Blog For Arizona

Populism Consuming Representative Democracy

By Michael Bryan

Tucson's ballot initiative to peg the ratio of emergency personnel to population seems to me to be the latest iteration of populist discontent being cynically used to snatch at political power while denigrating and disempowering representative democracy.

Too frequently over the past few decades we have seen progressive institutions such as the ballot initiative used to tie the hands of representative government. There are many examples of extremely unwise, but politically facile policy created using populist sentiments: the Prop 13 property tax freeze in California and the disastrous Taxpayer's Bill of Rights arbitrarily limiting the growth of government expenditures in Colorado being chief among them.

In each case, what seems like an easy fix for the difficult and messy business of governance is sold as patent medicine for what ails the body politic. Only later does it become apparent the snake oil contains toxic waste.

There are no easy answers or simple formulas for good governance. Wise policy requires democratic debate and tough deliberation over alternatives, not simplistic slogans and expedient but static 'fixes'.

Every time that the populists tout their latest gee-wiz gew-gaw, they chip away at the power and accountability of representative democracy. By taking the power to make policy and actually govern out of the hands of our elected representatives, we only assure that the accountability and esteem of our elected representatives will further decline.

This latest iteration of this populist disease is the Public Safety First! initiative. By arbitrarily requiring a particular ratio of emergency personnel to population, the representative system by which public preferences for such matters ought to be expressed is bypassed. The fact that all the Republican challengers support this attempt to remove public safety decisions from the very democratically elected body they are seeking to become members of should tell you something about their opinion of the institution, and their philosophy of government.

What gets lost in all the rhetoric about crime in Tucson is that Arizona's communities already spend the most per capita of any state in the nation on crime control, save Nevada. Our communities already struggle under a high financial burden, yet those supporting Prop 200 would have us spend even more in vain.

Reductions in crime will not come from more police and more courts and more prisons. Effective crime control will come from better education, more economic opportunity, a vital civic community, and strong families. Prop 200 does nothing to pursue those goals; indeed, it only assures that less resources are available for those priorities.

The last thing we should do is hand representative political power to those who do not value or respect it, or worse, advocate to strip our democratic institutions of their powers. We cannot fix complex social problems with the blunt instruments of funding formulas and populist slogans. 

It is the American way to solve our problems by confronting them as a free and democratic society, served by those among us who are genuinely interested in coming together to debate and negotiate the best solutions possible. Representative democracy is a wonderful and powerful institution, we mustn't allow rank populist rage to bleed it of its vitality.

Tuition tax credit expenditures far exceed estimates

by David Safier
The East Valley Trib has brought more information into the discussion in its article on the tuition tax credit task force hearings.

First, in the original selling of the tax credits, the cost was low-balled big time.

Materials presented to the panel by [House staff economist Mark] Bogart indicate the Legislature dramatically underestimated how much the program would cost the state when the law was approved. At that time, the Joint Legislative Budget Committee noted the cost to the state’s general fund would be about $4.5 million in fiscal year 1999.

Donations for 2008 totaled $55 million.

Other predictions for the credits have either gone unproved or been disproved. The program was supposed to save the state money, because students who otherwise would have used taxpayer dollars in public schools would use less state money to go to private schools.

But Bogart said no audit has ever been done by the state to determine if such savings really occurred.

And if the $55 million was saving the public schools money, you'd expect to see a jump in private school enrollment to indicate students were using the money to leave public schools. Didn't happen.

. . . enrollment in Arizona’s public schools has boomed since the tax credit took effect — 1.14 million students in 2007-08, compared to 867,135 in 1999.

Private school enrollment has grown from 44,710 in 1999 to 51,590 in 2007-08.

I did the math. Enrollment in public schools went up about 31%. Private school enrollment went up %15. Private school enrollment actually decreased as a percent of the student population. Not exactly a lot of bang for the 55 million bucks.

Star editorial on tuition tax credits

by David Safier
The Star wrote a strong editorial on the tuition tax credit abuse story, summarizing the findings in earlier Republic and Trib articles and calling for more regulation. As a matter of fact, the editorial takes the argument one step further, wondering if there is still a need for the tax credits in light of the abundance of charter schools.

Lawmakers should also keep in mind that Arizona's education scene is much different than it was in 1997 when the private tuition tax credits were approved.

In the ensuing years, charter schools have exploded. Parents have more choice among public schools than they did more than a decade ago.

The educational landscape of Arizona has changed. It is time for lawmakers to examine the private school tuition tax credit program, how much money it saps from the general fund and how far afield it has strayed from its intent of creating a way for low-income kids to go to better schools than they found in their own neighborhoods.

This is an incredibly important point. In a sense, charter schools bridge the gap between traditional public and private schools. Students can attend schools set up on different operating principles with alternative curricula and emphases -- similar, in other words, to private schools -- within the public school system by enrolling in charters. Actually, the only thing prohibited from charter schools that you can find in private schools is religion.

Here's an incredibly important fact I want to add. About 80% of Arizona's private schools are religious schools, just like the rest of the country. So when government money goes to private school tuition, whether as straight vouchers or as backdoor vouchers tuition tax credit scholarships, the biggest chunk is going to religious education. I find that a misuse of government money, and I think, in the long run, it could harm the autonomy of the religious schools. Both church and state stand to lose in the arrangement.

NOTE: Praise to the Star editorial department for the editorial, but shame once again to the news team, which once again ignored the issue. It's straight reporting to cover yesterday's task force meeting. Both the Trib and the Republic covered the hearings. The Star? The reportorial silence was deafening -- though the paper did find space to cover a computer virus at TUSD (no, I'm not kidding) and the heat distribution in Phoenix (once again, not kidding).

More reporting about tuition tax credits

by David Safier
The Republic has been doing some excellent reporting on tuition tax credits lately. Today's article plows some new ground.

The main point is, the 5 other states that have similar tax credit laws have far more restrictions built into them than we do.

For instance, in Arizona, we have no reporting that tells us the total amount of scholarship money that goes to each student or the family's income level. Florida -- Florida! -- does a much better job.

Officials there know how many low-income students from each school district receive scholarships, including their race and gender. The students are identified by name to the state and cross-checked for financial eligibility.

Florida also requires annual academic reviews of recipients to determine if the program is aiding achievement. Arizona does not for either of its tax-credit programs.

Florida's lengthy requirements, which run more than 5,400 words, have not hindered school choice, said Jon East, a spokesman for Step Up for Students, Florida's largest tuition organization.

"I would say they are entirely reasonable," he said. "This is money that would otherwise be in the state treasury. People have a right to know how the money is spent."

The article has a clear, informative table if you want the details:

Tuition tax credit task force meeting

by David Safier
The task force on tuition tax credits met in Phoenix this morning. I was only able to catch the last 20 minutes of the 2 hour session. (Actually I was in front of my computer the whole time with the video viewer up but didn't know I had to hit the button again once the session started. But it would be too embarrassing to say that out loud. I just what? Damn!)

The part I caught was mostly conversation between the legislators. I learned that Rich Crandall, who's the Republican chair of the House Education Committee, is going to do his damndest to make sure there is little or no reform of tuition tax credits.

For instance, he likes the idea of "earmarks," meaning people should be able to specify what child the credit money goes to. If the kid is willing to hustle to get that money, he said, then s/he deserves it. As if it was like a Girl Scout selling cookies door to door. Uh uh, Rich, you know better than that. It's the parents who hustle up tax credit money, not the kids. And mainly parents with financial means, since they're the most likely to know people who are going to have the income to take the credit in the first place. So the recipient of the biggest bucks -- bucks that would otherwise go into the state coffers -- tend to be the families with the highest income.

As a matter of fact, Crandall doesn't see why parents shouldn't be able to "earmark" tax credits for their own kids. Except that's what they call illegal. It's not a tax deductible contribution if you benefit directly. As a matter of fact, no one can actually "earmark" the money now. You can only "recommend" your credit dollars go to a certain child. By law, the STO has to make the final decision -- which happens to be to honor the donor's recommendation in most cases.

And for that matter, it's OK by Crandall for the child to get scholarships from multiple STOs, if the kid is willing to hustle. So between "earmarks" and multiple scholarships, I guess there's no problem with a child getting a full private school ride on the taxpayer's dime. Actually, that's the conservative dream. They call it "school choice" or "market based education." Most people call it "vouchers."

And means testing? Be careful with that, Crandall says. After all, a 6 figure income really isn't that much for some people. Crandall himself has 7 children (I think that's the number he said), so he needs more income than most to make ends meet.

Fair enough. But means testing generally takes the number of people in the family into account. For instance, for a family of 2 -- single parent and child -- to be on reduced lunch, the maximum yearly income has to be below $27,000. For a family of 9 like Crandall's, the magic number is $75,000. So if tuition tax credit scholarships were linked to income, and it were set at, say, 150% of reduced lunch, Crandall and his wife could make as much as $110,000 a year and still qualify.

Crandall wants to add "transparency" to the law, whatever that means, but otherwise keep things pretty much the way they are.

Did I mention he's the Chair of the House Education Committee?

Tuition tax credit task force meeting

by David Safier
From the Democratic Caucus, AZ House of Representatives:

Task force on private school tax credit program to hold first meeting
 
STATE CAPITOL, PHOENIX – The Bipartisan Task Force on the Private School Tuition Tax Credits program will hold its first meeting this month to look at the program’s problems and reported violations.
 
First Meeting of Bipartisan Task Force on the Private School Tuition Tax Credits program
When: Monday, Sept. 21 at 10 a.m.
Where: State Capitol, House Hearing Room 3
*Task force members will hear from experts on School Tuition Organizations. At a future meeting, the public will have an opportunity to raise concerns and ideas with the task force.
 
“Democrats and Republicans must work together to ensure this program is effective for Arizona’s school children and that it’s not violating state and federal laws in the future,” said Rep. David Schapira, D-Tempe (District 17), the task force’s chair. “Too many questions and concerns have been raised about this program and its reported violations of various laws. We need to take a clear look at it to build education for a stronger Arizona.”
 
House Democrats announced the creation of the task force last month specifically to address the state’s Private School Tuition Tax Credits program problems and work on bipartisan legislation to reform it.
 
Both the Arizona Republic’s investigation and the East Valley Tribune’s investigative series detailed the potentially huge problems and reported illegal activities that come from this tax credit program.
 
The program allows taxpayers to donate money to school tuition organizations, or nonprofit charities. These STOs then give scholarships to children for private school tuition. In return, the state matches the donations with a tax credit in exchange for their contribution.
 
The program was signed into law in 1997 by former Gov. Fife Symington and was supposed to make private education more accessible to families who can't afford it. But so far, that hasn't happened.
 
For instance, according to the Tribune, some STOs reportedly are violating federal tax laws that govern charitable organizations by operating with donations earmarked for particular individuals. They also reportedly are violating state law by not committing a sufficient portion of the donations to students while buying luxury items.
 
Both newspapers' investigative reports can be accessed online at www.eastvalleytribune.com and www.azcentral.com.
 
“The task force will be essential to address this problem and correct it,” said Rep. Nancy Young Wright, D-Tucson (District 26). “Arizonans have seen this go on for far too long and it's time to make sure this program is successful.”
 
In addition to Schapira and Chabin, members of the task force include:
 
House Democratic Whip Chad Campbell
Rep. Nancy Young Wright, D-Tucson (District 26)
Rep. Cloves Campbell, D-Phoenix (District 16)
Rep. Rich Crandall, R-Mesa (District 19)
Rep. Doris Goodale, R-Kingman (District 3)
Rep. Steve Court, R-Mesa (District 18)

Indiana paper warns of Arizona-like tax credits

by David Safier
In another example of the benefits that can come from good investigative journalism, Fort Wayne's Journal Gazette published an editorial today using the East Valley Trib's articles on Arizona's tuition tax credit abuses as a warning for Indiana.

Indiana just passed a tuition tax credit law. It's only $2.5 million, a drop in the bucket next to us, but of concern to the paper's editorial staff.

Indiana’s new program is modest compared to its Arizona counterpart, but it’s the proverbial foot in the door.

The piece calls Arizona "the Wild West of the school choice frontier" and says our tax credit problems are "an example of what to avoid." Not exactly the kind of example we'd like to set here, but consider the legislative makeup of the state.

The editorial goes on to cite examples from the Trib article.

Coincidentally, I'll be referring to a number of excellent articles in the Fort Wayne  paper that delve into some of the problems with Imagine Schools there. A bit of reciprocal Arizona-Indiana journalistic love.

A stimulating budget question

by David Safier
I finally got around to reading Steve Farley's email, posted below by Blue Meanie. It's a depressing document if ever there was one.

It reads like that old joke where someone is consoling a friend about his recent round of bad luck. "Look on the bright side, my friend, it could always be worse." And the next day, sure enough, it was.

According to Farley, along with the rest of the carnage, the Rs plan to pull the plug on the education funding agreed to unanimously on the first day of the special session.

That unanimous agreement we reached on the first day of this special session is completely and utterly betrayed. All increases are rolled back and the draconian cuts of the Republican Legislative budget of June 30 are re-imposed, and K-12 schools would lose their 2% inflation increase for the next three years.

My understanding is, getting stimulus funds for education from the Feds is contingent on the state not cutting education funding. I also seem to remember that the Feds released the stim funds soon after the legislature passed the ed budgeting.

If I've got this wrong, someone please correct me. But if I'm right, don't the Feds have the obligation to yank back the funds, since the state went back on its part of the deal?

Anyone who votes against Southern Arizona shouldn't represent Southern Arizona

by David Safier
Nothin' more to say. The headline says it all.

Call about the AZ budget

by David Safier
Reports are that the Rs, both legislators and the Accidental Guv, are close to agreement on what looks like a horrendous budget, which includes personal and business income tax cuts and a vote for regressive sales taxes. Needless to say, the budget will be slashed to the bone, and when the sales tax measure goes down, which it most likely will, they'll cut still more.

No Dems will be voting for the bill -- I certainly hope I'm right about that -- so they need almost all the Rs on board to pass this thing. I've been told a call to Sen. Jonathan Paton could be especially helpful -- (602) 926-3235. His email is jpaton@azleg.gov.

Of course, feel free to call others.

State has to return candy to baby

by David Safier
Way back in February, the Rs decided to take $7 million from First Things First, a fund created by the voters to pay for childhood education and child health issues. Sure, the fund was approved by voters and so it can't be touched by legislators, but the Rs figured, the $7 million is interest the fund has accrued, not the fund itself, so it's OK to steal it sweep it into the state budget.

As easy as stealing candy from a baby.

Turns out there's a problem. The Arizona Supreme Court ruled the theft sweep was a violation of the State Constitution. So they have to give it back.

Here's the classic comment from the Accidental Guv's spokesman Paul Senseman:

“It certainly makes balancing the budget more difficult.”

Y'know, I had all my credit cards paid off and a few dollars left for a small vacation after I knocked over that bank. If I ever get caught, it's certainly going to put a crimp in my finances.

Stimulus, borrowing and shenanigans

by David Safier
If you read Howard Fischer's article in this morning's Star about Arizona having to borrow $131 million because the feds are holding back stim money, you were probably as confused as I was. It was a "He said, She said, She won't talk" story.

He, Dean Martin, said the fed is stiffing Arizona to get back at Kyl, which will force us to borrow money for schools and pay interest on it we can ill afford.

She, Sandra Abrevaya, spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of Education, said there were concerns Arizona planned to use the money for expenses other than education, which it's not supposed to do.

The other She, the Accidental Guv, isn't talking. She won't take sides. If I'm reading the tea leaves right, Brewer's unwillingness to take a side probably means Martin is trying to score political points and cover his fellow Rs' posteriors at the same time for what is probably a problem within the state, not with the Feds.

Here's an outsider's angle from Education Week, which doesn't need to maintain a pretense at objectivity by treating both sides as if their arguments have equal merit.

The most interesting thing, to me, is how this all started. Turns out, there's a fraud and accountability alert built into the stimulus reporting system that's akin to credit card fraud protection (which often results in a call from your credit card company when a funny charge appears to be going through). Arizona officials, within the last several days, attempted to draw down from their $681 million stimulus allocation more than $400 million—which is an unusually high amount, especially in a state that hadn't drawn down a single dollar of stimulus money so far, says ED's Sandra Abrevaya. That unusually high amount triggered some sort of alert to ED officials, who called Arizona officials to ask what they were using that money for.

Turns out, ED officials say, Arizona wasn't planning to use it for education purposes, as promised in its application and as required by the stimulus law. Instead, state officials planned to use the money to plug general budget holes.

Sounds like Arizona was trying to pull a fast one and the Feds caught them at it. Was this a way for the Rs to pay a few bills while they keep trying to pass some kind of budget? ("Mom, dad, I promise, the money will only go to pay for my tuition. Not a penny will go to my bookies or to pay for next Friday's kegger.") It looks to me like the Feds are trying to keep Arizona honest.

Ignoring the master's voice

by David Safier
Divided allegiances cause all kinds of problems, as beleaguered Senate President Bob Burns is learning.

Before the midnight hour ending the legislative session, Burns thought he could cut a budget deal by passing the Accidental Guv's legislation for a vote on the sales tax. It didn't work out that way. No one else on the committee voted with him.

His answer was to kick R Senators Verschoor and Gorman off the committee.

Americans for Tax Reform -- founded by Grover Norquist, who famously said he wanted to shrink government "down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub" --  is not amused.

In a statement sent to various media outlets and posted on its Web site, ATR said the pair of GOP lawmakers were being punished for “defending taxpayers from a massive tax increase pushed by an unelected governor in the middle of a recession.”

And remember, ATR's No New Tax Pledge, signed by lots of R legislators, trumps all other pledges expressed or implied, like what's best for the people of Arizona.

Arizona's right wingosphere is having a field day with Burns as well. The blogs are lighting up with condemnations.

What's Bob Burns to do?

. . . the attacks strike directly at Burns’ political identity. Since he was first elected to the Legislature in 1988, Burns has earned a reputation as a tough anti-tax conservative.

In fact, that last time the Legislature adopted a tax increase in the early 1990s, Burns, along with Brewer, were among a group of Republicans who voted against that bipartisan effort.

These folks thought they wouldn't have to play politics this session, what with the House, Senate and the Governorship sewn up, and most of the moderates in the party voted out of office. Or "playing politics" would involve fun things like snowing Arizonans and steamrolling Democrats.

Things have gotten more complicated than they bargained for. Too many masters, I guess.

A clear explanation of what happened Monday

by David Safier
I've tried to piece together a picture of what happened in Monday's legislative session, with no more than partial success. "Krysten Sinema's Notes" gives me the clearest picture so far. It's dense and compact but very clear.

July 6th - 4 bills are passed unanimously by the Legislature. #1 - we fund K-12 education at the 2009 level, plus a 2% inflationary rate required by state law. This means schools stay open, class sizes stay reasonable, and teachers are rehired. #2 - we agree to negotiate on 5 smaller "chunks" of funding for K-12 education, with resolution required by October 1st. Until we negotiate an agreement, schools can spend what they've already budgeted in these areas: soft capital, desegregation, career ladder, early kindergarten, excess utilities. The October 1st deadline was self-imposed - if we don't have an agreement by then, schools automatically get full funding in each of these 5 areas. #3 - we make a technical change to state law regarding how local governments pay the state for health care. This was a federally required change in order to qualify for stimulus money to pay for health care. The Governor's veto last week eliminated this "fix" - so we put it back in law. Now we meet the federal requirements for stimulus money. #4 - we adjourned the special session so that "rank and file" members don't have to come to work every day while no formal action is taking place. To have them come to work every day when we don't have an agreement yet simply wastes state money. This change says that legislators will only get paid on the days that we come to work (duh, right?).

Tomorrow - Republican and Democrat leaders in the House and the Senate will meet to set a schedule for our work. We have to negotiate about 70% of the state budget from scratch, and that takes time. We have to redo the budget in several key areas: higher education, health care, social services, and some portions of k-12 education (see above). These areas are the top concern for Democrats, so this is very important to us. This is going to be hard - we have a deficit of about 2 billion right now, and that's a hard hole to fill. So leadership will work on crafting an agreement that everyone can live with. I anticipate that this will be the hardest thing we've ever done at the Legislature.

In the coming weeks - As we work, House Democratic leadership will communicate with our "rank and file" members via phone conferences to make sure that everyone agrees with what we're working on. Once we have a resolution to this budget shortfall, all members will be called back to the Legislature by the Speaker of the House and the Senate President and we'll vote on a budget package.

The game goes on, but mostly in conference, meaning we won't see what's happening, with more back and forth between the parties -- D and R legislators and, I imagine, the Guv. Time will tell the tale.

Brewer: closet liberal union supporter?

by David Safier
Reagan's 11th commandment -- "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican" -- has been broken so many times around Phoenix in the past few weeks, I half expect to see the clouds part and hear a thundering rasp from the Great Communicator: "Keep this up, and I'll give you some Communication where the sun don't shine!"

On his blog, Daniel Scarpinato has put together a wonderful string of insults hurled at our Accidental Guv by the not-so-loyal band of fellow Republicans in the legislature.

As always, my favorites come from Cap'n Al Melvin.

“Frankly, I think she’s doing everything she can for the education community, to the point of pandering.”

[snip]

“She’s criss-crossing the state going to every educational group she can talk to.”

"Educational community" and "educational group," of course, are not-so-subtle references to the ed unions and union-symps, like parents and school administrators and school board members and despicable types like that.

The Cap'n is saying less about Brewer than he is about himself. (Hello there, Dr. Freud.) He feels such antagonism toward the teachers' union and people who want to thwart his plans to cut money from education, he views Brewer's statements in support of education as pandering. I mean, how could she honestly believe schools need money to educate children? She must be up to something.

Ready to shut up, Senator Melvin? Not yet? OK, please continue.

“She’s trying to bend over backwards for them, when I think we’ve done that ourselves. . . . She is catering to them. She is literally throwing us under the bus to do that."

"Throwing us under the bus" is an unfortunate choice of terms. (Welcome back, Dr. Freud.) It seems Melvin is the one wanting to throw Arizona's children under the school bus. And as for the R legislators bending over backwards to fund the schools? It's more like they want the schools to bend forward and "assume the position." ("Ouch! Thank you, sir, may I have another? Ouch! Thank you sir, may I have another?")

“From the beginning I’ve always said that I’m not going to decimate education, or the most vulnerable of our population, and I still maintain that."

An interesting use of the negative: "I'm not going to decimate education." I'll gladly harm it. I'll maim it. I'll even cripple it if I have to. But decimate education? No, I wouldn't do that!

Remember the lines from other Republicans a few weeks ago saying their budget cuts won't cause women and children to die in the streets? Melvin is cut from the same coarse cloth.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you, your Republican legislators.

Did education funding really win?

by David Safier
I've read a bunch of news reports about yesterday's legislative session, but I still have trouble believing it, because I've gotten myself in an all-bad-news-all-the-time groove about the Arizona budget.

It looks like K-12 education went from losing hundreds of millions in funding to gaining $100 million from the 2009 funding levels -- plus 2 percent. I think that's the 2009 levels after the cuts, but still.

That's a big, big win -- or at least it's a major non loss.

OK, let me put my cynical hat back on. This means we may regain our status as 49th in the nation in the amount we spend per student after slipping to 50th. In your face, Utah!

There, that feels better. Don't want to get too happy here.

Huppenthal: more cuts needed

by David Safier
From the Arizona Guardian:

“We made huge adjustments to the ’09 budget, and that shocked the system, so much so that some of our members couldn’t handle the shock,” [Huppenthal] said. “During the course of the past six months, we’ve done an enormous amount of reductions, but it’s not near enough.”

He is hopeful that more lawmakers will be in the proper mindset to make further cuts during the special session.

You. Can't. Make. This. Stuff. Up.

Rude and Ruder

by David Safier
It's been quoted and blogged on many times before this. Now it's my turn. It's Al Melvin's memorable statement about Brewer, referring to her impending veto.

“If she vetoes it, it’s only because she’s in a huff because she didn’t get her sales tax increase."

In a huff. That's so tactfully sexist of you, Al.

I'm not sure if the Captain is a Marx Bros. fan, but if not, he should know that he's stealing from the ultimate rudester. From "Duck Soup":

[Note: if the video doesn't have a scroll bar below it, just click on the image.]

Melvin has nothing on his fellow Rs when it comes to rude. Read AZBlueMeanie's post below this one for examples.

I know this is a bit like an atheist quoting scripture to a religious Christian, but all these "Reagan Republicans" seem to have forgotten Reagan's Eleventh Commandment: "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican."

Ah, well, if upstanding Christian Mark Sanford can break his marriage vows with cavalier abandon, I suppose breaking Reagan's commandment isn't a mortal sin. It's all Obama's fault anyway, of course. By leading the country down the path to ruin, he's made Republicans everywhere throw up their hands and say, "What the Hell." At least that's what Rush tells me.

Who's on first?

by David Safier
In answer to the question, "Can things get any weirder in the legislature?" You ain't seen nothin' yet.

Updates from the Guardian.

Brewer was dropped off by state troopers behind the House earlier this afternoon and dashed up the back stairs with a couple staff members. She then spent the next half-hour or so meeting with individual House Democrats.

But Democratic leaders say it won’t work unless she’s willing to consider major revisions to her budget that reflect their issues.

[snip]

Rep. Krysten Sinema, House Assistant Minority Leader, says for starters they want most of the GOP-backed policy proposals out of the current budget plan.

Protecting public education, health care and public safety over the long term are essential, she said. To that end, Democrats won’t support a flat tax proposal and want to see $250 million in state property tax revenues put back on the books.

Sinema and Sen. Rebecca Rios said House and Senate Democratic leaders worked the last two days to put together a detailed budget options plan which they gave to the governor and legislative leaders last night.

The Democrat plan also proposes hundreds of million of dollars less in cuts to state agencies.

[snip]

As of mid-afternoon Senate Republicans were still opposing any sales tax increase after having killed it earlier in the day.

Sen. John Huppenthal said he doubted there would ever be support for the tax.

“She can veto all the budgets she wants, but she’s never getting a tax referral out of here,” he said.

I saved my two favorite quotes for last. From Ron Gould:

 “No one’s going to die because we shut down government.”

That's the second time I've heard the "nobody's going to die" line from Republicans to show everything will be OK. Nobody dies, so we're all good. I don't even know how to describe people who think that's a reasonable thing to say.

But my all time favorite line is from Krysten Sinema. She said it's possible to come together and create a bipartisan budget.

“Just put on your big-boy pants,” she said. “Lets get to work.”

Krysten, don't we need to potty train a few folks before they go to the big-boy pants?

This is delicious

by David Safier
Here's a marvelous quote from a budget update by Jennifer Loredo that I found on R-Cubed:

One interesting thing happened on the flat tax proposal. Senator Huppenthal amended the bill to create a new tax credit program for teachers for the purchase of classroom supplies. The tax credit would be in an amount up to $1,000 per year for classroom supplies and materials that were purchased by teachers in grades K-12. The stated purposes is “to provide income tax relief for teachers who personally purchase school supplies and materials for use in the classroom.” Before anyone gets excited about this, you need to know that this amendment is nothing more than a political ploy at this point. The flat tax proposal is said to be dead in the water when it goes to the floor for a full Senate vote. This proposal was amended to the flat tax proposal, thus if that main bill fails, the whole flat tax and income tax credit also fails. Keep in mind that Senator Huppenthal has announced his intentions to run for Superintendent of Public Instruction and how better to appeal to teachers to be able to say he personally amended the budget to give them a $1,000 tax credit. It’s the whole bait and switch…be weary and see it for what it is.

Let me pull this apart. Huppenthal is running for Ed Supe. He doesn't want teachers to hate him. Remember, there are lots of Republican teachers in this state and he needs their support. And he doesn't want thousands of teachers out in force going medieval on him during the campaign.

So he says, "Teachers, I feel your pain [which Republicans only do for people who are like them and people they're courting during an election]. Let me make things easier on you. Spend up to $1,000 on classroom supplies, and you'll get it back as a tax credit."

But it will only pass if the flat tax passes. And the flat tax is dead in the water. Which means he can tell people he supports teachers without having to worry about the bill passing.

Loredo has a misspelling in her last sentence which Freud would love. She meant to write "wary." Here's what she wrote instead. "It’s the whole bait and switch…be weary and see it for what it is." Yes, Jennifer, we agree, we're all incredibly weary after the never ending budget battles.