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.
Sunday, December 03, 2006
MacEachern, Goldwater Institute and Bad Research
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.
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.
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Medicare and Negotitation of Lower Prices
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??
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??
Sunday, November 05, 2006
Changing The Subject While Missing The Point
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.
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.
Sunday, October 29, 2006
Dean Martin's Failed Memory
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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"
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.
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
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.
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.
Friday, June 02, 2006
More Bovine Scatology From the Right
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.
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.
Thursday, May 25, 2006
FYI - The Liberal Desire to Destroy Marriage
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.
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.
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
John Shadegg - Late to the energy conservation party
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.
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.
Friday, May 12, 2006
Republican Response to a Democratic Response
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:
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.
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.
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
Kyl's "Understand" of our Pain at the Pump
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.
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.
Friday, April 28, 2006
I'm baaaack!
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...
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...
Monday, April 03, 2006
Amnesty? For What?
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.
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.
Friday, March 31, 2006
Robert Robb works for the Goldwater Instutute
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Be careful at whom you throw stones
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.
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.
Sunday, March 26, 2006
Munsil Goes Negative
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.
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.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Family Research Council Convoluted Assessment of Embryo Ruling in Europe
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:
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.
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.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.
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.
Monday, March 13, 2006
Marriage Amendment is a Waste
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.
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.
Sunday, March 12, 2006
Robert Robb Hates Arizona
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.
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.
Friday, March 10, 2006
Political Gotcha
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..."
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..."
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Extremism is not a virtue - redux
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.
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.
Monday, March 06, 2006
It's Not Us, It's the Goldwater Institute That's Stupid
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.
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.
Friday, March 03, 2006
Jeff Flake's Pederson Deception
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.
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.
Monday, February 27, 2006
Jon Kyl and the Republican Purveyors of Fear
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.
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.
Sunday, February 26, 2006
Extremism is not a virtue
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.
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.
Friday, February 24, 2006
What do GWB and Nero Have In Common?
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.
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.
Sunday, February 19, 2006
Republicans Don't Support Veterans
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Friday, February 17, 2006
Goldwater Hypocrisy
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?”
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?”
Thursday, February 16, 2006
TABOR - Another Bad Idea
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.
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
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:
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Duck and Cover (your ass)
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.
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.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
The Gang that Can't Shoot Straight
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.
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.
Sunday, February 12, 2006
Spinning Bad News - Robb's at it again
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.
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.
Friday, February 03, 2006
Tax cut Irrationale #8 -- Mesa Edition
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.
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.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Republican Legislature to Hispanics: Get Out Now
Republicans in the state legislature are sending to every single Latino in the state, legal or not, a loud and clear message: “Take yourself, your family, your kids, your companies, your culture, your tax payments, the jobs you create and not just get out, but get the hell out and get the hell out now!”
I’m not Latino, but if I were, I would be extremely concerned about the lunacy coming out of the Republican legislature. Under the guise of immigration control, the trespassing legislation would have police raid family picnics, soccer games and wedding receptions to hunt down supposed illegal aliens and haul them to jail.
If I were a Latino business owner, I can’t think of a better incentive to move out of the state than the threat of police harassment of my business, family and workers. No long-term history of living and running a business legally is worth remaining in a state where “acting tough” is better than “acting rightly” in an equitable manner and protecting citizen’s freedoms and rights.
I’m only talking about American citizens, no one else. Even the police believe this is a bad idea that will allow other crimes to go unreported because of perceived or trumped up immigration charges.
If I were a Latino and I was thinking about staying in Arizona, I would be thinking about who I can elect to make sure I, as a legal resident, do not have to live in the fear encouraged by the Republicans in the legislature. If this isn’t a wake up call for Latinos to vote, I don’t know what is and I hope they do.
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.
Sunday, January 29, 2006
Are There John Birch Members in the AZ Legislature?
I was going through some of the bills offered by our illustrious Republican legislature and I came across one that makes me wonder who exactly we have running the store here. Do we have rational people in the legislature or are they fear-mongering conservative populists touting an extremist agenda. Read the following and then decide.
SCM1002: Urging the Congress of the United States to enact H.R. 1146, the American sovereignty restoration act of 2005
SCM1002 is a "Senate Concurrent Memorial" that if passed will be "transmitted" to the U.S. Congress that expresses the belief of both houses of the Arizona legislature that the U.S. is somehow losing its sovereign identity because the U.S. is a member of the United Nations. The language is full of questionable language and fear-mongering that has no basis in fact--even loose ones.
Whereas number 5 says "Whereas, the Charter of the United Nations purports to supersede the independence and sovereignty of the United States and the Constitution of the United States of America and to usurp powers delegated in the Constitution..."
A reading of the UN Charter Article 2, Section 1 states "The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members," and Article 2, Section 7 which states "Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll."
Now, those calling for the US to get out of the UN, such as our Arizona legislators, claim that the UN can use US forces willy nilly and for whatever purpose. Then riddle me this Batman, how come Chapter 7, Articles 43 and 44 give member states the right to opt-out of any military involvement. I guess they've forgotten how many UN members opted-out of the GWB Iraq war. The "memorial" is so wrong in fact that I cannot imagine that a single one of the sponsors or cosponsors bothered to read the relevant sections of the UN Charter. That begs the question of who's behind the "Get the U.S. out of the UN" movement.
If you look on Google, the primary sponsor is...get this...The John Birch Society (JBS). Yup. Remember them? They are the ultra-conservatives from the late 50's and 60's who saw conspriacies and communist plots under every rock, including the Civil Rights movement.
Don't believe me? Look for yourself.
Do yourself a favor and check out the WikiPedia discussions on the JBS and check out the subsidiary links. Other well known Birchers: Phyllis Schlafly, and none other than the key sponsor of House bill our Arizona legislators want to pass, Texas Republican Ron Paul. The Honorable Rep. Paul graced the JBS at their "Special Council Dinner" last year at JBS headquarters in Appleton, Wisconsin.
Bob Dylan wrote a song about the JBS, the Talkin' John Birch Paranoid Blues."
So who are the Arizona legislators (all Republicans, btw) sponsoring this bill?
Sponsors:
Sen. Karen Johnson (D-18)
Rep. Doug Quelland (D-10)
Cosponsors:
Rep. Andy Biggs (D22)
Rep. Tom Boone (D4)
Rep. Eddie Farnsworth (D22)
Rep. Pamela Gorman (D6)
Sen. Ron Gould (D3)
Rep. Trish Groe (D3)
Sen. Jack W. Harper (D4)
Rep. Rick Murphy (D9)
Rep. Russell Pearce (D18)
Rep. Colette Rosati (D8)
Sen. Thayer Verschoor (D22)
Think about it: we have a sense of the state of Arizona that the US should get out of the UN for reasons that are unsubstantiated in the UN Charter, sponsored only by Republicans, most of whom live in the East Valley, endorsing a position that is being championed by the John Birch Society.
If it walks like a duck...
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...
Saturday, January 28, 2006
Tax cut Irrationale #7
God bless the E.V. Tribune. Even when people make cogent arguments on the short-sightedness of conservative tax cut plans, they can't force themselves to have either an honest discussion on the topic (highly unlikely) or tone down the rhetoric (less likely). It's like they have tourettes and just can't stop themselves.
Today's lesson comes in a real stretch of a commentary from good 'old John Semmens. Not sure what his background is, but it's clear his thinking isn't mainstream. Why do I say this? Because in today's opinion section, John juxtaposes violence with taxes and argues that the percentage of people being killed in violent attacks is, get this, declining. Why? Because there are more people, which means the body counts are lower, which means a less violent society.
Huh?
My sentiments exactly.
Mr. Semmens quotes an author named James Payne, (no relation to Congressional District Candidate Herb Pain, thankfully) who originally argues those points in a book titled "A History of Force." Payne's self-published book, which you can order from Amazon and get it in "4-6 weeks," really does make this obscene argument.
Now, "Professor Payne" really isn't a professor anymore. According to his publishing web site, he hasn't been formally "professor" since 1985. Let's see, that's twenty one years. I guess that's about as good a title as someone who gets an honorary degree and then calls himself "Doctor." The good Professor Paine has also written children's books that tell kids that government's role is, and I am NOT making this up, "to do harm."
Got it where Mr. Semmens political ideology is coming from? Somewhere between extremist libertarianism and the teachings of the John Birch Society (more on them in a future post).
So back his silly premise that more people on the planet means the per-capita exercising of violence is in decline, since as a percentage, fewer people are being harmed. As a result, people should stop saying the world is less safe because it's actually more safe. Hey, do the math!
Okay, so we now know that government intends only to do harm and therefore since government, Semmens equates government's collection of taxes as a violent act. And since violence is on the decline, that means tax collections need to be on the decline because "tax cuts are very popular." And since everyone is getting more and more income, they will be pushed into higher tax brackets, which means "they will be targeted by tax collectors."
Clearly Mr. Semmens has ignored the recent GAO report that shows the rich are getting rich and the poor are getting poorer. I guess he's missed the Dept. of Commerce report that shows income levels adjusted for inflation are lower today than when President Bush took office. Mr. Semmens, if anyone, should understand that controlling for time and inflation, numbers tell a different story. After all, he started it.
So, to tie this insane argument together, Semmens says the legislature should pass House Bill 2489, which is the Goldwater Institute's factually unfounded 10 percent tax cut. As I stated in an earlier post, this bill means a whopping $117 dollar tax cut for people making $70,000 and tens of thousands for people making over $1 million.
Guess how much those making less than $40,000 get in a tax cut? Nothing. Nada. Zip.
Semmens is simply on another planet. That the East Valley Tribune gives this guy a continued voice is more evidence that there are people in charge here and in the legislature who are way off the proverbial reservation.
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.
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Is there a pattern here?
I'm listening and reading about all of the people who are at the head of some form of conservative movement, ranging from President Bush to Tom DeLay to a woman named Jan LaRue who heads a conservative Right to Life group, and they all seem to have one thing in common: addictions.
President Bush: alcohol and drugs
Tom DeLay: Alcohol
Jim Ramstad: Alcohol
Jan LaRue: Alcohol, drugs and sex
I'm glad they appear to be over their problems. But what's interesting is how people who have addictive personalities find themselves connected to a movement with many others, also in recover, also with addictive personalities, who are trying to change society to oppress those things with which they once (and maybe still) do find compelled to partake: evangelical Christianity.
I'm not the first one to wonder this, but doesn't it seem odd that the compulsions and obsessions continue only with a new focus? What concerns me is they blame everyone else for their problems. There is no accountability. There is no facing up to the truth. There is only denial.
Maybe someone needs to develop a new 8-step program for politicians.
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.
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Tax Cut Irrationale #6 - The Rove Edition
The Republican playbook that Karl "The Architect" Rove sang out of at a speech to the Republican faithful was the same old song and dance that simply shouldn't work again. Ol' Karl wants to label Democrats as "tax-and-spenders" again. I have to give it to him, he had a pretty witty way of saying it:
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:
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.
Democrats haven’t seen a tax cut they like or a tax increase they oppose. They see tax increases as a virtue. They believe taxes should be raised in times of decline and in times of prosperity. During war and during peace-time. In even years and odd ones. During days of sunshine and days of rain. They believe every day is a good day to raise your taxes.
One problem...not a word of it's true.
And he knows it.
And he could care less.
I've reworked his quote to be something a bit more accurate:
Republicans haven’t seen a lobbyist or tax break they oppose. They see lobbyists as a necessary way to get money and tax breaks for those who have hired the lobbyists and rich folks as a virtue. They believe lobbyists and their clients should receive tax breaks in times of decline and in times of prosperity. During war and during peacetime. In even years and odd ones. During days of sunshine and days of rain. They believe every day is a good day to give tax breaks to lobbyist's clients and rich people.
Now that's an accurate statement.
Why is it that so many people continue to buy Rove and the Republican's argument and completely ignore the realities of the truely reckless fiscal policies of this administration and the unchecked "spend-and-borrow?" Are we so clueless that we can ignore the massive increase in debt, massive increase in pork spending, and the largest increase in Congressional hutzpah in our lifetimes?
Short answer? Yeah. That's what they're banking on.
Old GOP habits die hard
It seems that even when the GOP has the Abramoff albatross around its neck, it still can't bring itself to do things out in the open or do things that help America's seniors.
Today's Washington Post printed a story that described House and Senate GOP negotiator meetings behind closed doors "agreed on a change to Senate-passed Medicare legislation that would save the health insurance industry $22 billion over the next ten decade." Instead of passing a bill that saves money for seniors, the GOP cow-towed to the health insurance lobbyists and restored $22 billion of the Senate-passed $26 billion in cuts. I guess we can see who butters who's bread!
White House spokesman Scott McClelland said during a 4 January press briefing that he would get back to reporters on whether Jack Abramoff attended any staff meetings. During the 17 January press briefing, McClelland said "I won't get into discussing staff meetings." I'll take that as a "yes."
Abramoff and President Bush had numerous photos taken together at the White House and the White House has decided not to release them. I wonder why...
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...
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Too many bad ideas for 100 days
If it wasn't for the Goldwater Institute, I'd certainly have more free time because I wouldn't have to beat them up on some of the truly brainless ideas they throw about. In Wednesday's (18 Jan 2006) free advertisement in the East Valley Tribune, the Institute's president and CEO, Darcy Olsen hands down from the mountaintop their "100 ideas for 100 days." That's the amount of time the Arizona Legislature is supposed to be in session.
Since there are 100 of their "ideas" and they're pretty short, I'll attempt to do the same here. Not that all of them are bad, but some are downright silly. Here goes.
Dumb education ideas:
#4: "Early education funding should be modified into direct education grants to families."
Why it's a dumb idea: First, what new State bureacarcy will handle administration of these grants and ensure they will be used as intended and not to buy a car or bills? Second, why not give it to the schools, which already has the systems in place to manage them, and let them enhance existing programs, especially since most parents will likely send their kids to public schools anyway.
#5 "Create the nation’s first statewide system of direct education grants, allowing parents to use their child’s portion of state equalized base funding to pay tuition at a school of their choice."
Why it's a dumb idea: Again, uses money to create a new state bureacracy (isn't this more and bigger government?) to allow rich folks to underwrite their tuition fees with taxpayer's funds because they know most parents don't have the time to haul their kids to private schools when the public school bus comes directly to the neighborhood.
#6 "Consider creating education savings accounts for families, providing more cost effective use of funds, greater choice for parents, and a wider range of opportunity for students."
Why it's a dumb idea: Parents already have this capacity. There's also the "Gifts to Children Act" that is a great way for parents and grandparents to set aside money for their kids education.
#9 "Require the Arizona Department of Revenue to honor requests of tuition scholarship organizations to post their financial information so donors can review salary, overhead, and related administrative expenditures."
Why it's a dumb idea: I can't find any reason why these tuition scholarship organizations can't post their financial information if they want to. We need to grow the bureaucracy to do this, too?
They have 25 “ideas” for education and 18 require increasing the size of government to implement those “ideas.”
“Idea” 37 would eliminate corporate income taxes. Corporations should then pay for their own sewer systems, police and fire protection and educate their employee’s children, too.
Of their 51 “Economic Prosperity” ideas, 22 have to do with tax cuts or reductions in rates. Of those 22, 15 would reduce revenues to the state that would make their 25 educational “ideas,” among others, impossible to implement for lack of funds.
Goldwater would eliminate state medical oversight. They would tax freeway use for people who live in “congested” areas. They want a new State bureaucracy to manage conversion of HOV lanes to a toll-road. They think private sector management of state services is always less expensive (remember Halliburton?).
Comedian Lewis Black called Republicans “the Party of bad ideas.” Since so many of Goldwater’s “100 ideas” grow the size of government while at the same time starving it and destroying existing capabilities, they clearly prove his point.
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.
Sunday, January 15, 2006
Did Tax Cuts Really Drive Arizona’s Growth?
Much like the proverbial “third rail” of politics, the notion that tax cuts drive growth is at the core of Republican economic policy. Since our state has a projected budget surplus of somewhere around $750 million, the rhetoric coming out of the Republican side of the legislature is “tax cut, tax cut, tax cut.” The Goldwater Institute and the allied Arizona Free Enterprise Club are calling for them as well. All three use supply-side economics theory and previous tax cuts and the growth that came behind them to justify a new round.
While that sounds good, have we really questioned whether the tax cuts alone were the engine of the state’s growth? A review of the facts reveals something Republicans don’t want you to know: they weren’t. It was a combination of things, among which tax cuts were one, but a lesser factor. The real reason is a fundamental change in Arizona’s core economy from tourism, mining and agriculture to high-tech, services and real estate with the accompanying increase in firms and jobs as a direct result. If you don’t believe me, go look at the U.S. Bureau of Labor “State at a Glance” data for Arizona and see for yourself.
The notion is so simple it could appear on the fourth-grade AIMS test. The State starts out with jobs that pay lower wages and there are few people in a geographically large state. Ensuring state services are available throughout will be more expensive because of the distances required to travel to offer or receive them. Let’s say that there are one million people who pay taxes in the state and each pays one dollar in taxes. You do the math.
Now let’s suppose a new industry moves into the state, say microchip manufacturing. That industry attracts more highly skilled workers who get paid more money and pay more in taxes. These employees need new homes built, new schools to attend, new roads to drive on, new shopping opportunities, new places to eat, new cars to buy, new clothes to wear, etc. Real estate values increase because what used to be agricultural lands are now housing developments, office parks and retail shopping centers; all of which pay taxes at higher rates than the old land use. New business will spring up to take advantage of the new market opportunities created by these new citizen’s needs, and the cycle repeats.
So instead of one million people paying taxes, due only to population growth you now have two million taxpayers. Of that, one million pay $1.50 in taxes versus $1, which results in an increase in state income tax-based revenues. Remember, real property tax revenues increase too. The point is that more revenues are coming into state coffers without any change in rates. It is the growth everyone wants that generates more revenue, not excessive tax rates.
During the evolution of the state’s economic base, tax rates that could reasonably be reduced were reduced. These reductions did contribute to economic growth, but to say they alone were the cause is simply disingenuous and overstates their impact.
This begs the question of whether tax cuts are truly needed in the first place. Polls show that most Arizonans would rather the surplus be used to pay back money the legislature borrowed from other accounts when the state was running a $1B deficit. We know schoolteachers are paying for supplies out of their own pockets. We know police and border security needs to be enhanced. We know roads and water projects need to be improved or built. Why not use the surplus to pay for those things?
Here’s why: without tax cuts Republicans have no economic issue upon which to run for reelection. They can’t talk about economic growth because it was the Governor who vetoed many of their anti-growth bills and helped to attract companies like Google. They can’t talk about how Arizona schools rank nationally, because they’re not improving. They can’t talk about how health care costs in Arizona are under control, because they’re not. Do Republicans really think people making $70,000 need a $117 tax cut? Wow, that’s three tanks of gas. What a stimulus!
Republicans need an issue to deflect the discussion away from their lacking domestic policies and they’re using tax cuts as the diversion. Even when voters tell them to use the surplus wisely, or even if tax cuts are unnecessary, they cannot bring themselves to admit that the people are right. Our economy is growing and there is no proof tax rates are excessive or a drain on the economy. What’s so wrong with putting the surplus to good uses and rebuilding the rainy-day fund? If the whole truth be told, not a darn thing.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)