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

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

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

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

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

Prop. 13 Nonsense

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

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

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

Especially in light of this:

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

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

Ya know, I have to agree with him.

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

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

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

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

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

Making Flippy-Floppy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Need I say more?

Update on Conservative Post Stating More Voting Is Bad

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

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

Conservatives just can't handle the truth.

Conservative Blog Says More People Voting Is Bad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Tax Cut Lunacy - Arizona is California

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Philosophical Tax Bullshit

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

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

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

Who really runs Arizona?

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

Here's today's thought:

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

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

Conservatives Still Clueless on Iraq

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stupid "It's My Money" Tax Argument

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

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

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

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

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

E.J. Montini and Supporting our Soldiers

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

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

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

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

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

Wannabe Intellectual Criticizes Smart People

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

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

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

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

Who's Your Buddy Now?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Denial + Kool-Aid = Republican Voters

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

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

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

Republicans with short memories

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

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

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

Republicans in Denial, Part Infinity

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

Sure it is.

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

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

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

Tax Cuts Promote Illegal Immigration

A different take on Republican tax policy and immigration.

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

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

Illegal immigrants.

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

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

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

Clueless Conservatives

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SB1542: Verschoor's Opus to Ignorance

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

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

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

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

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

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