New Study Says Immigrants Less Likely To Be Criminals

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

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

Among the findings of this report:

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Thayer Verschoor - Stupid Legislator

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

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

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

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

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

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

What "emboldens the terrorists?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Republicans Threaten One Of Their Own

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

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

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

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

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

Verschoor's SB1542 - Dumb and Dumberer

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

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

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

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

Thayer Verschoor - Enemy of Free Speech

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

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

HB2663 - Today's Dumb Bill of the Day!

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

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

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

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

Way to go!

How do the come up with these?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Brilliance from JackAZ Harper

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

Here is the short version of what I found:

State-by-State Summary

Number of states examined: 23

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Number of states with discussion of sexual orientation policies: None

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

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

Conclusion

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

Tom Horne's Hypocrisy

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

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

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

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

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

This nutty and dangerous legislation provides for the following:

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the current text of SCR-1006:

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

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

4. Homeland security committee; force; administration

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

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

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

D. The homeland security force:

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

2. Appropriation; homeland security force; exemption

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

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

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

The Hoopla Around Pizza Patron

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

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

Senator Karen Johnson Goes Off the Deep End

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

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

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

MacEachern, Goldwater Institute and Bad Research

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

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

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

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

Medicare and Negotitation of Lower Prices

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now what can we do for Arizonans??

Changing The Subject While Missing The Point

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

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

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

Now there's a record to run from.

Dean Martin's Failed Memory

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

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

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

Who IS the Arizona Republican Party?

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

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

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

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

CAGW President's Amnesia

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

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

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

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

Russel Pearce's "Apology"

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.