe it: Senator Karen Johnson is a card-carrying member of the crazy right-wingers of the Republican Party who pass themselves off as libertarians, but act and think more like members of the John Birch Society or the National Alliance. In an article in the East Valley Tribune, Johnson states this county will merge with Mexico and Canada to become a E.U.-like country where our Constitution and sovereignty is pitched out the window and the U.S. as we know it will cease to exist. The culprit in all of this: President George W. Bush.

Now she's informed the Arizona Republican delegation of this "fact," many of who wouldn't return the Trib's calls for comments. I can't say I blame them. What's scarier is she sits in the legislature with other folks like Russell Pearce and there are enough voters in her district way too uninformed to throw her out. Maybe H. L. Mencken was right about getting the politicians we deserve.

Johnson's hysterical fear mongering and boogie-man rhetoric is why Republicans are leaving that party and registering and voting as Independents and Democrats. I would encourage her to keep up the good work. Democrats can use her help.

MacEachern, Goldwater Institute and Bad Research

2006-12-03T10:43:00.000-07:00

In endorsing Matt Ladner’s premise that states with lower tax rates means they will have lower poverty rates, Doug MacEachern encourages the public to believe something is fact when it is not. It’s not even close.

I have a copy of Ladner’s paper “How to Win the War on Poverty.” He cites low-tax states like Mississippi (19% poverty) and Arkansas (15.1% poverty) as states with low tax rates we should emulate. If low tax rates have a direct relationship on reducing poverty, then how come they have higher poverty rates than Arizona (14.4% poverty)?

Does Ladner cite any peer-reviewed research to support his claims? Nope. Did he interpret the data to show there is a statistically significant relationship between low tax rates and reductions in poverty? No, again. In fact, he states in the footnotes “A lack of comparable and detailed state budget data precludes an examination of antipoverty spending by state.” So can he legitimately support his conclusions? No, he can’t.

Ladner and the Goldwater Institute are preaching to the choir with false claims and bad research. How that helps Arizona is a mystery, but I’m sure they appreciate MacEachern’s help. The rest of us, however, do not.

Medicare and Negotitation of Lower Prices

2006-11-15T08:55:00.000-07:00

Today's NY Times editorial on Dept. of HHS Secretary Michael Levitt stating he didn't want the power to negotiate lower drug prices got me thinking. The typical argument is that market forces should control prices and that lower prices rob the industry of funds needed to create new drugs. In my mind, these argument fails for a couple of reasons:

1. Market forces apply when the consumer can do without a given product or can obtain it or something similar at another price or from another producer. Unless I'm missing something, life itself is not something that can be obtained at a lower price or from another producer (maybe unless you're a Buddhist, with that whole reincarnation thing). So any producer who has the ability to provide a drug to someone whose alternative is pain, suffering or death, has no incentive to sell the product at a lower price. Hence, we get higher prices from the drug companies.

Sam Walton built Wal-Mart on the simply notion that "a lot of a small number is a large number." The fact Wal-Mart and Target are now offering some drugs at $4 per prescription should tell us something about negotiating power for drugs and its effects on prices. Given the opportunity to nail down a larger customer base, the economic incentives to lower prices to get to that market would outweigh any pressures to keep prices artificially high. It seems to have worked for Wal-Mart and Target and they don't appear to be manufacturing any drugs. Why not the federal government, or Arizona for that matter?

2. There are already other federal programs who get better deals on drugs than Medicare, such as the V.A. and Medicaid. How one side of the federal government can refrain from negotiating while the other side does and succeeds is an interesting notion.

3. Companies who think they can't invest in R&D deserve to fail. Other firms will jump in to take advantage of the market opportunity. University researchers will take their discoveries to firms marketing new drugs, which reminds us it's not just the drug companies wha are creating new medications. Medical research will go on no matter what the overall cost of drugs are in the United States. Besides, the U.S. isn't the only country in the world working on new drugs. The world's a big place and we're only a small part of it.

The Democrats are correct and should extend to HHS the authority to negotiate lower prices for Medicare if for any other reason than other federal programs do it and save the taxpayers likely billions of dollars. After all, who wants to save the country more money than Democrats while at the same time proving government CAN work to make things better (there's a Republican nightmare)? The voters trusted Democrats to do a better job at handling health care. Giving the HHS the authority to negotiate lower prices is a great start.

Now what can we do for Arizonans??

Changing The Subject While Missing The Point

2006-11-05T08:49:00.000-07:00

Robert Reitze's response to a commentary printed in the East Valley Tribune that discussed how Democrats and Independents can change Arizona for the better has a problem. Reitze's response draws a comparison that simply isn't there and wasn't even discussed. There was nothing in the commentary that spoke about the Congress. Nothing. The commentary focused only on the Arizona legislature. Keeping that significant difference in mind, it is true that no Maricopa County Democratic candidate for the Arizona Legislature supports raising taxes.

As for Charles Rangle saying he would repeal the tax cuts that expire in 2010, according to the Oct. 26, 2006 Washington Post, Rangle says "I think it would be ridiculous for us in 2007 to be talking about 2010 tax cuts," Rangel said in an interview. "I don't want to go retroactive in terms of any of the tax cuts. I think retroactive tax increases are bad tax policy." This statement alone shows Democrats are more thoughtful about budgets and spending than Republicans.

If Republicans think tax cuts are a boon to the economy, maybe they can explain why the national debt has doubled since their tax cuts to $9 trillion dollars. Why are home foreclosures at their highest levels since the tax cuts? Why have interest rates doubled since the tax cuts?

Now there's a record to run from.

Dean Martin's Failed Memory

2006-10-29T22:55:00.000-07:00

Dean Martin says we should support Proposition 300 because the Governor vetoed HB 2030 in 2005. Odd he didn’t mention what the Governor’s veto message said. It says she agrees that public programs should not be available to those who consciously decide to come here illegally, but HB 2030 would punish even long-time residents of this state who were brought here as small children by their parents.

Napolitano’s position happens to be shared by prominent Republicans with the familiar names of Hatch and Bush. When Orin Hatch introduced the DREAM Act in 2003, he said “We have a choice to either keep these talented young people underground, or give them a chance to contribute to the United States. I believe that our laws should not discourage these bright young minds from seeking higher education." Then-governor George W. Bush said “I believe it’s good policy for Texas to make sure immigrant children are educated so that they’re available for the workforce later on.”

Dean Martin should listen to Governor Napolitano and other Republicans who agree controlling the border is crucial, but denying education opportunities to children who are here through no choice of their own isn’t the way to do it.

Who IS the Arizona Republican Party?

2006-10-29T21:03:00.000-07:00

I’ve reached the conclusion that our Republican legislators cannot possibly represent the views of the majority of Arizona Republicans in particular or Arizonans in general. Their positions are more right-wing Libertarian than mainstream Republican. Are they really Libertarians running as Republicans but can’t be honest about it? Look at the polls, examine their views and decide yourself.

Most Arizonans want the legislature to invest the surplus in roads and schools, but legislators want a tax cut. Most Arizonans want a reasonable approach to illegal immigration while the legislators want to create families of felons. Most Arizonans want both parties to work together, but our legislators believe no compromise is ever justified.

Our Republican legislators preach government is too big, yet they control it. They say spending is out of control, yet they hold the purse strings and forget we’ve had several years of deficits. They say government shouldn’t put its nose in our personal lives but want to dictate health choices to women.

If this isn’t proof Republicans are out of touch with voters, I’m not sure what other proof you need. It’s time to elect people who think like we do. It’s time to clean house.

CAGW President's Amnesia

2006-10-29T21:00:00.000-07:00

In an entertaining example of hypocrisy, the president of Citizens Against Government Waste rants against Jim Pederson for wanting to bring our tax dollars home claiming "Arizonans need Senators who will challenge the spending culture in Washington, not champion it."

How he can say that with a straight face when he supports Jon Kyl, J.D. Hayworth, Trent Franks, John Shadegg and Rick Renzi, all of whom have all voted to increase government spending well over revenues thereby creating the largest deficit in history, is comical. Even when one learns the above Arizona representatives voted for the famous "Alaskan Bridge to Nowhere" among thousands of other pork projects, it makes his complaint even more disingenuous.

Where’s his criticism of the Republican incumbents? Where's his outrage for their deficit and pork spending? Nowhere, that's where.

The unfortunate thing is this hypocrisy cheapens the efforts of the CAGW and purposefully misinforms the voters. People expect them to be watchdogs, not political rubber stamps. But that’s what we got. Tom Schatz’s criticisms should be aimed at those have a record of spending more than we take in: Republican incumbents. There’s no question on their spending record.

Russel Pearce's "Apology"

2006-10-29T20:57:00.000-07:00

Renowned poet Maya Angelou said, "If someone tells you who they are, believe them." These wise words should be used to judge what is in Russell Pearce's heart and what he believes about Hispanics, Jews and who knows whom else.

What is Russell Pearce doing reading a white supremacist web site? What is a man who tell us he looks at the state budget with an eye on every detail doing by –not--reading the entire message he copied from said white supremacist web site? What do these simple facts say about Russell Pearce?

This issue has nothing to do with illegal immigration. It has nothing to do being an American. This has nothing to do with being law-abiding. The criticism of him has nothing to do with political correctness. It has everything to do with morals and character, which we can now see Russell Pearce is of limited supply. It’s painful to learn that someone in such a powerful position as Mr. Pearce harbors such views, but he has told us what is in his heart and who he is. Regardless of how uncomfortable it may be to do so, we must believe what he tells us.

Len Munsil's Case of Denial

2006-10-29T20:54:00.000-07:00

Len Munsil’s assessment of Gov. Napolitano’s performance indicates a plain misreading of who is responsible for what. He blames the Governor for a high crime rate, yet most of the state’s elected police officials and those who set crime-prevention policy are Republicans. He complains about poor schools, yet the State Superintendent and the legislature that funds Education is controlled by Republicans. He says the Governor wants to raise taxes yet those who control the budget process and have a demonstrable lack of foresight that would make any tax increase necessary are Republicans. He criticizes the Governor for the record number of vetoes, yet forgets the leaders of the legislature who sent to the Governor bills that deserved to be vetoed are Republicans. He blames the Governor for not spending state resources to defend the border, yet those who really are responsible for doing nothing to protect the border are Republicans.

Well, Mr. Munsil, it sure looks to this voter like Republicans are the problem and not Janet Napolitano. And yes, this means you won’t be getting my vote.

More Bovine Scatology From the Right

2006-06-02T21:46:00.000-07:00

Would Thomas Gatchell (Letter to the Editor, AZ Republic, 6/2/06) please be so kind as to inform us when the last time was that "Democratic administrations" went "door to door to confiscate the firearms of law-abiding U.S citizens.” I don’t believe that ever happened.

While he's at it, maybe he can tell us what he likes about Republicans giving tax breaks to the most wealthy and no-bid contracts to multinational companies who evade paying U.S. taxes in order to "buy constituency."

Democrats aren't interested in nor planning on raising taxes. The government has enough money already and we know it. All Democrats want to do is balance the budget, which the Republicans are plainly incapable of doing.

Gatcchell’s rhetoric is nothing more than election fear mongering in a vain attempt to keep voters from looking at the Republican record of incompetence, failure and over-spending taxpayer’s dollars. I have a feeling that strategy won’t work this year.

FYI - The Liberal Desire to Destroy Marriage

2006-05-25T10:18:00.000-07:00

I really need to pay better attention. Because I do things like write blogs, I get myself added to news and information lists with the expectation that some of the more common issue goups will send me something interesting. Well, the Family Resource Council never fails to dissappoint.

Did you know all liberals are "out to destroy marriage?" Gee, I didn't. But according to the FRC, they are. How do they know? Because "pundits" say so. Which "pundits?" They don't say. They also want "to destroy every other traditional moral value you and I hold dear." According to the FRC, "If marriage is redefined to include same-sex couple, every one of America's founding freedoms--especially religious freedom--will be sacrificed on the altars of "tolerance" and "political correctness." By passing hate crime legislation that specifies crimes against gays, liberals purportedly will "criminalize the expression of biblical values on sexual morality." And the same people who claim there is a "war on Christmas" are the same people who claim that arguing for "equal rights" for gays and lesbians is nothing more than a war on familes and marriage itself.

Wow, this must be serious stuff! So where are these pundits who say liberals are out to destroy marriage and all of America's founding freedoms? I've been looking around and the only ones I can find are conservatives. Names like:

Rush Limbaugh
Sean Hannity
Neal Bortz
Laura Ingram
John Gibson

and the other usual suspects. Now, looking for any liberal groups that have "destroying marriage" in their message, I find no liberal group making that claim.

Not the ACLU
Not the Democratic Party
Not the Human Rights Campaign
Not the United Nations
Not the National Organization for Women

So where does the FRC get this idea that "all liberals" want to "destroy marriage?" From themselves. From their supporters. From the like-minded.

Democrats need to address this stuff head-on and make sure that community churches know Democrats are not out to "destroy marriage" or any "founding American freedom." Sometimes equal rights as stated in the Constition really does mean equal rights.

John Shadegg - Late to the energy conservation party

2006-05-16T10:22:00.000-07:00

Our dear, dear friends in the Republican Party are trumpeting that John Shadegg introduced a bill to eliminate the tax on ethanol. News releases from the R's talk about how the Wall Street Journal says it's a responsible idea. Granted it's not a bad start, but I just can't help but think back at Shadegg's other energy conservation-related votes. It would appear Shadegg may be undergoing a campaign year conversion on energy issues.

Voted YES on authorizing construction of new oil refineries. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy. (Jun 2004)
Voted YES on implementing Bush-Cheney national energy policy. (Nov 2003)
Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)
Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001)
Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)

So, dear John has voted against requiring cars and trucks get better mileage, against alternative fuels (of which ethanol is one), for increased tax credits for oil companies, against clean air standards requiring more fuel efficient and less polluting vehicles, and for drilling one of the few remaining wildernesses in the U.S.

Let's have John's record speak for itself.

Republican Response to a Democratic Response

2006-05-12T08:10:00.000-07:00

Don't cha just love it when one party responds to another party's response to the former party's positions? You know it's going to be nit-picky. But when the Republicans do it, it's just more fun because they all tend to miss one thing: the point.

Back on May 8th, the chairman of the Arizona Latino Republican Association responded to Democrat Steve Gallardo's "My Turn" article by pointing out that his opinion is void of facts (don't you just L-O-V-E it? What ELSE would they say?). Mr. Esparza then points out several examples of where Gallardo got it wrong.

His first point is that "Republican Party is leading the charge" in immigration reform in the Congress. Sure, they're leading the charge because Republicans won't send up a bill written by Democrat. The same thing happens here in Arizona.

He second point is "the president is urging Congress to adopt immigration reform." Sure, and he's urging Americans to use less fuel, too. We all know what the result of the encouragement has been!

His third point is both of Arizona's Senators have submitted bills to deal with the immigration problem. Deals with them "in a comprehensive manner" he says. What he doesn't say is Kyl's bill would force all illegal immigrants to go home first. I'm sure that's what a lot of Latinos want: ship them home first.

His fourth point regards "No Child Left Behind" and school choice. Isn't it convenient that the group that published the poll results cited by Mr. Esparza happens to be one promoting school choice? Now, if he had used some other organization's research, say the US Department of Education's National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Mr. Esparza would see that "Despite a new federal educational testing law championed by the Bush administration, scores among fourth and eighth graders failed to show any improvements in reading, and showed only slow gains in math nationally during the past two years." Or how about something local, like ASU's Report "High-Stakes Testing and Student Achievement: Problems for the No Child Left Behind Act." (PDF) which "finds that pressure created by high-stakes testing has had almost no important influence on student academic performance."

His last point addresses the number of Latinos in the Bush Administration versus previous administrations. This type of stuff is always subjective, but it seems to me that Clinton named more than the five names Esparza mentions:

An Administration That Looks like One America. The President appointed the most diverse Cabinet and Administration in history. Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson and Small Business Administrator Aida Alvarez are members of the President's Cabinet. Federico Pena and Henry Cisneros previously served in the President's Cabinet.

Judicial Appointments. Seven percent of all judicial appointments are Hispanics including the Honorable Jose Cabranes, Judge, Second Circuit U.S. Circuit Court and the Honorable Hilda Tagle, Judge, Southern District of Texas, U.S. District Court.

Senior Level Administration Appointments. President Clinton has appointed more Hispanics to senior level positions than any President in American history. Eight percent of Presidential appointments, including boards and commissions, are held by Latinos. These Presidential appointees include Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) President George Munoz; Norma Cantu, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the Department of Education; Saul Ramirez, Jr., Department of Housing and Urban Development Deputy Secretary; Eduardo Gonzalez, Director of the United States Marshals Service; Eluid Levi Martinez, Commissioner of Bureau of Reclamation at the Department of Interior; Ida L. Castro, Director of the Women's Bureau of the U.S. Department of Labor and Chair- designee for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; Patricia T. Montoya, Commissioner- designee for Children, Youth & Families at the Department of Health and Human Services; and John U. Sepulveda, Deputy Director-designee at the Office of Personnel Management. White House appointees include: Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff Maria Echaveste; Assistant to the President and Director of Intergovernmental Affairs Mickey Ibarra; and Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Director for Legislative Affairs Janet Murguia.

So who wins? I'm not sure. But it seems to me that what is more important is the policies these Latinos want to implement than the fact they are Latinos.

So, is Gallardo's rhetoric "senseless?" Are his points without facts? They're only unreasonable when you leave out the information from Republican-leaning think tanks with a clear mission to support the Republican and conservative agenda. But Mr. Gallardo does no such thing. He's pretty much spot on the mark.

Kyl's "Understand" of our Pain at the Pump

2006-05-09T08:57:00.000-07:00

I read Jon Kyl’s May 8 “Weekly Column” where he talks about “Pain at the Pump” and how he feels it necessary to warn us normal folk about politicians who claim they have simple answers to complex problems. “Understanding why gas prices are so high” will show us the right way to go, says Mr. Kyl. That sounds good, but one would be hard-pressed to find a better example of the problem Kyl raises than his own commentary.

Kyl says “(i)nternational events” are the main culprit. That happens to be true, but nowhere in his column does he mention the one “international event” that is the most significant source of higher fuel prices: Iraq. Oil traders have stated there is a $15-20 “security surcharge” on every barrel of crude oil caused directly by the Iraq war. Want to know the price of gasoline at $50 per barrel? According to USA Today, it was $1.92. Maybe the good Senator can explain why Iraq isn’t at the top of his “International events” list.

Kyl argues that increased drilling in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico would reduce gas prices because it would be U.S. and not imported oil. Talk about a red herring. So Jon, let me get this straight. Oil companies that sell their product at world prices, whom you defend making $20B annual profits and receive federal tax credits you voted for and gave you campaign donations are going to somehow become so patriotic they will lower the price of domestically-produced crude to the level where it is far below world market price and lower prices at the pump? Never mind that we have 3% of the reserves and 50% of the demand. They’ll still lower the price to below market levels so we get cheap gas?

Sure they will.

Kyl talks about eliminating the ethanol requirement while at the same time asking to eliminate the ethanol tariff. If you eliminate the requirement, then why eliminate the tariff because then you won’t need the ethanol in the first place. This doesn’t reduce our dependence on foreign oil, it increases it, using Kyl’s own data, by at least four billion gallons per year.

So, Mr. Kyl’s understanding of our “Pain at the Pump” centers on ignoring the one international event at the source of increase in gas prices, pitching increases in domestic reserves and reducing the need for ethanol while at the same time increasing our demand for foreign oil. That’s some understanding, Mr. Kyl.

I'm baaaack!

2006-04-28T08:29:00.000-07:00

Sorry, been busy. I know the millions that read this have wondered about me, and I appreciate all of your emails wondering why I have written anything. But hey, saving the world is a big job and sometimes you have to focus on the actual work instead of criticizing it.

What's motivated me today is my homeboy, Robert Robb is trashing Democrats again with some more ideological nonsense. Seems he's a little annoyed with his Republican pals who are (gasp) pandering for votes with this silly "gas price relief" nonsense. Robb seems to want to paint Democrats into anti-Big Oil demagogues who will reign in the nasty big-profit-making while the price of everything else goes up corporations. While that's a picture conservatives love to paint, it hasn't been true in the past and it isn't true now. But it's an election year and you have to get in as many digs as you can while the fire's hot.

As for the Republican plan, it goes like this. If you paid income taxes and you earned less than $125,000 per year, you get a whopping $100 from the government. I went to the IRS web site and found there are about 120 million people that fall into that category. So right out of the gate, the cost is $12 billion dollars.

Well there goes the surplus... Oh, wait. We don't HAVE a surplus. That means we have to borrow the money to pay out the $12 billion. Let's see, what pigeon, er, patriot can we borrow this from? Hmmmm. Ah! Our kids! Great, now that problem is solved, we need to mail them out. Okay, 120 million times 33 cents for stamps...that means we need another $40 million for postage. Oh, kids, we need another $40 big ones, and it's a lot less than the $12 billion we just borrowed, so we're sure you won't mind. It's money to make your parents feel better about voting for Republicans and enables them to drive you to soccer practice for a week.

Now that 120 million Americans now have $100 to burn in their pockets, the Republicans want you to use that to do what? Buy gas. Not that everyone will, mind you, but that's the hope. So whom will be the beneficiary of this $12 billion gas relief program? Why, the oil companies. Who contributes money to the Republicans? The oil companies. So who is the real beneficiary of this $12 billion? You got it. The oil companies.

Now before you call me cynical, I have to point out that the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate, Jim Pederson, has his own idea. He'd give even more people $150 (not the measly $100 Republicans want to hand out), but to people who make $150,000 per year (like they really need it), which means Pederson's deal will cost somewhere around $18 billion. Where his plan differs is he'd use money from doing away with tax credits the oil companies now receive to fund his rebate.

But here's the problem with that idea: the money wouldn't be taken FROM the oil companies as in "right now" like the idea suggests. Pederson's plan would use money the oil companies --would-- have been able to deduct from their taxes which presumably is sufficient to cover the cost of the rebate. Unfortunately, these monies really aren't in the treasury in the first place because they were never paid, which means we'd have to borrow the money now hoping we'll get it from the oil companies in the future, which further presumes there aren't other ways the oil company accountants can figure out some way to avoid paying an equivalent amount of taxes. At the end of the day, it's a net wash for the oil companies because they'll continue to rack up big profits and the U.S. Treasury will still be short $18 billion. So while it makes it look like we're penalizing those big, bad oil companies, we're not. We're subsidizing them. They win either way.

What amazes me is neither party sees the real problem. If you ask any oil trader why oil futures are going through the roof they will tell you because of risk to the delivery of the product to the refineries and the market. What causes that risk to increase is war and political unrest. Hmmm, where are we at war right now? That part of the world where the oil comes from (not all of it, mind you but oil market prices are global and not regional). So, the right answer is to deal with the problems in the Middle East in a way that reduces risk and not increases it. THAT will reduce the price of gas, not incremental tax and rebate policies.

If only people would listen...

Amnesty? For What?

2006-04-03T06:56:00.000-07:00

Let's review the other types of amnesty programs we have had and continue to have in the U.S. that allows people to get away with breaking the law or breaking the rules.

Illegal weapon amnesty. Misdemeanor warrant amnesty. Illegal explosives amnesty. Traffic warrant amnesty. Toxic waste amnesty. Civil fine amnesty and even library fine amnesty. Except for the library fines, all of the above could be felonies or low-to-high grade misdemeanors. Being here illegally is a civil infraction and in the whole scheme of things is a lesser “crime” than most of the above.

So you don't have to do the research, here it is:

a. Gun Control Act of 2004, MD, gun amnesty:
b. New York State Legislature, 1994, gun amnesty:
c. City of Rochester, NY, gun amnesty:
d. City of Philadelphia, PA, gun amnesty
e. Columbia, SC, gun amnesty
f. Pittsburgh, PA gun amnesty
g. Dona Ana County, NM, explosives amnesty
h. Ralston, NE, explosives amnesty day
i. Lancaster County, NE, misdemeanor warrant amnesty day
j. Sarpy County, NE: misdemeanor warrant amnesty day
k. Tulsa County, OK, misdemeanor warrant amnesty day
l. Lake Forest Park, WA, warrant amnesty day

I’m not saying whether we should offer amnesty to illegal immigrants or not. But it seems to me that when we discuss granting amnesty to those who "don't understand some part of the word 'illegal'," we should remember for whom and for what we have granted amnesty in the past and whether granting it completely solved those problems either.

Robert Robb works for the Goldwater Instutute

2006-03-31T07:58:00.000-07:00

The Arizona Republic really needs to make sure Robert Robb gets out more. So many of his columns refer to reports from the Goldwater Institute you’d think he works for them in marketing.

As usual he and Goldwater are going off the deep end in suggesting the state should invest in post-secondary education much like someone invests in a stock. This is interesting in light of Goldwater’s persistent claims that government doesn’t invest in anything, but that’s another red herring. I’m questioning Goldwater’s investment strategy because wise investors look at other firms and compare what they do, how they attract customers, examine return on investment, etc. If you do that comparison, you’ll be very hard-pressed to find a single, highly respected institution or other state that has made these draconian changes and made it work much less identifying one that has even attempted it.

The Goldwater report makes interesting projections by comparing public to private (including for-profit and non-profit, which is an important distinction) institutions, assumes 2% inflation, ignores new construction and expansion costs due to growth needs, excludes grants and aid to private school students, and winds up proclaiming private school and state-university costs "are comparable." They also pull out research by their favorite "professor-for-hire" Richard Vedder who "finds a primary reason for the rising cost of financing universities is the growth of non-instructional activities such as research."

Aren't colleges and universities supposed to do research? Conducting research doesn't teach anything? Wow. So, where do our new products come from? Where do our new drugs come from? Apparently not from colleges and universities. So Goldwater thinks colleges and universities in Arizona should not conduct research and only teach about research done at other universities because research is "non-instructional."

Based on this, they come away with this idea that if you just give students boatloads of money for astronomical tuition fees it will all net out with $768M is "savings" and provide all of the funding the universities need. Maybe that's true if you don't have those pesky research facilities to develop and maintain. That may be true if you can control where students go to college. That may be true in teenagers comply with certain economic assumptions of economists. And it may be true if you only want to train ideologues (remember Goldwater argued that politicians should be allowed to chose the books and curriculum taught at state colleges and universities), that will reduce educational expenses.

Sure, Arizona can get weird and base university funding on the theories of economists who clearly have too much time on their hands. But while there may be some inefficiency in post-secondary funding, tossing out the baby with the bathwater on an untried theory hardly seems responsible from a market or educational needs perspective.

Goldwater used to be useful in the past. But now they are so theoretically ideological, they do nothing but cloud the debate and create solutions in search of a problem.

Be careful at whom you throw stones

2006-03-28T07:46:00.000-07:00

The East Valley Tribune editorial board should be careful where they throw stones. They argue the Governor’s allowing the ELL bill to become law without her signature leaves “her vulnerable to Republican charges that she isn’t faithfully executing the duties of her office” because she sent along a four-page letter describing her dislikes about the bill and that letter could influence the court. Odd, what the Governor did sounds similar to President Bush’s strategy of attaching signing statements to Congressional Bills.

The President’s signing statements tells Congress how he will interpret the law, which more often than not is different from what Congress meant. Why couldn’t that signing statement be interpreted as a message to the conservative judges on the federal courts who may hear lawsuits on those bills how to interpret them? So if you’re going to criticize the Governor for not “faithfully executing the duties of her office” for doing something the President does all time seems a little, well, hypocritical.

Of course, the E.V. Tribune could write an editorial criticizing the President for not faithfully executing the duties of his office for the same reasons. But we’ll be waiting a long time for that one to appear.

Munsil Goes Negative

2006-03-26T22:34:00.000-07:00

I don’t know which is worse, Len Munsil’s going negative (in Sunday's East Valley Tribune OpEd Letters Section) on the Governor using debatable assumptions from a Republican-leaning special interest tax group, claiming she is committed to higher taxes when no legitimate proof exists, or that as Governor he would forgo investment in the very things the voters have just indicated they want and are willing to pay for.

Arizona remains the second-fastest growing state in the country with some of the lowest tax rates. But we have poor performing schools, bad roads, lousy tasting water, and increased congestion, clearly indicating specific and immediate needs. Ignoring those needs for the sake of ideological tax cuts isn’t my idea of a fiscally responsible or forward-looking Governor.

Munsil’s criticism of the Governor’s budget submission indicates either questionable knowledge of how budgets are developed or his own desire to mislead. No governor expects they’ll get everything in their budget passed and it’s wrong for Munsil to suggest otherwise. There’s give and take on both sides. That he doesn’t seem to know this indicates a Munsil government would be no more fiscally responsible than the Republican-controlled government in Washington.

One thing’s certain, however. The Munsil campaign will be negative, misleading and fiscally irresponsible.

Family Research Council Convoluted Assessment of Embryo Ruling in Europe

2006-03-16T12:53:00.000-07:00

Every once in a while you come across some statement where to read it and you say to yourself "How the hell did they reach that conclusion?" In a March 7, 2006 email to its supporters, the Family Research Council (FRC) makes the following statement:

A Woman's Right to Choose?
Chalk up another victory for "choice." But this ruling, from the European Court of Human Rights meeting in Strasbourg, France, has observers scratching their heads. Natalie Evans of Great Britain appealed to the court for permission to implant one of the six embryos she and Howard Johnston conceived in vitro in 2001. Evans and Johnston have since split up. She wanted to implant an embryo so she could bear a child. But Johnston said no. Johnston was happy when the court ruled in his favor and against Miss Evans: "The key thing for me was just to be able to decide when, and if, I would start a family." Some of us thought he did that when he and his then-mistress brought forth new human lives. So, in this landmark case on human rights, we see the woman has no right to carry the children she conceived, the embryonic children have no right to life, and the father can decide whether or not anyone else in the relationship has any rights at all. Now, what if Miss Evans had won the right to implant but had then decided to have an abortion? Does anyone think the court would have supported Mr. Johnston if he wanted his unborn children to live? Such is the absurdity of the current state of human rights in Europe is employed, all the more reason Americans should be concerned about the U.S. Courts referencing European law.

Let's review what the FRC says. A couple is married in the U.K. and for whatever reason they have some embryos fertilized and stored. The couple splits up and later the ex-wife decides she wants a baby and gets the tubes out of storage and wants to have them implanted. The ex-husband disapproves and goes to court to stop the implantation and the court sides with him. The FRC says the man create the baby before and shouldn't get to stop the ex-wife from using their embryos to conceive their child even though they aren't married. For this, the FRC says, we can blame those dumb courts in Europe (actually it's only the U.K.) and we should all be fearful of our courts referencing European courts.

Here's the actual issue. A married couple decides, that due to a cancer diagnosis of the wife that required removal of her ovaries, that six embryos get fertilized and stored. The wife requested at the time that some of the embryos be fertizied anonymously in case their marriage ended. The husband said that wouldn't happen and they had six embryos fertilized and stored. The marriage ended six months later and the now ex-husband removed his consent to allow the embryos to be implanted, meaning the ex-wife can have no genetically-related children. The clinic that stores the embryos wants to destroy them, so the ex-wife went to court to have that stopped so she could argue for having them implanted.

Read the Court's ruling press release.

Read the Court's hearing announcement.

This is a very sad case it just pains me that the FRC paints this as a "choice" and court issue, but it has zero to do with "choice" as typically used in the context we Americans discuss it. "Choice" in America has to do with terminating a pregnancy in the womb. That isn't this case at all. It's about a mother wanting a baby with her genes in it and an ex-husband who apparently isn't interested in working something out to give his consent to using the embryos. I have people in my life with cancer and I have to say that I feel for Ms. Evans. If I were the ex-husband, I'd be willing to work something out. But for the FRC to paint this as a "choice" and "courts" issue is simply disingenuous and dishonest.

This case has more to do with an ex-husband (somewhat selfishly) denying his ex-wife to her own embryos to conceive their child. My guess is he doesn't want a legal obligation on his part to pay for the child's rearing, which is the selfish part. But again, why not work out an agreement to address whatever concerns he has and allow the poor woman to have her baby? I don't get that.

On the other hand, the FRC would be all over the ex-husband if he decided not to cover his share of the costs for raising the child. The FRC says nothing about their usual morality argument of an unwed mother having a child out of wedlock. They say nothing about their normal morality argument of a child not living in a loving mother/father family environment. That's the disingenuous part of their argument and that just annoys me no end.

This is simply another case of the FRC using a sad situation to feather their own nest by using false arguments to further their cause. Sorry, but that is simply wrong.

Marriage Amendment is a Waste

2006-03-13T22:21:00.000-07:00

From the letters printed in the Arizona Republic you would never know same-sex marriage is already illegal in Arizona. Arizona's "Defense of Marriage Act" (ARS § 25-101) became law in 1996 and was upheld by the Arizona Supreme Court in 2003. No one has challenged it since. Not the ACLU. Not gay couples or groups. Nobody. In short, the Marriage Amendment is completely unnecessary as a law banning same-sex marriage is already on the books.

If people need a reason to get worked up about the Marriage Amendment it would be their realization that the proposal does away with rights straight couples have to things like health insurance and other employment benefits. Unmarried couples where one works and gets medical care for kids who would otherwise not be able to obtain insurance can kiss that benefit goodbye. People in long-term common law marriage can watch their rights vanish, too.

So we’re debating the need for a Constitutional amendment to ban something that’s already illegal and harm good people who only want to share their lives or protect their children. Sorry, but I don’t see the point.

Robert Robb Hates Arizona

2006-03-12T07:33:00.000-07:00

I am so sick and tired of reading short-sighted, narrow-minded, agenda-tainted arguments coming out of Robert Robb. So sick in tired, in fact, that I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired.

In today's Arizona Republic, he, for the second or third time, makes a dishonest argument for "tax relief" because a single economist studied tax rates and compared that to growth. There are so many problems with this hypothesis that it's nutty to use just it to base statewide policy or tax cuts. For one, it presumes that tax rates alone are the main reason for stimulating economic growth. That's not the problem in Arizona because, as the second fastest growing state in the country, we're growing anyway. Secondly, I have yet to speak with a single person who thinks they're being burdened by taxes, and I ask.

Someone should ask Robert Robb to find more than one economist to support his arguments for a change in Arizona's tax structure. It's interesting that when Arizona falls around the median, Robb paints the state as having high taxes, yet when it comes to educational achievement being at the bottom of the rankings, Robb refuses to advocate for increased financial support for schools.

It seems to me that Robb wants not only to rob our state the resources it needs to handle growth, he also wants to make sure our students are too dumb to be able to figure out what Republicans are doing to them.

Political Gotcha

2006-03-10T07:18:00.000-07:00

Reading the opinion section in our two morning papers today it struck me again that there is no discourse in this country anymore. It's nothing but a persistent and annoying game of gotcha. From the editorials to the letters to the editors, we are no longer a people where discussing the issues and reaching a reasonable conclusion is encouraged. We are no longer the type of people who can have honest disagreements. No, we are a people that goes for the jugular and our only mission is to minimize, patronize, and simonize.

Newspapers no longer refuse to print letters that are obviously out of touch with reality. For example, one letter in today's Arizona Republic calls "Democratic talking points (lies)." That's just false on its face. Another Howl(er) states "global warming is a myth." I guess those scientists have no clue, but a guy sitting at a computer in his den does. Another attempts to paint a bond issue as a tax increase, which is like saying a car loan means an increase in income.

This "gotcha" game is everywhere in city, state and federal legislatures. There is political infighting everywhere and on every issue. Whether is the state legislature and the governor arguing over immigration or funding English education for kids, everything is done not with the best interests of the people in mind, but the next election cycle. It's only March and the senatorial race between Jim Pederson and Jon Kyl is already negative.

The bottom line is I don't think too many people these days could sit down in a room, discuss a problem and reach a decision without name-calling or insulting someone's mother or heritage. The result of this the creation of animosity, distrust and division. So much for the pledge of "One nation..."

Extremism is not a virtue - redux

2006-03-08T18:25:00.000-07:00

Curtice Mang's response to my letter in the Arizona Republic highlights the problem with rhetoric nowadays. The issue is not what Goldwater meant regarding liberty, but the use of the words and who uses them. Like too many people, Mang expects the world to accept and use his definition and context of “liberty” regardless of anyone else’s circumstances or beliefs. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way.

There is nothing keeping anyone from using the phrase “in the defense of liberty” as justification for terrorist acts regardless of anyone’s opinion. Iraqi extremists have clearly stated their mission is to “liberate” their country from American “occupation.” Pushing the U.S. out or Iraq and Afghanistan would be their liberation. It may not be Goldwater-defined “liberty,” but that isn’t the point.

It doesn’t matter what we think. What matters is the ability of extremists to convince Iraqis and Afghanis their liberty depends on killing Americans. We do our cause serious harm by arguing for extreme measures because whenever we do, we play right into their hands. It makes their claims after Abu Ghraib more believable to the Iraqi people. Extremism may be the macho response, but it’s the wrong response to a serious situation.

It's Not Us, It's the Goldwater Institute That's Stupid

2006-03-06T09:21:00.000-07:00

I used to think that the Goldwater Institute believes we're stupid, but with Noah Clarke's latest diatribe on bonds (for God's sake) proves they are the stupid ones. Where they come up with the ideas they espouse is anyone's guess, but the inanity with which they makes their points has gotten to where they are a risk to sound economic policy.

So here's Mr. Clarke's argument: Bonds are bad because they are used to pay for stuff that we can't afford to pay for now and that bonds are a hidden tax on the population. "Phoenix is addicted to bonds because they hide spending increases and the money needed to pay for them." "Although libraries and senior centers are great, bonding to pay for them is not. Bonds are just a hidden tax that grows over time and encourages the city to increase spending, extending its largesse to more and more special-interest groups."

Clarke mixes metaphors that somehow city bonds used to build infrastructure is like a family that cuts expenses to buy a home. They're not even close. The home families build cost about $200,000. The buildings and infrastructure cities build costs tens of millions. Families can get or change jobs. Cities cannot and even if they could it would likely take a referendum to make it happen. The only similarity is that these are a big-ticket expenses that must be paid for with future income. Just as families plan for it in their budgets, cities plan for bond payments in much the same way.

Bonds have been used by cities across the country everywhere to build needed facilities and state law and accounting practices set reasonable limits to the amount of debt cities can take on. Bonds aren't used for current expenses, business trips or salaries. They're used to build stuff like "libraries and senior centers." They are legal tools that allow municipalities to support a growing population. As an economist, Mr. Clarke should know better, but it's pretty clear he doesn't.

Where's Goldwater's complaining about Federal bonds? You know, those little savings bonds we want kids and families to buy? Those things we have China buying in boat loads to keep our economy afloat? Where's their outrage? Nowhere, that's where. What complete hypocrisy.

Jeff Flake's Pederson Deception

2006-03-03T23:54:00.000-07:00

Jeff Flake criticizes Jim Pederson in Saturday's Arizona Republic Letters section by trying to link Pederson's support for transportation funds for Arizona to blanket support for pork-barrel projects. Even a quick read of Pederson's comments shows his only interest is in providing for legitimate Arizona transportation needs. That's not pork, that's bringing home the tax dollars Arizonans have sent to Washington to solve real Arizona problems.

It's one thing to use money for bridges to nowhere that only 50 people might use. It's another thing altogether to bring our own money back home to maintain, develop and improve roadways in the second fastest-growing state in the country.

We paid the taxes Congressman. Why not bring those dollars back home? Better here than the Alaska wilderness, don’t you think? Jon Kyl and the Republicans have wasted enough of our tax dollars. If Jim Pederson wants to bring Arizona tax dollars home for legitimate purposes like roads and securing our border, he’s got my vote.

Jon Kyl and the Republican Purveyors of Fear

2006-02-27T22:01:00.000-07:00

Over the past several months I've the conservatives attempt to set the stage for the coming fall elections. It doesn't take a genius to figure out they will steer people away from the scandals and lack of competency running rampant throughout government, but I hit my limit with an email from Senator Jon Kyl. It is one of the most non-senatorial messages I have ever read and it tries to instill in the reader one core emotion: fear.

Quoting Newt congress's new book, Kyl lays out why we should do nothing but be afraid:

1. That Islamist terrorists and rogue dictatorships will acquire and launch nuclear or biological weapons.

2. That God will be driven from American public life and reduce us to the civilizational ennui that now characterizes a declining Europe.

3. That America will lose the patriotic sense of itself as a unique civilization.

4. That America's economic supremacy will yield to China and India because of failing schools and weakening scientific and technological leadership.

5. That an aging America's demands on Social Security, Medicare, and related government programs will collapse the systems.

What a total and complete pile of bullshit. There are just too many things wrong with thesbeliefsfs, the least of which Republicans want every single one of us to be completely afraid and cower to any and all possible things that could go wrong. But in true Republican fashion, Kyl takes zero responsibility for the scope of the problems. Talk aboucowardicese.

So what are Kyl's (via Gingrich) proposals:

1. We must commit to a long war to defeat the terrorists and tyrants who would destroy America.

2. We must reestablish that our rights come from our Creator and that an America that has driven God out of the public arena is an America on the way to decay and defeat.

3. We must insist on patriotic immigration and patriotic education based on classic American history and the wisdom of the Founding Fathers and Abraham Lincoln.

4. We must transform our domestic institutions in order to harness modern science and technology to create jobs, wealth, and lead the world economy into the 21st century.

5. We must establish the opportunities for a personal Social Security account, a portable personal pension account, and a personal health savings account, so the wealth we create during our working lives is wealth we control.

I live near dairy farms and I have to say this smells more than the cows ever have. Why? Because it's pandering at its lowest.

"Commit to a long war on terrorism?" I have an idea. How about a short war that ends well, with fewer dead people? I can come up with likely dozens of simple ways to solve this problem and not one of them includes the word "fear" or "war."

"Reestablish that our rights come from our Creator?" No one has driven God out of the public arena. It's that old "N of 1" claim that if one person does it, them everyone does it. Kinda like Congress needed to change bankruptcy laws because people were gaming the system, only for a study of the first 65,000 cases filed shown no one was "gaming" the system.

"Patriotic education?" Sounds like political indoctrination for the "long war" to me. Patriotism isn't something you're taught by teachers. It's something that's demonstrated by family and earned bpoliticiansns.

"Transform our domestic institutions to harness modern science?" How can they propose that when they ignore the science that tells us the planet is overheating, natural resources are declining, and telling us when and why we can see a doctor?

It just seems to me that the Republicans have truly gone off the deep end. They believe their own bullshit. They believe every conspiracy theory there is. They see enemies under every rock and in every home. They see terrorists attacking us in every which way. But they can't envision a world where none of these problems exist. They see only more of the same. They have no business being in power. They need to be retired, starting with Jon Kyl.

Extremism is not a virtue

2006-02-26T20:11:00.001-07:00

According to Andrew Schellhammer in the 26 Feb 2006 Arizona Republic letters section (who quotes the famous Barry Goldwater RNC speech) when arguing that when battling the terrorists "…extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice" and “that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” Nice, but those words are just as wrong now as much as they were in 1964.

How would Mr. Schellhammer feel if Mr. Goldwater’s words were used to justify extremist actions by Osama bin Laden? How would he feel if Goldwater’s words were used by extremists bent on the destruction of Israel to justify their actions? How would he feel if those words were used to justify attacks on American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan? What Mr. Schellhammer fails to see is that those who wish us harm can use those exact same words to justify their actions and attacks. To turn the use of a common conservative argument, arguing for extremist views helps and encourages the terrorists. It always has and it always will. Go look at history.

Extremism and extremists are the reasons we have the problems we have today. The world would a safer place without them—on all sides and on all subjects.

What do GWB and Nero Have In Common?

2006-02-24T08:12:00.000-07:00

What do the Bush administration and Rome’s Nero have in common? Plenty. Let’s review.

Religious violence is at an all-time high since the Holocaust. More “religions of peace” are doing and saying things that I am sure are making their prophets look down and think “Don’t make me come down there.” Churches are burned to the ground, mosques are blown up, religious service attendees are killed and almost all of them are in response to some other religious slight on someone else’s point of view. Who do those in the Middle East blame? The United States.

The percentage of seniors and families living at the poverty line is higher than ever, even controlling for population growth. A recent study shows an alarming number of people with single incomes qualify for public-supported meals. We also have proof of Walmart employees on government healthcare programs.

The efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, as noble as they may be, have been politically bungled to the point most Americans have no confidence in the Bush Administration’s ability to manage either campaign. The president makes comparisons between Japan and Iraq and says that's proof democracy can take hold in the Middle East, forgetting the minor point that Japan attacked us first.

Republican scandals seem to appear almost daily. The White House official in charge of government procurement is indicted. The Majority Leader of the House is indicted. The vice president’s Chief of Staff is indicted. Congressman Randall “Duke” Cunnigham was indicted and resigned. After the screw-ups following Katrina, someone should be indicted.

The federal debt approaches $8.3 trillion dollars, thanks to the Republican borrow-and-spend fiscal policies, providing every man, woman and child in this country a personal bill of almost $30,000 each.

Menial job growth, paced well below job losses, continue to cause more and more Americans to work multiple jobs in order to make ends meet. Bankruptcy filings, even with the new law, are still running at a record pace.

To all of the above, the Bush Administration and the Republicans running the House and Senate all tell us “things are good.” Like Nero, who famously fiddled while Rome burned, GWB and the Republicans live at such a level of denial that the comparison to Nero is more than valid. We are seeing history repeat itself and the only people who can change things are the voters.

Republicans Don't Support Veterans

2006-02-19T14:27:00.000-07:00

The Republican Three-Card Monty trick is in play again, this time they're about to reward those who fought for our freedoms by jacking up their insurance rates by over 300%. This is not a typo, I really said three-hundred percent.

The justification is the Pentagon wants to slow it's medical expenses. So instead of buying less bombers, jets or ships, the Bush Administration will raise the insurance premiums on veterans.

"The proposed increases would mean that the annual health insurance premium for a retired office under age 65 with family coverage would triple--rising from $460 to $1,400--by 2008. Premiums in the next two years foa retired office with single coverage would jump from $230 to $700."

Isn't that special.

This plan was hidden away in the 2006 Budget request of the President. That would be George W. Bush. The commander-in-chief. The "Mission Accomplished" guy.

Isn't it interesting that during election campaigns and any opportunity to wave the flag, Republicans trapse out the "we support the military" line and now they're raising insurance premiums on veterans so they can fund more Pentagon programs.

Now we see what the president and his administration really think about veterans. They're just another entitlement group sucking money out of the Pentagon's pockets that must be stopped.

Parental abuse

2006-02-19T13:59:00.000-07:00

Apparently there are some parents who take the Bible so literally they will take their kids to museums on "Bible Tours" and teach them that man walked the earth at the same time as dinosaurs and that the people who run museums "worship the creature and not the creator.' Here's a sample of their reasoning: God created man on the 6th day and God created animals on the sixth day. Therefore man and dinosaurs were on the earth at the same time. They also argue, the Eat Valley Tribune (18 Feb 2006, p. F2) story reports, that the people who run these tours claim "evolutionist thinking supports racism and abortion."

If man were on the earth at the same time, man would be one thing: prey, or put another way: dinner.

Now, I'm a fairly faithful person but I have to tell you that anyone who teaches this stuff to their kids should be charged with child abuse. It is unconscionable to me that anyone parent would indoctrinate their children with such an outrageous lack of scientific knowledge and ignore two thousand years worth of science to keep their interpretation of the Bible such that they cannot question their faith or realize it on their own.

Can you imagine the ridicule these kids will have to go through once they encounter the real world and people tell them their beliefs are false? What will that do to the kid's faith at that point? What will that do to these kid's views of adults? What will this do with these kids belief in all other things they have been taught? Do these adults who have apparently lost track of reality really think they can isolate their kids from the rest of the world? They must, but here's the abuse part: they don't care. They are purposefully teaching their children things they know are false, but because of THEIR beliefs, have convinced themselves is false despite two thousand years of learning, discovery and science.

I know a lot of grown-up kids from evangelical families who have had kids out of wedlock, turned out to be gay, and drug and alcohol abusers simply because they learned their parents were lying to the or indoctrinating them and they rebelled against it.

This is madness. This is fraud and abuse. Society needs put a stop to the spread of ignorance. It is as real a threat to our society as anything else threatening our country.

Goldwater Hypocrisy

2006-02-17T07:36:00.000-07:00

I am convinced the Goldwater Institute thinks we’re stupid. Why else would they complain about the Governor’s reasonable tax proposals that do exactly what tax policy is supposed to do: encourage development and behavior change? How disingenuous it is for them to complain about any tax cut program when they have championed tax cuts for people and corporations who don’t need them as recently as, oh, last week?

How are we to square Goldwater’s argument for their tax cuts that give a family with an annual income of $50,000 nothing while those make a few hundred thousand dollars get $20,000 or more with their opposition of the Governor’s proposal? Goldwater expects parents to reject a program where they can buy books, computers and school supplies for their own kids tax free while, under Goldwater’s proposals, corporations would pay little or no taxes at all while taking advantage of our schools, police and fire protection and roads.

The Goldwater Institute’s levels of chutzpah and hypocrisy continue to astound. Noah Clarke argues in a 16 February East Valley Tribune/Tucson Citizen OpEd ("Tax relief misses the target") “Targeted tax cuts may be good politics, but they are poor policy.” If that’s true Goldwater Institute, then explain to us why your proposals are “good policy?”

TABOR - Another Bad Idea

2006-02-16T17:23:00.000-07:00

What do you do when the Republican legislature spends its time and resources on promoting dumb things like tax credits for private school donations? What do you do when Arizona, for the first year in several, has a budget surplus? What do you do in a state with a growing population where new schools, roads and police and fire protection services are needed? What do you do when you really don’t have a spending problem in the first place?

Why, you propose an amendment to the Arizona Constitution to limit spending!

That's what those who control the legislature and the Goldwater Institute want to do and they're selling us the false idea that Arizona needs a Taxpayer’s Bill Of Rights (TABOR). Goldwater has a policy paper on it and in it they make a questionable claim that Arizona’s 2005 deficit would have been smaller had a TABOR been in place. Their source? A press release. Wow. How convincing.

I have a better idea. Lets vote out office those politicians who don't have the willpower to control themselves. Let’s vote out politicians who create fake problems using false pretenses and want to amend the Constitution to solve them. That's a vote I'm more than willing to cast.

Pathological

2006-02-16T07:28:00.000-07:00

In a speech on February 9th, President Bush informed the world that the U.S. has thwarted an attack on the U.S. Bank building in Los Angeles. Proof it was, said the President, that Homeland Security is hard at work. One problem, though...it isn't true.

Again.

According to the Washington Post, people directly involved in the effort, said this:

But a foreign official with detailed knowledge of the intelligence scoffed at Bush's account, saying that the information obtained from Khalid Sheik Mohammed and an Indonesian operative known as Hambali was not an operational plan so much as an aspiration to destroy the tallest building on the West Coast. When I asked a former high-level U.S. intelligence official about Bush's comment, he agreed that Bush had overstated the intelligence.

I don't know about you, but I've had just about enough of this. I've said before that this is a pattern for people with a past of addiction. They get caught in a lie (or a fib) and cannot bring themselves to accept they've done it, take responsibility and not do it again. But this gang just can't fess up.

The list seems endless. Books have been written on it. Web sites are devoted to them. The truly sad thing is there are people who are so caught up in the cult of Bush personality they cannot accept they're being purposely mislead.

I can't tell which is scarier: a government who can't tell us the truth or a voting public who blindly follows leaders. Unfortunately, neither is good.

Duck and Cover (your ass)

2006-02-15T07:49:00.000-07:00

Let's all hope that Harry Whittington recovers quickly, but the extent conservatives are going to cover Dick Cheney's ass with is astounding.

John Dickerson, on Slate, says he received emails from Cheney supporters "arguing that it was no big deal because Whittington might already have had a heart condition."

Conservative "blogger" Michelle Malkin said "The Dems will exploit this accident to smear Cheney as incapable of being trusted, weak of mind, etc. The resignation rumors will fly again. And the biography of a man who has served this country so well and so honorably for so many years will be overshadowed by a single, ill-fated hunting mishap." The overhyped Ms. Malkin takes great pains to say Whittington is "doing fine." As an aside, Ms. Malkin obviously has no sense of humor as she whines about the Washington Post's Dana Milbank appearing on MSN's Countdown with Keith Olberman wearing bright orange hunting hat and safety vest.

Someone named "Dan" who is a "Gay Patriot" says "it is only a minor misdeed."

Want to see the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department report? The Smoking Gun has it.

What the Cheney apologists forget is that it is the shooter who is responsible for knowing what is around them. It is the person who pulls the trigger to know whether it is safe to fire the weapon. Even the people who work with Whittington are very skeptical about Cheney's story, as reported by Paul Burka.

What they forget is this now gives thousands of people an excuse to "accidentally" shoot people on hunting trips and claim the "Cheney Defense" that "it was their fault they got shot."

But let's not forget that the press didn't talk about the photo of President Bush with Jack Abramoff over the weekend. The press didn't talk about the video of the British troops beating up Iraqis. So from the Republican standpoint, it probably all worked out for them in that distractions are what they're so good at using to keep the focus off other things. It's their "three-card Monty" of political strategies.

The Gang that Can't Shoot Straight

2006-02-14T07:26:00.000-07:00

Jon Stewart, of Comedy Central's "Daily Show" looked up to the heavens and said "Thank you, Jesus."

Jon Stewart is Jewish so you know it has to be good.

What followed was 30 minutes of this statement: "The Vice President of the United States shot a 78-year-old man in the face."

David Letterman's "Top Ten List" says Cheney's "Heart palpitation caused trigger finger to spasm."

Arizona Republic Cartoonist Steve Benson's cartoon points out that Cheney isn't licensed to hunt in Texas.

Tom Toles, cartoonist for the Washington Post drew Dick Cheney in front of the head and hands of a hunter mounted on his wall.

Cheney spokesperson Mary Matlin said Cheney "..didn't do anything he wasn't supposed to do."

Wait, didn't he just shoot somebody?

ABC News reports that the vice president's "Secret Service contingent had notified the local sheriff an hour after the vice president accidentally shot prominent Texas lawyer Harry Whittington with a pellet gun while hunting for quail."

Now THERE'S spin: a shotgun is really a "pellet gun."

White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan is "peppered" by the White House press corps and does an amazingly good imitation of Porky Pig trying to explain away why the world was left uninformed that the Vice President of the United States shot a 78-year-old man in the face with a shotgun.

Isn't it interesting the spin in the use of the word "peppered" instead of "shot?" I've never heard a hunter describe going hunting and killing game by "peppering" them with a shotgun. "Well Earl, I sure peppered that deer, didn't I?"

This morning, the White House is blaming the guy who got shot. Hmm, I guess he forgot to duck.

I wonder if this is what you call "friendly fire?"

Texas law says any doctor that treats a gunshot wound must immediately report it to law enforcement. So how come Cheney wanted to wait for the landowner to report the incident?

This is another example of a group of people that no matter how bad things get at their own hand, they cannot accept any responsibility. They are incapable of admitting any mistake. These people are simply incorrigible.

Spinning Bad News - Robb's at it again

2006-02-12T08:16:00.000-07:00

Maybe “New figures don’t lie,” but that doesn’t stop Robert Robb from spinning two reports that show income disparities between rich and poor in Arizona ranks in the top four since the 1980’s (at least we lead in something). He completely twists who is responsible for economic downturn in the 1980’s and the recovery in the 1990’s.

Robb writes Arizona’s “disproportionate income disparity is nearly all a legacy of the 1980s. During the supposed dark ages of the 1990s, things actually improved for the poor in Arizona.” However, the report shows poor Arizonan incomes increased 5.7% since the 1980s while the richest increased 58.1%. It shows that Arizona is one of five states with the largest income gap between the top and bottom fifths of families and one of the five states with the largest income gaps between the top and middle fifths of families."

Some progress.

Yet Robb insists improvements came “when the barbarians were in charge.”

He wishes.

Robb forgets who the presidents were in the 1980’s and under whose watch the deficit increased to then historical levels. He forgets the Clinton 1990’s was a time of unprecedented growth and incomes rising across the board, all while increasing aid to the poor and balancing the budget. He ignores that under the current “spend-and-borrow” Republican watch, the national debt has doubled and the deficit hit new highs.

Republicans deserve no credit for helping poor families. Robb is making a disingenuous claim meant only to divert attention from the fact Republicans care little for helping needy Americans.

Only conservatives think the “left” don’t want everyone to do well financially. Only conservatives believe the “left” wants to take money from the rich and give to the poor. Yet, it is conservatives who speak of a “hand up” and not a “hand out.” Yet every opportunity to provide that “hand up” has been opposed by folks like Mr. Robb and the conservatives. To claim any Republican or conservative hand in improving the lot of poor folks is to create a new low in the definition of chutzpah.

Tax cut Irrationale #8 -- Mesa Edition

2006-02-03T11:14:00.000-07:00

In today's East Valley Tribune, the lead article on the front page is "Groups gird against Mesa tax." The article tells of a number of anti-everything groups who have come out against Mesa being a fiscally responsible city. Upon reading the article, a couple of things stood out.

First, there doesn't appear to be a single person under the age of 60 in any of the photos printed with the article. This wouldn't matter except for the fact that retirees, especially those on fixed incomes, don't like paying for things like schools and roads and Arts Centers. Representatives of these groups, it appears, think cutting taxes in a city with potholes in the roads, dilapidated school buildings and underfunded police and fire departments are what's needed instead of raising revenues from other sources, since their tax base is declining.

Second, because their kids are out of the public school system, they don't care about quality of education or paying for new school buildings. Their kids don't have sports they want to play so they could care less about improvements to parks and recreation facilities. That means they don't care about the roads on which people drive to any of the above or to jobs because they don’t work.

The argument against any need for more revenue is blown out of the water further down on the front page in an article titled “Combs swamps Q.C. high.” People are complaining about growth in the size of J. O. Combs school district and how there is no room at any of the Queen Creek schools to take on the increased population. No one knows what to do. It strikes me as comical that those leading the charge against the tax increase can’t see in this single article the practical ramifications of their anti-growth sentiments and what happens when cities don’t have enough money to support growth.

Former Mesa council candidate Bob Hisserich says in the article “Every time the city needs money, the solution is to go to the taxpayer. The solution is to bring business to Mesa. It’s a simply solution.” Now I know why he lost for he cannot see the contradiction in his own statement. For one thing, it’s simply false that “every time” Mesa “needs money” they go to the taxpayer. It hasn’t and it’s just dishonest to say it has. More importantly, though, this sentiment is the source of the predicament Mesa now finds itself.

You have a community growing not only in a school-aged, family population but also older citizens and retirees. Those opposing the tax increases are seniors who have received their benefit from the community yet refuse to pay for those things the City of Mesa needs to support business and families. Unfortunately, those are exactly the same things needed to attract business, which was Mr. Hisserich’s desire. Put another way, maintaining and building an increased capacity to serve modern families and business is what will attract both to Mesa. To ignore those needs is to point them in the direction of other cities that are more pro-family and pro-business. Cities like Chandler and Tempe.

Growth costs money. Bills must be paid. Roads and sewers must be built and maintained. I'm constantly amazed at the shortsighted views taken by many that those things that make a community worth living appear out of the blue and have no cost. There is nothing wrong with opposing excessive taxation when that’s the problem. But excessive taxation is not the problem in Mesa. Population growth and infrastructure wearing out is the problem.

When it gets to the point that opposing “excessive taxation" means opposing anything that keeps the city on sound financial footing while maintaining services, that is taking the "high taxes, big government" mantra to a simply unrealistic and detrimental levels. The problem Mesa has right now proves my point.

Mesa’s citizens have a decision to make. Do they want to be the only city in Maricopa County in financial decline, the only city with degrading roads and schools, the only city with grossly under-funded police and fire services, the only city not to attract jobs to their community? Or do they want to join the rest of the Valley in unprecedented growth and improvement by having schools and jobs that attract and retain families? If they want the former, then vote against the two measures on the ballot. If you want the latter, then vote for one or both of the measures.

It’s that simple.

Republican Legislature to Hispanics: Get Out Now

2006-01-31T17:21:00.000-07:00

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.

GOP Legislature "Not Racist"? Really?

2006-01-29T20:43:00.000-07:00

I find it telling that apologists, both in the letters page and in Sunday's editorial by Doug MacEachern, have tried to explain away the GOP's recent legislative "solutions" for Flores/ ELL as "not racist". If these proposals did not have the effect, if not the intent, of having such a negative impact on English Language Learners throughout Arizona, I guess the folks propagating these "not racist" measures wouldn't have to tell everyone how "not racist" they are.

The simple truth is that this legislature has a deep contempt for spending for public education of any kind; spending earmarked for rectifying the morally indefensible failing to service our non-English speaking students becomes all the more damnable. Thus the 14 years that have passed with Flores still awaiting compliance and the attendant determination by the court to ensure that this wrong finally be addressed. That MacEachern tries to support the recent corporate tax-credit bill reflects either blind partisanship or failure to understand the effect of the bill: even assuming credits would work, those enabled therein were only for private schools, while Flores deals with public school ELL students. And do you really envision these "not racist" folks rolling out the red-carpet to their private schools for ELL kids? The old saying about walking like a duck and talking like a duck would seem to apply here - all the more so since so many voices are being raised to say these folks aren't racist in their legislative agenda.

Are There John Birch Members in the AZ Legislature?

2006-01-29T09:00:00.000-07:00

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

2006-01-28T18:30:00.000-07:00

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?

2006-01-25T10:00:00.000-07:00

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

2006-01-24T15:28:00.000-07:00

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

2006-01-24T07:42:00.000-07:00

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

2006-01-18T16:21:00.000-07:00

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?

2006-01-15T23:11:00.000-07:00

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

2006-01-14T08:58:00.000-07:00

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. LetÃ‚?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

2006-01-11T23:57:00.000-07:00

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

2006-01-05T10:27:00.000-07:00

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

2006-01-04T09:04:00.000-07:00

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

2006-01-03T09:18:00.000-07:00

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

2006-01-01T15:54:00.000-07:00

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!

Conservatives to ASU Michael Crow - Hire more staff with "Conservative Ideology" or else

2005-12-26T10:24:00.000-07:00

Today's East Valley Tribune "Voice" op-ed piece was written by some guy named Roy Miller and suggests ASU President Michael Crow should "row the boat to the right in order to achieve the growth he envisions." This veiled threat is in response to Mr. Miller is ("a Phoenix businessman and graduate of the ASU Business College") belief that there's too many damn lefties teaching at ASU, and if Crow knows what's best for him and ASU, he needs to hire more faculty who are "Republicans" and hold a "conservative ideology." Otherwise, Republicans and conservatives will cut funding.

He cites a Hoover Institute (now THERE'S an unbiased source) study that purportedly says there are lots of colleges with "no Republicans at all."

Oh...My...God!

The study one supposes he's citing is titled "Impostors in the Temple: A Blueprint for Improving Higher Education in America." It was published in, get this, 1992. This is "The most recent study I (Miller) encountered." Hmm, 13 years old?!

Wow. Let's change ASU now!

I think Mr. Miller needs to get out more often. I wonder why he didn't mention the year of the study. Hmmm.

He says that "Conservative parents of college-age students who have raised (does he mean indoctrinated?) their children to believe in conservative ideas" should consider sending their kids to other schools because at ASU they may be "turned to the left by the ASU faculty."

Oh...My...God!!

Mr. Miller is engaging what is commonly called "spreading bullshit." Not only does he want us to think he is somehow an expert on ASU because he went there, he also wants us to think he's an expert on the effects of universities to transform conservative kids into lefties because he attended a conference. He also wants us to think that parents who want to politically indoctrinate their kids even further can't send them to private colleges and universities instead. This, ladies and gentlemen, is classic bullshit. He is a non-expert talking out of his posterior and hoping the public buys it.

Miller just doesn't get that education and research and exposure to new ideas and thoughts is what drives college professors to be "lefties" (besides getting themselves hired in the first place). Conservative ideology is not one that lends itself to open discussions of things that are true, different, or which questions dogma. Ideology, by its nature and definition, precludes any search for the truth. Ideologues don't want kids to know the truth. Miller doesn't want kids to know the truth otherwise how would these students be "turned to the left?"

Roy Miller makes the perfect case of why ASU needs to stay the way it is: to open people's eyes.

Where do they FIND these people?

2005-12-21T11:29:00.000-07:00

Subscribing to the EV Tribune as a "moderate" voter can be frustrating. How they ask people to contribute commentaries is purely a mystery because it seems that people who should know better are often published making some of the most baseless comments imaginable. Take for example today's "East Valley Voice" column by someone named Bill Sandry. Now, I'm not sure what Mr. Sandry's credentials are, but it seems to me a well-based knowledge of civics just isn't on that list. Here's why I say this.

In his op-ed piece titled "Keep judges out of the classroom," he wonders what there is in the constitution that gives judges power of the legislative branch. He says "We have constitutionally vested these responsibilities in our elected legislative body. Where does the judiciary find its constitutional mandate or authority to usurp these powers from the legislature?"

He goes on to say "How, why and under what constitutional authority does a judge find the power to establish the educational standards for graduating from high school? Who is he to determine who should be required to or exempted from passing the same tests or standards as other students?"

I find the fact that he's wondering where the power comes from as startling. Mr. Sandry doesn't consider the courts to be a check on the legislature? If the legislature simply does not do what the federal law directs, it seems to me quite reasonable that a judge would place sanctions on the legislature for not getting the job done and providing relief for those harmed by the legislature's inaction.

Mr. Sandry says "If a judge (federal in this case) is overreaching and extends his authority into powers reserved for another branch of government (the legislature), where is the check and balance in our system to make a constitutional course correction.

Ummm, the legislature can do their job properly and comply with the judge's order? Duh!

He concludes with this after admitting most of the educational funds come from the federal government (who set the rules, by the way): "Our elected officials, not a judge, should be making the societal and educational decisions concerning what should be done and how much funding is appropriate for educating students in Arizona."

I repeat --Duh!! They didn't and the judge is making sure they follow the law. God forbid the Arizona legislature follow the rules in this "nation of laws."

Where do they FIND these people!

If I lived in Mesa, I'd be pissed

2005-12-20T08:58:00.000-07:00

Today's EV Tribune's headline is "Mesa puts property tax vote on hold." The city is looking at a $37 million (yup, that's 37 with six zeros after it) in a deficit. The city has two choices to raise the money: increase the sales tax or institute a property tax. Since all of the Mesa City Council are Republicans, you can guess what happened at their meeting last night: they couldn't decide or take responsibility for fixing the city's problems. Plastered with photos of the council members with hands over their faces, the captions are telling:

Councilman Rex Griswold said "I'd rather not give a blank check to government."

Councilman Tom Rawles said "Why should I give you another chance to steal from me?"

Mayor Keno Hawker said "I'm not comfortable with government having that kind of power."

What a bunch of cowards. Every single one of them should be impeached for dereliction of duty. Faced with a crisis, what do they do? They punt with ideological fervor.

Disgusting and shameful. Can't do what's right. They would rather tow the "government is the enemy" line of conservative Republicanism than accept reality.

Cowards. Plain and simple. They should all lose their jobs.

The two-faces of Republican Conservatism

2005-12-20T08:41:00.000-07:00

With all the hoopla about last weekend's revelation about President Bush's authorizing warrantless spying on American citizens, isn't it interesting that the same people who loudly argue for strict interpretation of the Constitution when it comes to judicial appointments and limiting women's rights are the same people who want to read into the Constitution the right of a President to spy on American citizens without a warrant or judicial oversight?

The American people are finally getting a chance to see the two faces of the Bush administration and their supporters.