Blog For Arizona

Summing up the Safier vs. Ladner comments smackdown

by David Safier

Over the past few weeks, Dr. Matthew Ladner of the Goldwater Institute and I have engaged in a spirited back-and-forth in the comments sections of two posts: An interesting number and More Fool's Gold: Ed tax credits save us money. For my money, I won both arguments. I'm sure Ladner disagrees and, of course, he's welcome to put his opinions in the comments. As always, he'll get all the unedited space he wants.

The reason I picked a fight with G.I. in the first place is because I want to make it clear they have a purely political agenda. Their "research" is given far more credibility than it deserves, both by themselves and by the press who treats G.I. as a reasonable source of information. What they call "research" is often a travesty, a cynical misuse of scholarship to help conservatives get elected, then help them pass conservative legislation. Most of the rest is just smoke and mirrors.

Follow the link below to read my discussion of the two comment threads.

How is this different from getting a loan on tobacco money?

By David Safier

I'm honestly confused. I hope someone can explain this to me.

Our Accidental Gov is talking about a plan to raise some money to lessen the budget cuts in 2010. She wants to sell some state buildings.

If it were a straight sale, at least I'd understand it. Then the question would be, is it smart to sell the buildings?

But her plan sounds like the state would, in a sense, be taking a loan, using the state buildings as collateral.

Brewer provided no specifics to her audience at the Glendale Civic Center. But Senseman said the main thing the governor has in mind essentially amounts to mortgaging state buildings, selling them to private investors and then leasing them back over some fixed period until they are once again owned by the state.

This sounds like me taking a loan against the equity of my home. I pay it back month by month, until I pay it off, then the house is mine, free and clear.

So my question is, why not just take a loan based on future tobacco revenues as Napolitano suggested? It seems to me the tobacco money is actually better collateral since, unlike a piece of property, it won't change in value.

So what am I missing? Is it that the people who she would "sell" the buildings to are people who she would like to see make money, rather than other people who would float loans based on future tobacco money?

Help me out, somebody.

AZ AG Terry Goddard Ready for Debate on Legal Pot

by Michael Bryan

Terry Goddard's measure of political courage just went up slightly in my estimation: he went on national TV and suggested that this country should look seriously at the merits of legalizing marijuana to cut off the flow of money to drug cartels fueling violence along the Mexican border and throughout Mexico.

He backfills immediately by claiming that he is not personally in favor of legalization, but only that there should be a debate. Well, is Terry going to play a role in that debate? He doesn't say.

Well, Terry, if you're listening, here's your invitation to debate the issue. Myself, or any advocate of legalization you prefer, versus you. Anytime. Anywhere. Maybe here on this blog. I will certainly post any statement or responses from you or your office. Let's have that debate.

I'd love to hear why Goddard is not personally in favor of legalization. Knowing as he does how thinly stretched our enforcement and prosecutorial resources are, how porous our border is, how much of the Mexican cartel's income stems from the illegal profits from pot (Goddard claims 70%, though how he knows that is beyond me), and given the historical lessons regarding the effects of alcohol prohibition on crime in this country and the objective scientific evidence that pot is much less harmful than legal indulgences such as tobacco and alcohol, why does Goddard oppose legalization other than mere political caution?

Right now 44% of Americans support legalization - not a majority opinion - so of course politicians are skittish about coming out for pot. But in Western states, that percentage trends up to as much as 58%. Considering the strength of Western public support and what he has seen and learned as Attoney General of Arizona, I don't understand why Goddard doesn't lead from the front rather than the rear on this issue.

With U.S. Attorney General Holder finally halting the deplorable Federal raids that had been defying state legislative action to rationalize marijuana policy in their jurisdictions, now is the perfect time for a border state like Arizona to re-examine its own policies. At the very least, perhaps we could stop treating sick people as criminals in 2010. Maybe we can even embrace some decriminalization such as that which garnered the support of 43% of voters in 2002's Prop 203, despite furious opposition from all sides of the political establishment.

If ever this nation is going to seriously reform our drug laws, it must happen now that progressive forces are in ascendancy. And it has to happen from the ground up. Eight states repealed prohibition before the ball got rolling in the Federal government. There must a groundswell that forces the risk-averse to side with reason.

Terry, you took a positive step by seving up the legalization ball. Do you have the political courage to return the ball when volleyed?

Congress should investigate Wall Street as it did after 1929

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Chris in Paris at Americablog raises the question Should Congress investigate Wall Street as they did after '29? Hell yes! And start sending these corrupt "masters of the universe" to jail. Chris provides the historical context:

Most relevant to today, Congress has investigated the causes behind economic downturns, using the power of investigation to raise public concern and improve knowledge of the economy.

This was the case with the famous Pecora Commission, the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency formed in the period between President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's election in November 1932 and his inauguration in March. It was a commission that lasted through May 1934.

The commission set out to discover what had led to the stock market crash in 1929. Committee Chairman Duncan Fletcher of New Jersey placed Ferdinand Pecora, the committee's chief counsel, in charge of the investigation.

Pecora, a tough New York prosecutor, proved to be a masterful interrogator. "I looked with astonishment," said his staffer John Flynn, a former journalist, "at this man who, through the intricate mazes of banking, syndicates, market deals, chicanery of all sorts, and in a field new to him, never forgot a name, never made an error in a figure, and never lost his temper."

Pecora brought some of the most prominent figures from Wall Street to speak with the commission and to answer difficult questions.

Americans learned that the tycoon J.P. Morgan had not paid income taxes for three years. Even worse, tax evasion was common among the wealthy. In his new book on FDR's Hundred Days, Adam Cohen recounts how the hearings revealed how National City Bank had caused enormous problems by mixing commercial and investment banking, reaping huge profits as customers were persuaded to make terrible investments.

Preferential treatment on stock, Americans learned, was routine as certain clients on Morgan's "preferred list" were given the best offers. By the time it closed, the commission produced thousands of pages of data about the inside operations of the financial world.

As a result of the Pecora Commission, public pressure for banking reform greatly intensified. The 1929 crash seemed like much less of a mystery when Pecora was done.

Congress passed historic banking regulations during the New Deal, including the Glass-Steagall Banking Act of 1933, the Securities Act of 1933, and the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, all of which vastly expanded the role of the federal government in overseeing and regulating Wall Street.

The party of Beavis and Butthead

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

From a recent Paul Krugman blog post What should government do? A Jindal meditation:

So what did Bobby Jindal choose to ridicule in this response to Obama last night? Volcano monitoring, of course.

And leaving aside the chutzpah of casting the failure of his own party’s governance as proof that government can’t work, does he really think that the response to natural disasters like Katrina is best undertaken by uncoordinated private action? Hey, why bother having an army? Let’s just rely on self-defense by armed citizens.

The intellectual incoherence is stunning. Basically, the political philosophy of the GOP right now seems to consist of snickering at stuff that they think sounds funny. The party of ideas has become the party of Beavis and Butthead.

Another one bites the dust

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

After the Alaska Disasta, Sarah Palin, imploded in a super nova as John McCain's running mate, Republicans started looking around and asked "who else do we have?" Many of them, including the drug-addled mind of gas bag bloviator Rush Limbaugh, settled on Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal.

So Jindal was primped and prodded into the role of delivering the GOP response to President Obama's address to Congress on Tuesday. It was an epic failure. Even conservative commentators universally agreed that Jindal was a miserable failure. Everyone, that is, except Rush Limbaugh who is threatening his fellow bloviators to be as delusional as he is about Jindal.

But the final nail in Bobby Jindal's dream of ever becoming the GOP nominee for president in 2012 was the netroots making the comparison between him and Kenneth the page on NBC's 30 Rock sitcom. Tedski over at R-cubed does the local take on this netroots phenomenon. Bobby Jindal? Ay, Pobrecito. Note to Jindal: Tina Fey, who destroyed Sarah Palin with her dead-on parody, is also a writer, producer and star of 30 Rock. Do you really think that 30 Rock is not going to ride this horse? Bye-bye.

Limbaugh subscribes to the delusional school of thought that conservatism never fails, only politicians fail conservatism. Spoken like a true ideologue. The nice polite Republican (NPR) David Brooks, conservative columnist for the New York Times, delivered an honest and fatal analysis of Jindal's Republican response.

LEHRER: Now that, of course, was Gov. Bobby Jindal, the governor of Louisiana, making the Republican response. David, how well do you think he did?

DAVID BROOKS: Uh, not so well...I oppose the stimulus package because I thought it was poorly drafted but to come up at this moment in history with a stale 'government is the problem, we can't trust the federal government,' it's just a disaster for the Republican Party. The country is in a panic now. They may not like the way the Democrats have passed the stimulus bill. But the idea that we're just going to... That government will have no role, the federal government has no role in this, that in a moment when only the federal government is big enough to actually do stuff- to just ignore all that and just say 'government is the problem, corruption, earmarks, wasteful spending,' it's just a form of nihilism. It's just not where country is it's not where the future of the country is. There's an intra-Republican debate: some people say the Republican Party lost its way because they got too moderate, some people say they got too weird or too conservative. He thinks they got too moderate. And so he's making that case. I think it's insane. I just think it's a disaster for the [Republican] Party. I just think it's unfortunate right now.

H/t to Crooks&Liars blog for the transcipt.

See the response of Jack McBrayer (Kenneth the page) to Bobby Jindal on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon - The Jack McBrayer Response To The Internet Response To The Republican Response T.

Doubting Thomas

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Our Accidental Governor, Jan Brewer, had better look over her shoulder because it appears that Maricopa County Attorney, Andrew Thomas, is still harboring fantasies about becoming Arizona's next governor.

In a guest opinion that appeared in the Tucson Citizen on Tuesday, Andy laid out his agenda for leading the Republican Party out of the wilderness. Beyond illegal immigration: an agenda for the GOP

This seemed a bit presumptuous for a local county attorney. Jan Brewer is supposed to be the leader of the AZ GOP now, right? Doubting Thomas must have seen the same sorry poll numbers for Jan Brewer that David Safier recently wrote about. I'm sensing GOP primary!

Andy's agenda for the new GOP sounds exactly like the same tired and worn-out agenda of the old GOP.

First up, Andy's "go to" issue:

Illegal immigration rightly will continue to be a dominant issue in Arizona politics for years to come.

But of course it will. Andy and his good buddy Sheriff Joe Arpaio have built their careers around bashing undocumented immigrant workers. While they are busy chasing down undocumented immigrant day laborers looking for work at Home Depot and Lowes, Phoenix has suddenly become the "kidnap-for-ransom capital of the U.S." as a result of drug related gang violence. Phoenix police battle wave of abductions Misplaced priorities, boys. Do your job and deal with violent criminals first. That's what the taxpayers pay you to do.

Andy continues:

Yet Arizonans will insist that Republicans be about more than one issue. They are right to do so.

I believe Republicans must articulate a new and cogent list of priorities for the people of our state and nation. The issues below take account of our times and are predicated on strong and forthright leadership.

• Public safety first... Republicans must remain a party well known for its seriousness in protecting our homes and our borders from criminal offenders.

See above. Focus, Andy. Focus.

• Free but fair markets... Government officials must enforce our laws to protect citizens from fraud and predatory lending.

***

As the government props up banks and indentures future generations of Americans with colossal federal deficit spending, we should insist at a minimum that henceforth, banks and lending institutions possess enough capital to properly underwrite their loans.

In turn, banks shouldn't be pressured into lending to questionable applicants out of either runaway short-term greed or fear of drawing civil-rights lawsuits.

This is Andy genuflecting before the altar of the spectacularly failed and entirely discredited free market economic ideology of Reaganomics. It's over. Get over it.

Just out of curiosity Andy, how many predatory lenders and mortgage brokers have you actually prosecuted for fraud and predatory lending? Yeah, that's what I thought. Big talk.

Andy's last point is the GOP canard that federal regulations require lenders to loan to unqualified applicants. Sorry, it was the unregulated financial services that devised loan agreements which required no proof of income or ability to pay, "just write those mortgages boys, bundle them and sell them to those suckers in the derivatives markets." This "It was all their fault!" defense by predatory lenders and mortgage brokers is just the criminals blaming their victims for their crimes.

• Excellence in education. Our public schools, for all their problems, are a great national institution that must be strengthened and preserved...

Still, parents who desire a different way of raising their children - one with a different pedagogical or spiritual focus - shouldn't be corralled into them.

To enact choice in education while nurturing our public schools ...

* * *

Our public universities should be robust and properly endowed. In return, they also should be centers of unfettered inquiry and tolerance, not redoubts of political correctness ...

Oh, how Republicans love to lie about how much they support public education, just long enough to get elected so they can vote to destroy it (see the Arizona Legislature). As David Safier wrote in a recent post, the GOP recenty admitted it is out to destroy public education in favor of "school choice" and vouchers for private and religious schools - express prohibitions in the Arizona Constitution be damned!

As for the PC police on college campuses, it sounds to me as if our Andy has been hanging out with that former Marxist, now deranged right-wingnut David Horowitz (Students for Academic Freedom, Campus Watch, and Academic Bill of Rights). Horowitz claims that bias in universities amounts to indoctrination, and charges that conservatives and particularly Republicans are systematically excluded from faculties, citing statistical studies on faculty party affiliation. Expect to see this B.S. surface as an initiative in 2010.

• Good stewardship of the environment. The Phoenix area should not accept as inevitable the air pollution levels that blanket our beautiful mountain ranges and desert environs.

* * *

This can be achieved while upholding private property rights, so long as we are willing to compensate properly for the environment we deserve.

That first part must have caused Glenn Hamer over at the Arizona Chamber of Commerce to spit out his morning coffee. Until he realized that what Andy is really talking about in coded language is compensating property owners for the economic loss of the fair use of their property. In other words, if you want me to stop (or not start) polluting, the government must first pay me compensation for the economic loss of the fair use of my property due to government regulations. I'll bet that gave ol' Glenn a woody! Expect to see this idea surface as an initiative in 2010.

• True equality... These advances underscore the need to end government policies that require or countenance preferences based on race or other immutable characteristics.

* * *

[T]he fact that this question is being asked is a sign of just how much civil-rights victories and demographic changes have eroded the rationale for existing affirmative-action policies.

This is the Ward Connerly anti-affirmative action initiative that bore the fraudulent title "Arizona Civil Rights Initiative" (Prop. 104) and failed to make the ballot in 2008 due to questionable, if not unlawfully gathered signatures on petitions. Our boy Andy did not prosecute anyone for this "election fraud" however, because it turns out that Andy was the honorary chairperson for this initiative campaign. Apparently he and his buddy Ward Connerly believe that putting this divisive initiative on the ballot in 2010 will be Andy's ticket to the governorship.

• No tolerance for public corruption... We must make it clear that while no party is unblemished by corruption, the GOP shall be known as the party that won't tolerate, facilitate or apologize for it once it comes to light.

OK, this time I spit out my morning coffee. Dude, you're the poster boy for political corruption in this state! This is the same Andrew Thomas who misspent public funds to hire a private attorney, Dennis Wilenchik, as a "special prosecutor" to pursue the political enemies of Joe Arpaio and himself, including the media, i.e., the Phoenix New Times. How short of a memory do you think people have? (For an excellent background on this political scandal, see Michael Bryan's October 2007 post Governor Andrew Thomas... NOT!)

Andrew Thomas promises to inflict some serious right-wing-nuttery on Arizona which will make Jan Brewer appear moderate and reasonably sane by comparison. Well, slightly less crazy than Andy, anyway. This should make for an interesting primary as the GOP's Cro-Magnon wing takes on the Neanderthal wing of the party. I only hope that they destroy each other, before they can destroy Arizona any further.

AZ Charter school advocates, take note

by David Safier

I consider myself an advocate of charter schools, but not the way they're set up here in Arizona, where it's too easy to get a charter and slip by without any accountability, and too rare for bad charters to be shut down.

So I'm pleased to see there is a national movement of charter school supporters who are working to address some of these problems. Arizona legislators on both sides of the aisle should take note.

In Ohio, for example, the state for the first time will compel as many as 23 low-performing charters to close at the end of this academic year, under provisions of a 2006 law pegged to the state’s accountability system. That legislation was enacted at a time when the governor and leading legislators in Ohio were deemed particularly charter-friendly.

"[Charter enthusiasts] have certainly awakened to the fact that there are too many crummy charter schools out there and not enough high performers," said Chester E. Finn Jr., himself a longtime charter proponent and the president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a Washington think tank.

[snip]

Attempts to close charters often face big barriers, [Bryan C. Hassel, a charter expert] noted, including staunch opposition from families. "These schools live on and exist, generally, even if they’re extremely bad," he said.

[snip]

Mr. Obama highlighted the issue at a campaign stop in Riverside, Ohio, two weeks after getting the Democratic nomination for president. "I'll double the funding for responsible charter schools," he said, vowing to work with governors to hold all charters accountable. "Charter schools that are successful will get the support they need to grow. And charters that aren’t will get shut down."

[snip]

One road to better charter quality that’s gaining far more attention is the role played by charter authorizers, the bodies charged with approving, monitoring, and potentially closing schools. 

. . . Robin J. Lake, the director of the National Charter School Research Project at the University of Washington, argued in a 2006 paper that “irresponsible authorizing—allowing unqualified people to open schools and doing little about bad schools—may prove to be the Achilles' heel of the charter school movement.”

[snip]

Some analysts argue that authorizers themselves should be held accountable for the quality of their work, and even for the performance of schools they oversee, with sanctions for authorizers who do a poor job.

"At the very least, states should track and make publicly available clear information about how each charter authorizer’s portfolio is performing," said the recent Education Department report.
Minnesota lawmakers are expected this year to act on legislation that would set a higher standard for authorizers.

"We still continue to have high-profile problems with some charters that give them all a bad name," said state Rep. Mindy Greiling, a Democrat who chairs the House K-12 education finance committee and is co-sponsoring the measure. "There have been some spectacular sponsors, and others who sign on the dotted line and absolve themselves of any responsibility."

Continuing trouble in paradise

by David Safier

Last night I posted a portion of an article from the Arizona Guardian about the Accidental Gov (I got the term from a commenter and plan to make it my own) criticizing the Republican legislators for not knowing the effects of the budget cuts they voted for.

Today there's more from the Guardian. It seemed a little, well, hypocritical that Brewer signed the cuts, then criticized the legislators for not knowing how deep they were. Here's her explanation.

Brewer said she was fully aware of the grief the $1.6 billion in cuts and fund sweeps would cause when she signed the budget plan earlier this month. State lawmakers, she added, should have known as well.

The difference is, I guess, the legislators pretended they didn't know the cuts would hurt. Brewer knew and didn't care.

Here's more of the political backstory, the first rumblings of the earthquake that will be the next budget battle:

In publically disagreeing with her own party members, Brewer finds herself on unfamiliar turf. For decades, Brewer has earned a reputation as a staunch Republican and a tough partisan fighter. But the public outrage over the drastic roll back of government programs is taking a toll, some political experts said.

The degree of anger among the public underscores the political realities the new governor and members of the Legislature will face as they head into the 2010 election cycle, said Bruce Merrill, a political pollster with Arizona State University.

In putting some distance between herself and her fellow party members, Merrill said, Brewer is doing what she needs to do if she wants to return to the governor's office.

Folks, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

Cutman unmasked

by David Safier

Lest we forget, Cutman's alter ego, Rep. Russell Pearce, has been around for awhile. The Southern Poverty Law Center just came out with an Intelligence Report -- Hate in the Mainstream: Arizona Reelects Hard-Core Nativist Politician.

I'm copying it here in full. I take no responsibility for any exaggerations and inaccuracies that might be in the report. I'm familiar with lots of it that I know is accurate, but other parts I can't vouch for, simply because I don't know the history well enough. [Note: I inserted the photo of Pearce. It's not in the SPLC report.]

Forced out as an Arizona state representative after eight years because of term limits, immigrant-bashing legislator Russell Pearce was elected to the state Senate in November. A Republican from Mesa, Pearce defeated his Democratic opponent by getting 56% of the vote.

Several months before the election, Pearce wrote a letter to Glenn Spencer's anti-immigrant hate website, americanpatrol.com, seeking $5 contributions. His campaign also received money from Rusty Childress, a Phoenix car dealer and president of United for a Sovereign America, a hard-line nativist extremist group; Chris Simcox, president of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps; and Al Rodriguez, a retired Army colonel who heads You Don't Speak For Me!, a group bankrolled by the Federation for American Immigration Reform, designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Simcox and Rodriguez also served on Pearce's campaign committee.

Pearce is the former deputy sheriff who E-mailed an anti-Semitic article from the neo-Nazi National Alliance website to supporters in October 2005. After he was lambasted for that remarkable move, he claimed that he hadn't read the screed in its entirety. He once dismissed critics of his use of the word "wetback" as "sissies."

Pearce latched onto immigration hard as an Arizona legislator, co-authoring an initiative to ban the use of Spanish in most official communications. The state legislature in 2007 passed his bill that provided for the suspension of a business's license if it was caught knowingly hiring unauthorized workers. A second offense within five years results in permanent revocation.

Arizona business groups opposed the law and contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to a proposition on the November ballot that would have loosened its requirements. It was soundly defeated, so in essence Pearce scored two election victories. "We've got a great, smart electorate here in Arizona," he said.

Russell Pearce promises to continue to push for tough anti-immigrant legislation as a state senator. "I will not back off until we solve the problem of this illegal invasion," he told National Public Radio last year. "Invaders, that's what they are. Invaders on the American sovereignty, and it can't be tolerated."

Trouble in paradise?

by David Safier

A shocker in an Arizona Guardian email blast:

Brewer criticizes GOP lawmakers 
BREAKING NEWS - Gov. Jan Brewer says her Republican colleagues at the Legislature should have known better when they pushed through deep budget cuts earlier this month that caused widespread job loss, crippled state health services and whacked popular education programs.
Brewer on Wednesday criticized GOP lawmakers who claim they didn't know the full extent of their spending plan and accused agency directors of intentionally making the most painful cuts in order to gain public sympathy.

The new governor said she was well aware of the grief that $1.6 billion worth of sweeps and cuts would cause when she signed the budget plan earlier this month.

"All of these options were clearly laid out beforehand," said Brewer, who attended a breakfast to kick off Nationa and Tribes Legislative Day at the state Capitol. "They should've looked at the book their appropriations chairmen gave them."

Trouble in paradise?

Let's see how this pans out

by David Safier

In the ASU Web Devil:Legislators hold forum for budget-cut discourse.

More than 200 people attended a public forum on the state budget held by Democratic members of the state Legislature on Monday evening in the Tempe campus Memorial Union.

For some reason, LD-26 Republican Rep. Vic Williams was there as well. What he said surprised me:

In an interview before the meeting, Rep. Vic Williams, R-Tucson, said the cuts to the 2010 budget could be lower because the Legislature has more time to look for alternate sources of funding. The former governor and Legislature, he said, did not work quickly enough to overcome the projected shortfall in 2009.

“We were caught having to fix a poorly crafted budget,” Williams said. “We did not have time to have effective revenue enhancements.”

Let me make sure I've got this straight. Williams expects the Republicans will look at "alternative sources of funding," including "revenue enhancements" when they're putting together the 2010 budget.

I read "alternative sources of funding" to mean things like borrowing. "Revenue enhancements" sounds an awful lot like new taxes.

Williams says proudly that he has not taken the No New Taxes pledge, so he could actually come out in favor of new taxes without eating his words (though he's one of the sponsors of the bill to wipe out the education equivalency property tax). But does he really believe we're going to see "alternative sources of funding" and "revenue enhancements" in a Republican budget for 2010? Or is he just talking to hear himself speak?

The Myth of Republican Fiscal Responsibility

Posted  by AzBlueMeanie:

At the height of World War II, government deficit spending as a percentage of GDP far exceeded 100%. That would be the federal stimulus spending on infrastructure and the restoration of America's industrial capacity to full production as we converted our economy into the arsenal of freedom that won the war - and ended the Great Depression. Keynesian economics worked.

Since the end of World War II, the national debt as a percentage of GDP steadily declined until 1981 - when movement conservatism and Saint Ronnie Reagan returned to the failed laissez faire economic policies of Herbert Hoover and manufactured the myth of Republican fiscal responsibility.

 

H/T to Jon Perr at Crooks&Liars blog Obama's Summit and the Myth of Republican Fiscal Responsibility who observes that "Far from the deficit hawks of Republican legend, the modern Republican Party from Reagan forward devastated the U.S. treasury, leaving mounting debt and hemorrhaging red ink for as far as the eye can see."

"As the chart above shows, the national debt under president Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 exploded as a percentage of GDP, interrupted only by the all-too-brief fiscal sanity of the Clinton years. And to be sure, the budget surpluses of the late 1990's seem like a distant memory."

[T]he Republicans' fiscal rot didn't begin with George W. Bush, but with Ronald Reagan. It was the legendary Gipper whose financial recklessness and tax-cutting fetish came to define the modern GOP.

The numbers tell the story. As predicted, Reagan's massive $749 billion supply-side tax cuts in 1981 quickly produced even more massive annual budget deficits. Combined with his rapid increase in defense spending, Reagan delivered not the balanced budgets he promised, but record-settings deficits. Even his OMB alchemist David Stockman could not obscure the disaster with his famous "rosy scenarios."

Forced to raise taxes twice to avert financial catastrophe (a fact conveniently forgotten in the conservative hagiography of Reagan), the Gipper nonetheless presided over a doubling of the American national debt. By the time he left office in 1989, Ronald Reagan equaled the entire debt burden produced by the previous 200 years of American history.

For his part, George H.W. Bush hardly stemmed the flow of red ink. And when Bush the Elder broke his "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge to address the cascading budget shortfalls, his own Republican Party turned on him. While Bush's apostasy helped ensure his defeat by Bill Clinton, it was Clinton's 1993 deficit-cutting package (passed without a single GOP vote in either house of Congress) which helped usher in the surpluses of the late 1990's.

Alas, they were to be short-lived. Inheriting a federal budget in the black and CBO forecast for a $5.6 trillion surplus over 10 years, President George W. Bush quickly set about dismantling the progress made under Clinton. Bush's $1.4 trillion tax cut in 2001, followed by a second round in 2003, accounted for the bulk of the yawning budget deficits he produced.

Like Reagan and Stockman before him, Bush resorted to the rosy scenario to claim he would halve the budget deficit by 2009. Before the financial system meltdown last fall, Bush's deficit already reached $490 billion. (And even before the passage of the Wall Street bailout, Bush had presided over a $4 trillion increase in the national debt, a staggering 71% jump.) By this January, the mind-numbing deficit figure reached $1.2 trillion, forcing President Bush to raise the debt ceiling to $11.3 trillion.

"And so it goes. The Republican Party of No decries President Obama's deficit spending urgently needed to rescue the country from the economic cataclysm over which they presided... [and] the endless sea of red ink they themselves produced."

The GOP should just sit down, shut the hell up, and come along for the ride as people who actually know what they are doing do their best to rescue our economy from the GOP's failed economic ideology and hubris.

Senator Sore Loser embarrasses himself

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

On Monday, President Obama held a "fiscal responsibility" summit to which he invited the GOP leadership - you know, that whole bipartisanship thing the GOP says doesn't happen, only it does. I'll Let John Amato over at Crooks&Liars blog retell what happened next John McCain embarrasses himself with his 'Helicopter fleet' question to President Obama: 

During President Obama's fiscal summit, he graciously called on John McCain first and gave him a really nice introduction. In response, McCain acted like a spiteful loser who showed no class, only disdain at not standing where Obama was. He attack[ed] President Obama over the cost of a fleet of helicopters:

"I'm going to start with John McCain, because,...you know, he and I had some good debates about these issues," President Obama said in the final session of the Fiscal Responsibility Summit. "But -- and I mean what I say here -- I think John has also been extraordinarily consistent and sincere about these issues. And I want to see if you've -- John, you've got some thoughts about where we need to go and some priority areas. I know you were in procurement, for example, which is an area I know we would like to work on together with you."

"Well, thank you, Mr. President. And thank you for doing this...Just one area that I wanted to mention that I think consumed a lot of our conversation on procurement, it was the issue of cost overruns in the Defense Department. We all know how large the defense budget is."

And, McCain noted, "your helicopter is now going to cost as much as Air Force One. I don't think that there's any more graphic demonstration of how good ideas have -- have cost taxpayers an enormous amount of money."

Obama said the helicopter he has now seems adequate, adding that he never had a helicopter before and "maybe I've been deprived and I didn't know it."

President Obama's humorous answer made McCain look foolish for asking about the helicopter fleet.

That's rich coming from a guy who is used to flying around the country on his wife's corporate jet. Senator Sore Loser embarrassed himself by behaving like a total ass. As I have said many times before, he just can't stop himself. It is how he earned the well-deserved nickname "McNasty."

As for the hellicopters McNasty complained about? They were ordered by George W. Bush quite some time ago. Obama had nothing to do with the procurement decision.

For the love of God, people, tell this spiteful, bitter old man that it is long past time for him to retire to his pseudo "McCain Ranch" (or one of the other 8 or 9 houses he owns - hell, even he doesn't know), and allow a new generation of political leaders to emerge in Arizona. Tell this dinosaur it's time for him to go.

Parents and retirees who CARE

by David Safier

Dave Perry, publisher and editor of The Explorer, wrote a very good article on CARE -- Concerned Area Residents for Education -- a group recently formed by northwest Tucson parents and retirees as a response to the K-12 budget cuts. The group is scrupulously nonpartisan and independent of other organizations, and very hard working. They put together an excellent, informative email newsletter which you can sign up for by emailing them at azcaresinfo@gmail.com

Here's the link to CARE's website.

Full Disclosure: I write a weekly column for The Explorer, so Dave Perry is kind of my boss. Here's my latest, which, it just so happens, covers a trip CARE organized to visit with legislators in Phoenix. The target of the piece is Rep. Vic Williams, who needs to develop a bit more respect of the importance of his job, and for his constituents.

How's Brewer doin'?

by David Safier

This poll response is from the Arizona Guardian. The question was, "Gov. Brewer has only had the job for a short time, but how is she doing so far?" 

The following bit of information probably has no relationship to the results of the poll, but according to the Guardian Angel (that's the Arizona Guardian's blog) it sounds like the Gov wants to make sure some things are clear before she makes an appearance:

Before Team Brewer agreed to attend a kick off breakfast on Wednesday morning, The Angel hears that she insisted no questions be asked at the event, told who was going to be there, what's on the menu and, oh yeah, NO QUESTIONS! The Angel also hears the Brew Crew needed the same assurances before agreeing to appear at another gig later this week.

What is it about Republicans demanding friendly audiences and a limit to questions when they go out in public? You'd think they have something to hide.

Note from SonoranSam: "Reality check: This was not a "survey." It was an on-line opinion sample. I doubt that they screeened out multiple votes, and I don't think any polling professional believes these sort of opinion-gathering efforts is a real opinion poll."

You're probably right, Sonoran. I don't put much credence in the poll either. The Guardian didn't say how it gathered the information. This post was more flippant than serious.

Something tells me Sonoran Alliance and I disagree now and then

by David Safier 

The conservative blog, Sonoran Alliance, gave a shout out down to BfA for my reference to Rep. Biggs' comment, "Education does not create jobs. Entrepreneurs and businesses create jobs." Apparently, according to SA, Biggs got it right.

A few posts earlier, SA applauded something I was planning to point out in a slightly less positive light.

It seems Jon Kyl is hosting the screening of the film, Fitna, for members of Congress and their staff. Nothing wrong with that.

The film, according to the Hill's blog, the Briefing Room, was made by Geert Wilders, who is in the Dutch Parliament and compares Islamic Terrorism to Naziism. Again, that's his opinion. Nothing wrong with that.

Wilders, who will be at the screening, is a controversial figure.

Wilders has said he would ban the Quran, the Muslim holy book, according to the London Telegraph.

Now I think there's definitely something wrong with that. And while I don't deny Kyl's right to host the event, I definitely question his judgement. Why would Kyl give his stamp of approval to someone who would ban another religion's most sacred text?

Nonetheless, Kyl's spokesman defends his boss' courage, saying,

"When controversial views cannot be expressed in the United States, it will be only a matter of time before all forms of free speech are threatened."

And I agree. If Wilders wants to rent a hall and show his film, or a private organization wants to arrange a showing, that's fine. I'm certainly glad we're not banning him from entering like the UK did. It's equally OK with me for a holocaust denier to speak and show his film, no matter how despicable I might consider his views. But having a Senator choose to host the event? That doesn't sit well with me. But I guess it's his right to be as wrong as he wants to be.

Here's the funny part though. Even though Kyl is a free speech kind of guy,

The screening will take place in the LBJ Room, but is closed to the media.

Say what? The media won't be able to watch the film, see who is present or report on the speeches and conversations? Free speech behind closed doors, eh? Maybe all the goings on will be super duper classified top secret stuff. We wouldn't want to endanger national security by letting that kind of thing leak out, would we?

Arizona lends a hand to California utilities

by David Safier

This from Rep. Steve Farley's weekly report from Phoenix. His topic is the Republican push to kill the equalization property tax that was suspended a few years ago and is due to return in 2010:

Meanwhile back at the Legislature, the majority are not looking out for your interests. Their friends the corporate honchos were lining up yesterday at the Ways & Means committee to ask for a bailout in the form of the permanent suspension of the education equalization property tax. 

The facts on this are clear, and agreed to by both sides: this move would reduce the state's general fund by $257 million annually, thus reducing the amount we can spend on education. In exchange, the state's largest property-owning corporations get a huge tax bailout. 

What do you get as an owner of an average Arizona home? About $3 a month. And possibly doubled class sizes for your kid's public school.

What do big corporations with Arizona property get? Take, for instance, the Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant. Their corporate owners would gain $3.2 million a year in cash just for that facility alone. 53% of the owners are California utilities.

Sound good to you?

If you want Friends'O'Farley News delivered to your email "In" box, click here and sign up

A comment to the commenters

by David Safier

Love you commenters, on both sides of the issues. Lots of ideas and facts and genuine emotion, with a minimum of ranting and raving ("sound and fury signifying nothing," as Macbeth put it). I sometimes restrain myself from joining the discussions, because I would rather read what you have to say. I don't learn from my comments. I do from yours.

[UPDATE: I forgot to add "witty" to the list of good things about the comments. I kind of hate it when someone says something that's cleverer than what I said, but I leave it up anyway. Sometimes jealousy is the sincerest form of flattery.]

I read every comment. Keep 'em coming, folks. Others, feel free to join in. I think it's the best part of the blog.

Presented without comment (because comment is unnecessary)

by David Safier

In a Star article about killing the suspended equalization property tax, quoting Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Gilbert:

"Education does not create jobs," he said. "Entrepreneurs and businesses create jobs."

Biggs added that it wouldn't matter whether Arizona has the best-educated work force in the country if higher taxes drive companies out of business.

Attention Jan Brewer

by David Safier

Sen. Charles Schumer wrote a letter that says to governors, either accept the entire fed stimulus money package or none of it. And he justifies his stance by saying picking and choosing items in the entire package is the equivalent of a line item veto, something even Obama doesn't have.

To protect the integrity of the recovery program, I urge the administration to issue implementation guidance clarifying that while any Governor may exercise his or her discretion to accept or reject the federal funds provided in the stimulus, no Governor should have the authority to arbitrarily adopt a select subset of the overall package.

[snip]

No language in this provision, however, permits the governor to selectively adopt some components of the bill while rejecting others. To allow such picking and choosing would, in effect, empower the governors with a line-item veto authority that President Obama himself did not possess at the time he signed the legislation. It would also undermine the overall success of the bill, as the components most singled out for criticism by these governors are among the most productive measures in terms of stimulating the economy.

For instance, at least two governors have proposed rejecting a program to expand unemployment insurance for laid-off workers. Economists consistently rank unemployment insurance among the most efficient and cost-effective fiscal stimulus measures; by one frequently cited estimate, it provides an economic return of as high as $1.73 for every dollar invested. Thus, by denying this provision for their residents, these governors are not just depriving some of the neediest Americans of relief in a dire economy; they are undermining the overall stimulative impact of the package.

Don't know what will happen, but I hope it makes a few governors sweat a bit, and forces them to justify refusing unemployment insurance money. Like Bobby Jindal, to name names. And forces Brewer to confront the issue of which parts of the package to accept and reject openly, making her battle her conservative legislative cohorts on one side and the Dems on the other.

Election Integrity Tucson: strange day at the courthouse

by David Safier

I'm an agnostic hanger-on to the election integrity movement here in Tucson. I follow what's going on closely but don't attend meetings. When things happen that merit national attention, I'm often the one who puts the information on BradBlog, the most widely read national blog on election integrity. (I wrote a post there a few weeks ago detailing the latest happenings in court, which gives background for what went on over the last few days.) And I attend the court hearings when I can.

But I have no idea whether or not there has been election fraud in Pima County that has led to falsified election results. No idea. All I know is that the vote counting process we use here is deeply flawed and prone to manipulation by people who might want to rig an election. It's even worse in other places, and we're at the forefront of creating secure and transparent elections, but there are still security holes here big enough to drive a truck through.

The latest battles are over the 2006 RTA election. Put simply, the Pima County Democratic and Libertarian parties want the ballots saved and counted to see if the election was fair or rigged. The Republicans seem like they're ready to come aboard with those who want the ballots counted. The Pima County Supes? It's hard to know what they want.

The apparent upshot of what has happened over the past week and what happened in court today is that Attorney General Terry Goddard plans to take possession of the ballots. Right now they're in the custody of Beth Ford, the Pima County Treasurer. The assumption is, Goddard wants to ship them up to Phoenix.

This is a combination of possible good news and possible very bad news. The possible good news is, Goddard is probably the only person in the state who can order the ballots to be counted, and he's been reluctant to jump in and do something. If this is a first step in the direction of a fair counting of the ballots, this whole mess could be resolved. The possible very bad news is that the delicate chain of custody of the ballots may be broken, which could make their value as evidence, or even their integrity, come into question. If Goddard's intentions are less than honorable and/or the transfer process is sloppy, this move could mean we will be further away from an honest, transparent ballot counting process. The other possible bad news is, the Democratic Party wants to view the poll tapes,which are in the sealed boxes with the ballots. The party is currently in court to get the tapes. Goddard's move may stymie those efforts.

I attended today's hearing and hung around while Bill Risner, the Pima Dem's lawyer, spoke with KOLD News. Here are some reasonably accurate quotes of Risner's comments during the interview:

"The Attorney General is preventing us from continuing our investigation by moving the ballots to Maricopa. It means we won't get to see the poll tapes. . . . The Attorney General has frustrated our investigation at every turn." [Risner believes the poll tapes, which are in the sealed boxes with the ballots, will reveal information that will point to manipulation of the numbers during the vote counting process.]

"There is a considerable effort to keep us from finding out if there has been a crime." [Obviously, election fraud is a very serious crime.]

"Everyone agrees the software used in Pima County elections makes it easy to cheat. We found out that the County used procedures that indicate the possibility that the counting [of the RTA votes] was fixed. . . . Everything we've looked at confirms the possibility that the election was rigged. [Counting] the ballots is the only definitive answer to the question.

Randy Graf, a Republican who ran for House of Representatives against Gabrielle Giffords when she first won the seat, is also involved in the election integrity effort, working together with Democrats and Libertarians. Here are a few comments he made during his interview with KOLD:

"I was working with Republicans a year ago to get the party to be more aggressive on this issue."

"Let's get to the bottom of this so we can ensure that future elections are conducted fairly."

"You've got computers spitting out [election] results, and a stack of ballots. Let's compare the two."

We have a very unusual situation where the three political parties are in substantive agreement that the ballots should be counted, and even the Pima County Supes seem to be in favor of having them counted (when they're not for having the ballots destroyed,anyway). The ball has moved down the field today. The question is, has it moved forward or backward?

Another good Star op ed

by David Safier

I don't know who Alfredo Diaz is, but he sounds like he's worth knowing. The Star describes him as "an entrepreneur in Tucson."

He wrote an op ed that's both a logical and an emotion indictment of the forces in our state willing to balance the budget on the backs of children and others who lack the political clout to fight for themselves.

Here's the thrust of his argument:

During prolonged droughts, when watering holes get smaller and food becomes scarce, wild animals compete for diminishing resources. Survival of the fittest takes over to the point that some animals eat their young to survive.

Similarly, during an economic downturn when resources become scarce, a people's true character and underlying core values are exposed. In a civilized society, the fit (adults in control of the resources) are supposed to protect the weak (children). Fundamentally, that is what makes us civilized.

Unfortunately, Brewer and our elected representatives have chosen to protect the fit at the expense of the weak. They have chosen to balance the budget by making disproportionate cuts in education and other essential services for children while preserving one of the lowest tax burdens in the United States (Arizona ranks No. 41 in total tax burden per capita).

He also brings together a strong bullet point list of facts to bolster his argument. It's worth a read.

What wonderful thing has happened to Kathleen Parker?

by David Safier

Ever since Kathleen Parker jumped conservative ship when she was forced to confront the choice of supporting or renouncing Sarah Palin (she renounced, forcefully), she's been a changed woman. Parker has been ostracized by the conservative establishment and struck out on her own, feeling her way down a new path.

Her op ed in the Star, Crumbling schools in land of plenty, is worth reading, not because she breaks new ground, but because she is Kathleen Parker bemoaning the sorry state of schools in this country, especially those with large populations of African American students.

The column focuses on a school Obama visited during his campaign to spotlight how decrepit the building is. Using an Obama photo op as a starting point gives you some idea of where her allegiances are moving. She says, teachers in schools like this one:

make less than similarly qualified teachers in other districts and fewer have advanced degrees. Not surprisingly, it's hard to recruit teachers to impoverished areas to teach disadvantaged students in collapsing schools without modern equipment.

She continues,

Although most rooms were relatively warm, thanks to recent repairs, some still registered as low as 50 degrees. Four years ago when Ferillo was filming here, the gym was 18 degrees.
In other schools along the I-95 corridor, classroom ceilings have collapsed and sewage backs up in hallways on rainy days. Sometimes snakes wander in from neighboring swamps.

I hope some of the more enlightened among her old readership are looking at her recent work and paying attention to things she's saying, maybe for the first time, because they're not coming out of one of those pointy headed, bleeding heart liberals.

I'm reading her columns pretty regularly now. She's one of the barometers for possible shifts in the political/philosophical landscape of the nation.

I didn't say it

by David Safier

“Even though it is against your principles or philosophy,” he said he believed that officeholders should be doing “what the people want you to do rather than getting stuck in your ideology.”

Arnold Schwarzenneger, at the National Governors' Association Meeting

Wait, there's more.

Unfazed by the attacks from Republicans, Mr. Schwarzenegger said he would try again to win health insurance coverage for all Californians, though it would require new taxes.

Presented without comment (because I don't know what to say)

by David Safier

From the AZ Republic:

Southern Arizona leaders are working on legislation that would let Pima County voters decide if they want to raise sales taxes to build a new stadium and spend money renovating the existing homes of the Arizona Diamondbacks and Colorado Rockies.

[snip]

The plan, sponsored by state Rep. Vic Williams, R-Tucson, asks the Legislature to let Pima County voters decide on creating a sports taxing district similar to the one in Maricopa County. The district then would levy additional sales taxes on hotels, car rentals, restaurants, bars and retail. The tax rate would range from 0.15 to 0.45 percent.

Cutman: "Quick! To the Governor's Office!"

by David Safier

Cutman is worried. He's just found out the Gov, not Cutman, will decide how much of the Stimulus money Arizona will accept and how it will be spent.

He's spurred into action when he hears one of his arch nemeses, Sen. Paula Aboud, say, "Thank God it's in the hands of the governor, not the Legislature." What does Aboud know? What power does she hold over the weak and wavering Brewer?

"This," Cutman says, "does present a problem." Pulling his anti-big government gadget out of his utility belt -- a model of a helpless kitten being held over a bathtub -- and arching his eyebrow, he readies himself to tell the Governor that taking money that requires a contribution from the state is "growing government."

Will Brewer see the danger in time? Will Cutman be able to save the state before it replaces funds for education, DES and health care?

Stay tuned to the continuing adventures of Cutman (and his sidekick from SaddleBrooke, Melvin).

Cognitive Dissonance

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

'Don't tax you, don't tax me. Tax that fellow behind the tree.'

Or in its frequently revised form,

"Don't tax me, don't tax thee, tax that man behind the tree."

This quote from the late Sen. Russell B. Long (D-LA) is essentially the mantra of anti-tax conservatives.

It must result in some serious cognitive dissonance, i.e., the uncomfortable feeling of tension which comes from holding two conflicting thoughts in the mind at the same time. For example:

I want the best equipped and best trained policemen to protect me from "those other people" I unfortunately have to live with in this community;

    But I don't want to pay taxes for it.

I want the best equipped and best trained firefighters and emergency medical technicians at the ready to save my property or save my life at a moment's notice;

    But I don't want to pay taxes for it.

I want a court system that is staffed by highly trained professionals, and that is fast, efficient and renders justice;

    But I don't want to pay taxes for it.

I want to be assured that the prison system will keep those "really bad people" behind bars and that they will never escape so they can never threaten me or my family;

    But I don't want to pay taxes for it.

I want the best equipped and best trained teachers in my neighborhood public schools to provide my children with a top quality education;

    But I don't want to pay taxes for it.

I want my children to attend a prestigious state university that will prepare them with a world class education which will enable them to compete and to be successful in an ever-changing global economy;

    But I don't want to pay taxes for it.

I want to be certain that the water I drink is safe to drink, and the food I purchase is safe to eat;

    But I don't want to pay taxes for it.

I want to drive on roads that are smooth ribbons of asphalt free of defects, and that the traffic lights will always be green for me so that I never have to wait in traffic;

    But I don't want to pay taxes for it.

I want to enjoy recreation in the public parks, and the parks will always be clean and safe and accessible to me;

    But I don't want to pay taxes for it.

I want to have my cake and eat it too!

It is sometimes said that taxes are insurance against revolution. Actually, taxes are the membership fee to live in a civilized society with an orderly government. The alternative is chaos and anarchy.

A tale of two meetings

by David Safier

What's the difference between these two meetings being held today?

Here's the first.

The state teachers union will hold a closed-door meeting today in Tucson with a very specific rule: No Democrats allowed.

The Arizona Education Association, often accused of being tilted to the left, says it wants to encourage dialogue between Republican state lawmakers and Republican teachers.
That means no Democrats.

Here's the second.

FLOWERS to the Southern Arizona's legislative Democrats who are holding a town hall meeting this morning. Sen. Manny Alvarez, D-Elfrida, Rep. Pat Fleming, D-Sierra Vista, and Rep. Nancy Young Wright, D-Tucson, will meet with constituents from 10 a.m. to noon at the Wheeler Taft Abbett, Sr. Library branch, 7800 N. Schisler Drive in Marana.

A closed door meeting with Republican legislators, and an everyone invited meeting with Dems.

Anyone remember Bush's carefully screened town meetings?

Now, I understand why the AEA scheduled the Rs only meeting. It wants the Republicans who voted to cut education to hear the concern about the cuts from people in education who usually vote for them. It's an attempt to make the budget cutters understand that the objections are bipartisan. I wanted to crash the party and listen, but as a teacher's union member my entire professional life, I won't do anything to get in the way of the AEA's attempts to create avenues of communication with legislators who are suspicious of the union's motives.

But tell me, when was the last time any of our local Republican legislators have held an open town hall meeting with constituents in their district? I haven't heard of any since the election.

"Majority leadership wants to move away from public education"

by David Safier

This to me is a very, very significant moment. One of the non-secret secrets in the legislature is that many Republicans want to dismantle public education. Not all, mind you, but many of them. Last week, a member of the Republican Senate Staff let the privatization cat out of the conservatives' bag. The non-secret is secret no longer.

A group of Tucson area parents, retirees and educators went to Phoenix last week to protest the budget cuts and talk with legislators. Among the people they spoke with was Javan Mesnard, the Senate Majority (read, Republican) Staff Policy Advisor. Here, according to members of the group, is how the encounter went. (Note: The portions in quotation marks are word-for-word quotes. Other parts are close paraphrases of what Mesnard said, but the participants can't be sure they are word for word.)

As the conversation grew more heated (and the original meeting dispersed), the Majority Staff member [Mesnard] became very open about the Senate leadership's priorities for education.
He told us succinctly that "We have the House.  We have the Senate. We have the Governor's office." And – like it or not –ideologically the Majority Leadership wants to move away from public education towards charter and private schools because they perceive it to "be less expensive for the state."

When a TUSD parent asked him how we could reconcile this stance with the fact that private schools are not and cannot be held accountable for how they spend taxpayer money, the staffer replied (and this is a direct quote): "We. Don't. Care." He went on to say that as long as the move to private schools can reduce the state's financial obligation towards education and "produce results", then financial accountability was not their concern.

When he said, "We. Don't. Care," he chopped the air with his hand in time to the words to emphasize his point.

There, in a nutshell, is the anti-public education stance of the Republican leadership. I'm not sure who the person is to do it, but someone needs to ask members of the Republican legislature whether they agree with their Policy Advisor's statement. Likely candidates would be journalists with the clout to have their questions answered and the circulation to get the issue out. I'm thinking Daniel Scarpinato at the Star, Howard Fischer whose articles about the capitol are picked up by a number of Arizona papers, the very influential Arizona Capitol Reports and the new and excellent Arizona Guardian.

Who is going to pick this up and follow it through? I will be happy to give any of them the contact information of the people who wrote the words I quoted.

The best story you'll read today

by David Safier

The headline promises a whole lot, but I'll tell you what. If you read a better story today, send it to me, because I want to read it too.

The story is about a 90 year old woman named Estelle Manorek who lives in New Jersey. She had never gone to high school, until this week.

You have to watch the video. You can also read the article that goes with it.

The local angle is, she's Andrea Dalessandro's mother. If you don't know Andrea, she ran -- and ran, and ran -- for LD-30 state rep last election and lost in a "safe Republican district," pulling more votes than anyone imagined was possible for a Dem in LD-30.

Financial circumstances prevented Estelle from attending high school, not lack of ability. According to Andrea, "My mother graduated first in her 8th grade class at St. Anthony's School in Jersey City, NJ." Her skills and interests? "She's bilingual, a voracious reader and opera fan. She went to the Metropolitan Opera House once with me and was able to discuss libretto with other attendees."

The next time anyone knocks our public education system, think about the fact that it would be virtually impossible for a woman like Estelle not to attend high school today. When she was high school age in the 1930s, only about 30-40% of the kids attended high school. Today it's in the 80% range.

If anyone says to you, "Back then, kids knew how to behave in school, unlike today," ask them if today's high school kids would be better behaved if 50% of them weren't in school. We have never attempted to educate as many people as we do today. Never. We have this idealistic vision of universal education, and naturally we're having all kinds of problems trying to achieve it.

Anyone want to go back to the days when Estelle Manorek didn't go to school?

The "Stop the Insanity: Restore Democracy" Campaign

Dateline 2.20.09 by AzBlueMeanie

Series

(War correspondent AzBlueMeanie is embedded with the Freedom Fighters of the Arizona Democratic Resistance in the occupied state of Arizona. This dispatch is filed from an undisclosed location within the liberated territories of Baja Arizona)

Our neighbor to the west, California, finally passed a budget plan on Thursday after weeks of being held hostage by the anti-tax and anti-government GOP Taliban. California, like Arizona, has a provision of law which requires a two-thirds super majority vote to increase taxes or to reduce or eliminate tax exemptions or tax credits. The GOP Taliban held just enough seats in the state senate to hold up the budget deal negotiated by a Republican governor and the Democratic and Republican leadership of the California Assembly. The GOP Taliban had gone so far as to remove their own senate leader on Wednesday, the closest thing to a public execution by the GOP Taliban, for having had the temerity to agree to a budget deal that included new taxes. The GOP Taliban rallied around their "no new taxes" pledge, swearing fealty to their oath of loyalty to their leader, Grover Norquist.

The budget plan must now be approved by California voters in a special election in May.

The Los Angeles Times, a conservative newspaper, nonetheless was extremely harsh in its asessment of the conduct of the GOP Taliban The end is near!:

Republicans still cling tenaciously to the third of each house they must retain in order to stay relevant. But they know that in four years, or eight, they could lose it. This budget battle may be their last opportunity for sweeping structural changes while they still have leverage far out of proportion to their numbers.

Yet to the extent that California Republican lawmakers articulate a vision for the state -- and they seldom do, except to demand lower taxes and less regulation -- it's not shared by voters, who consistently demand environmental protection, high-quality higher education, first-rate (and free) roads and freeways, and a competent network of hospitals.

A steadfast belief in Armageddon may be self-fulfilling, and California is now witnessing the beginning of the end -- an avoidable economic collapse, as construction projects to build things we need and to inject money into the economy come to a halt, and as Sacramento's ineptitude and Republican intransigence obliterate confidence and dissuade investment. This is self- inflicted self-destruction, a fiscal apocalypse foisted on the state by a nihilistic Republican minority.

The bitter budget battle has inspired a progressive uprising in California. The Courage Campaign is an online organizing network for over 600,000 grassroots and netroots activists who push for progressive change in California. About the Courage Campaign

The Courage Campaign has begun a "Stop the Insanity: Restore Democracy to California" campaign to repeal the two-thirds super majority law. As described on its web page Stop the insanity: Sign the pledge to repeal the 2/3rds rule:

California is in crisis - and Republicans are using it as an opportunity to advance their radical right-wing agenda.

The rule requiring a 2/3rds vote of the legislature to pass a budget allowed a small cabal of extremist Republicans led by Senator Abel Maldonado to hold the state hostage to their demands, as they have done year after year. As Rachel Maddow explained on her show, this is part of a pattern of Republican obstruction across America.

We have to stop the insanity. The only way this madness will end is if we eliminate the 2/3rds rule.

Please join the Courage Campaign and CREDO Mobile in signing the pledge to repeal the 2/3rds rule. Then forward this link to your friends:

We, the undersigned, are united in our determination to fix California's government and stop those who use the 2/3rds rule to hold public services, public workers, and Californians hostage to their demands.

We pledge to repeal the 2/3rds rule and restore democracy to California.

To all of the progressive organizations in Arizona, the time has come for you to form your own chapter (or version) of the Courage Campaign and organize to "Stop the Insanity: Restore Democracy to Arizona" by repealing the two-thirds super majority constitutional provision, Article 9, Section 22 of the Arizona Constitution (Prop. 108, 1992). It is the only way to end the madness of the GOP Taliban holding this state hostage to their "no new taxes" pledge, which prevents any substantive discussion of comprehensive tax reforms that are badly needed and long overdue in this state.

There have been some very preliminary discussions of an initiative to repeal Article 9, Section 22 (Prop. 108). I am told that our Democratic leadership is lukewarm to hostile to the idea because they fear this measure would only turn out the GOP Taliban on election day. (Hence, the "Courage" Campaign - get some). In case the leadership has not been paying attention, the GOP Taliban always turn out and they're not voting for Democrats.

But Democratic voters and the equally large number of independent or no party affiliation voters will vote for this intiative in order to save public education and health care programs in this state, and to restore sanity to the Legislature. By the time the November 2010 election rolls around, the GOP Taliban butchers will have turned the Legislature into a slaughterhouse killing off every useful government program that does not directly benefit the Ayatollahs of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce. These butchers will be soaked in the blood of innocents. And the voters of this state are going to be enraged and seeking to exact revenge on the GOP Taliban butchers who are responsible. There will never be a better time or opportunity to repeal this undemocratic and highly destructive law.

What's it going to be Gov, "yes" or "no"?

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

There is an interesting provision included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

Our accidental governor, Jan Brewer, is going to have to go on the record whether she will accept the federal stimulus money or not. If she declines the stimulus money (an act of political suicide when the state has a $3 billion deficit gap to close), the Legislature can overrule her decision. Some of our ideologically deranged legislators have already said that they would decline the stimulus money because there are federal "strings attached."

This puts Jan Brewer in a box - does she agree to accept the stimulus money and incur the wrath of the ideological extremists in her own party (and draw a primary opponent), or does she stay true to her old form and behave like the ideological extremist she always was when she served in the Legislature and decline the stimulus money, incurring the wrath of Arizona's taxpayers? What is more important Governor: ideological purity and loyalty to the GOP, or doing what is in the best interests of the state of Arizona?

The political reporters who read this blog should be asking the Governor "what's it going to be Gov, "yes" or "no"? Jan Brewer must go on the record. Please publish her response.

From 'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' for Thursday, February 19

Four, possibly five Republican governors, each with dreams of being on the presidential ticket in 2012, are talking about not accepting money for projects in their state, money from the stimulus plan.

Putting their national partisan future desires ahead of their constituents‘ bipartisan immediate needs.  To say nothing of the reality gaps, state lawmakers in each case could overrule them and take the money anyway.

The chairman of the Republican Governors Association, Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina, has led this charge among certain GOP governors against the stimulus, quoting, “The spending plan will prove to be an absolute disaster. The bottom line is, it‘s horrible.” Today, Sanford did confess that being against the plan, quote, “doesn‘t preclude taking the money.”

Governor Sanford‘s prior bloviation on this, actually inspired a special provision in the stimulus bill, Democratic Congressman James Clyburn included language that basically forces governors to publicly accept or decline the federal aid. The provision then empowers the state‘s legislature to accept the money even if the governor does not.

So, certain Republican governors can take the time to complain about the so-called “strings” attached to the money even when their states are experiencing crashing shortfalls in balancing their budgets—like Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, his state faces a budget gap of more than $1.5 billion next year. Governor Rick Perry of Texas, quoting, “We need the freedom to say ‘No thanks.‘” And Governor Haley Barbour of Mississippi.

It is no coincidence that many of these governors may be presidential or vice-presidential contenders in 2012 including Governor Palin, who also griped about the stim. “I wish he,” that would be the president, “would veto it and send it back until our lawmakers can read it and know what‘s in it.” We‘re holding our breath on that.

Naming names

by David Safier

Just so you know, the AZ Republic lists these 39 legislators as having signed a "No New Taxes" pledge:

In the Senate: Sylvia Allen, Bob Burns, Pamela Gorman, Ron Gould, Chuck Gray, Linda Gray, Jack Harper, John Huppenthal, Barbara Leff, Al Melvin, Russell Pearce, Steve Pierce, Jay Tibshraeny and Thayer Verschoor.

In the House: Kirk Adams, Frank Antenori, Cecil Ash, Ray Barnes, Nancy Barto, Andy Biggs, Tom Boone, Judy Burges, Sam Crump, Adam Driggs, David Gowan, Laurin Hendrix, John Kavanagh, Bill Konopnicki, Debbie Lesko, Steve Montenegro, Rick Murphy, Warde Nichols, Doug Quelland, Carl Seel, David Stevens, Andy Tobin, Jerry Weiers, Jim Weiers, Steve Yarbrough.

All Republicans, in case you had any doubts.

The State Taxpayer Protection Pledge, as it is called, comes from Americans for Tax Reform. On the website, it says, "ATR was founded in 1985 by Grover Norquist at the request of President Reagan." A man who wants to drown government in the bathtub is dictating how our government runs.

Any questions?

From the mouth of Chris Matthews

by David Safier

Here's an interesting observation Chris Matthews made on Hardball Tuesday about right wing "think tanks." He's speaking specifically about the probability Scooter Libby will be given a lifetime Senior Fellowship position to reward him for the sword he took for his Vice President (and to keep him quiet), but the concept has a wider scope.

Rick, this is what the right wing does. They create these Heritage Foundations and American Enterprise Institutes on the Hudson and the Hudson Institute. They just sit around raising money, right wing money, to keep these guys in senior fellowships, so they're ready to write op-ed pieces to fill the pages of the “Wall Street Journal.”

That's what they do all day, isn't it? It‘s a big money scheme to spend enough money to keep these guys typing, so that the right wing stuff keeps coming out in the “Wall Street Journal” and some times the “Washington Post” and the “New York Times.”

These foundations and institutes hire very bright folks paid for by lots of right wing money, and their job is to put together intelligent sounding material that twists the truth a bit, then distorts it further, then bends it to the breaking point. Very clever folks. I have nothing but admiration for their intellects. Too bad they can't find more constructive (or should I say less destructive?) ways to spend their time.

That goes for right wing Institutes here in our own state of Arizona as well, of course. (Hat tip to AZ Blue Meanie.)

Interesting observation on conservatives and taxes

by David Safier

A piece of commentary by Joe Brewer (I don't know the name) on the truthout website has a very interesting analysis about how conservatives get people to accept their idea that taxes are harmful and government doesn't work.

This passage is overly simplistic, but it's a very interesting analysis of how Republicans prove government doesn't work by making sure it doesn't work:

The reason many people accept conservative claims about taxation and government is that they hold up for many common experiences, especially when conservatives are in control of the government. Conservative officials enact policies that make life worse for people while claiming that things will get better. Then they draw upon these negative experiences to advance their agenda. No Child Left Behind is an excellent example. The strategy works like this (a more detailed analysis can be found here):
1. Declare that the agenda is to "improve" public education.
2. Pass legislation that cripples public schools.
3. Cry out for "reform" when people see how bad our schools are doing.
4. Get rid of public schools and replace them with private schools, especially schools that teach conservative ideology (e.g. elite charter schools, religious schools, etc.).

Here's a short, cogent, and again overly simplistic analysis of the meaning of the phrase "tax cuts" when it comes from a conservative.

"tax relief" and "tax cuts" are just code words for destroying the capacity of government to serve the public.

The Jan Scam Tax Plan

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

David Safier has done an excellent job of reporting on the developing plan of our accidental governor, Jan Brewer, to hold a special election later this spring to "let the voters decide" on various tax and spending issues. I will add some additional comments.

Let's begin with the obvious. If Arizona does not have enough money in the budget for essential government services, then it does not have money in the budget for an unnecessary and costly special election that will not even begin to address the fundamental problem of our state budget: an outmoded tax structure that is badly out of balance and overly dependent upon the regressive use tax (sales tax). Jan's plan reportedly is to "temporarily" increase the state sales tax, which will only make the state even more dependent upon this regressive sales tax. Really? That's your plan Jan?

The plan almost certainly will not include repealing any of the numerous special interest tax exemptions from the state sales tax, and almost certainly will not include repealing or reducing any special interest income tax credits (for private school tuition and after school programs, for example) that are sacred cows to the GOP. Repealing tax exemptions and income tax credits would bring in about the same amount of tax revenue as an increase in the sales tax, but the special interests will never permit their sacred cows to be subjected to the whim of the voters. (Voter approved measures cannot be reversed by an act of the Legislature).

Repealing the 2006 income tax rate reductions will not be permitted to appear on the ballot either. Nor will restoring Arizona's state property tax, or even retaining the presently suspended state equalization property tax (for school construction). Arizona's excessive business property tax on equiment cannot be addressed without first offsetting this tax revenue through other taxes. Arizona's motor vehicle registration fee is completely out of whack with what other states do but cannot be addressed without first offsetting this tax revenue through other taxes as well. The state gas tax can be increased, but it is currently a dedicated tax for road construction and maintenance only.

Then there are the lame excuses given for calling a costly special election in the first place. According to the Arizona Daily Star AZ legislators are cautious on sales-tax election talk:

Taking the issue to the ballot is likely the only way to make it happen.

It requires the votes of two-thirds of lawmakers to increase taxes, and more than a third of lawmakers have signed "no new taxes" pledges.

Sending the issue to the ballot, however, needs only a simple majority. And punting the issue to voters could prove more politically acceptable.

Let's take each of these lame excuses one at a time. I have previously addressed the two-thirds super majority rule in Goo-Goos Gone Bad: " Prop. 108 (1992). This measure amended the Constitution to require a two-thirds super majority vote of the legislature to pass any increase in taxation levels or a reduction in credits and exemptions." If you want to call a special election Jan, then simply put the repeal of this undemocratic and highly destructive constitutional provision on the ballot. Repealing this provision would restore to the Legislature the fiscal tools it needs to enact badly needed and long overdue comprehensive tax reforms by a simple majority vote.

I have also previously addressed the irresponsible "no new taxes pledge" in Enemies of the State. Arizona Republicans who have sworn their allegiance to Grover Norquist and his Americans for Tax Reform are more afraid of facing a primary challenger from the rabid right-wing fringe of their party for violating this irresponsible tax pledge and being targeted for defeat by Grover Norquist and his Americans for Tax Reform (and the Club for Growth) than they are concerned about honoring their oath of office and performing their constitutionally prescribed duties. Their own partisan political self-interest takes precedence over the best interests of the state of Arizona.

"Punting" the issue to voters for political cover is the hallmark of political cowardice. We have a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. We pay our legislators (sort of) to make hard choices and to make decisions for us - that is what we elect them to do. There have been far too many initiatives and referendums on the ballot in recent elections because our cowardly legislators do not want to make the hard choices and be held accountable by their constituents. "Don't blame me, blame the voters, they're the ones who voted for it" is their lame defense. Arizonans may as well institute a form of direct democracy by setting up a "vote by phone" system to allow the citizens of Arizona to vote directly on issues like they do for their favorite American Idol contestant. Why do we even have a Legislature if it is not going to do its job?

The real reason for this special election, however, is more nefarious. It is not about raising the sales tax (Jan knows this will be rejected by the voters). No, this is really about convincing the voters to remove the legal protections from voter approved special funds so that the Legislature can raid the special funds. As reported by the Arizona Republic Governor may put a tax hike to the voters:

The state's fiscal woes are compounded by the 1998 Voter Protection Act. It requires a three-quarters vote of the state House and Senate before lawmakers can make changes to laws approved at the ballot, and any change may only "further the intent" of Arizona voters.

That means voter-approved initiatives such as First Things First are largely off-limits to legislative cuts. In 2006, First Things First succeeded in getting Arizona voters to approve an increase in tobacco taxes to fund a series of programs for early-childhood education. As of the end of fiscal 2008, the programs had more than $230 million in their coffers - funding now being eyed by Brewer's allies and legislators looking for alternatives to deeper cuts in other state services.

* * *

If the ballot proposal being pondered by the Governor's Office was approved by voters, legislators would have access to the First Things First funding, as well as other voter-approved ventures ranging from land conservation to the state's Clean Elections system.

Finally, Arizona has a "single subject" rule for ballot measures. This means that voters would be presented with a "cafeteria plan" of confusing ballot options. Conceivably the passage of any one ballot measure could be made contingent upon the passage of another ballot measure so that the defeat of any one measure would spell defeat for the entire plan. Alternatively, voters may selectively protect certain special funds from being raided by the Legislature and not others and reject the sales tax increase, which would leave the state still short of tax revenues. So what was the point of the special election? The cost of the special election would only have put the state even further into the hole.

All in all, the Jan scam tax plan is a terrible idea. Arizona will not solve its budgetary problems until our Legislature decides to get serious about enacting badly needed and long overdue comprehensive tax reforms. But our Republican legislators are ideologically opposed to "do the right thing." And there, dear Brutus, is where the fault lies.

Why do Republican legislators hate Arizona?

by David Safier

I shouldn't have read the Star story about cuts to DES this early in the morning. I should have waited until a few cups of coffee strengthened my emotional defenses against this kind of thing.

The story's headline is, Agency aiding kids slashes staff: State cuts pare 63 jobs in program that helps babies, at-risk families.

Opening paragraph:

An agency that helps at-risk families in Tucson and across Arizona laid off 63 employees Tuesday, a loss that cuts deeply into a program that helps protect newborn babies.

It just gets worse when you get into the details:

A majority of the agency's cuts were in Southern Arizona communities, he said, "where services are already limited." There were 19 employees laid off in Tucson. The agency now has 198 employees statewide, in offices including Yuma and Bullhead City as well as Sierra Vista, Douglas, Safford and Nogales.

[snip]

[Eric E. Schindler, president of the Tucson-based Child & Family Resources Inc.] said his agency is bracing for more bad news, too, as DES also has announced plans to cut child-care subsidies for the "working poor." The agency also announced other cuts Tuesday.

[snip]

"We will see more children who are in need and there will be no services for them. We will see children who are left home alone because their parents cannot afford child care while they work," [Penelope Jacks, director of the Southern Arizona office of the Children's Action Alliance] said.

"Honestly, I think we are going to see more children die."

[snip]

The cuts also will impact the agency's Choices for Families program, which is similar to Healthy Families but focuses on children of all ages who are in at-risk homes.

OK, Rep. Kavanagh, it's time for some disparaging comments about all these Boys Crying Wolf. I'm waiting for you to tell us the cuts won't be fatal to the children affected by the cuts. They'll only become a little sicker and a little more abused. [UPDATE: Looks like Gould decided to field this one, not Kavanagh in another Star article about the DES cuts: "You try to make it look like the cuts you receive are really extreme," Sen. Ron Gould of Lake Havasu City said. "We see a lot of that political grandstanding going on now."]

I'm beginning to believe what I've heard some people say, that for conservative pro-Lifers, life ends at birth.

"Budget cuts are the only item on the table," the Rs said as they slashed services. Let it be on their heads.

Matthew Ladner and I mix it up again

by David Safier

Matthew Ladner of the Goldwater Institute has made some detailed comments on a few of my recent posts, An interesting Number and More Fool's Gold: Ed tax credits save us money. I, of course, have responded and am waiting for what he has for me next.

Once again, I foolishly rush into the fray armed with my MacBook, my year's of teaching experience, my reading about education and my wits. Matthew Ladner has a PhD, the force of G.I. behind him as well as years of experience researching and writing on these subjects.

Despite the odds, I feel like I'm holding my own. At one point, Mr. Ladner actually complimented me on my intellectual honesty because I conceded that the legislation that creates the corporate tuition tax credits (as opposed to the individual tax credits) is well written and probably even saves the state money on balance. That doesn't mean I approve of educational tax credits, but I think this bill has reasonable restrictions attached to how the private school scholarships can be given out.

I accept the compliment and am willing to return it the first time I see Mr. Ladner admit that the other side -- my side -- may win some small part of the argument now and then. But maybe he's all right all the time, in his world.

If you want to read a fair fight on education between two windy guys, go to the comments on those two posts. And please, feel free to chime in.

Republican Legislators: Read our lips, no new taxes

by David Safier

It seems the Republican legislators have shot down Brewer's trial balloon about letting the voters decide if they want to tax themselves.

Here are some of their comments.

"Government is bloated. The bureaucracy is bloated." Senate President Pro Tempore Thayer Verschoor

 You don't get out of debt by more spending." Sen. Russell Pearce, chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee

[Because a sales tax increase will mean people will go out of state to make major purchases], "My merchants won't be able to make a living because a bad decision by the Legislature would have driven their business into other states." Sen. Ron Gould, Lake Havasu

[I would] "feel terrible if someone lost their home because I raised their taxes in an effort to make the government solvent." Sen. Chuck Gray, Senate majority leader

My personal favorite is Verschoor's comment about all the government and bureaucratic bloat,though I'm rather fond of hearing the compassion expressed by Gould and Gray, worrying about the people who would be driven out of their homes and businesses by a tax hike. What about the kids whose education is shorted or the people without health care? "Nothing to see here folks. Move along."