Blog For Arizona

Meet Sydney Hay, Republican Lobbyist and Ideologue Seeking to Fill Tricky Dick Renzi's Purloined Shoes

Mining industry lobbyist and candidate for Congress in CD 1, Sydney Hay put together a very nice introductory video for her campaign. It illustrates very clearly why the GOP won't manage to hang on to CD 1: they are absolutely bereft of ideas.

Hay's campaign looks like it was cobbled together out of most extreme rantings and wacky policies of the Right over the past 20 years, the dissicated corpses of Reagan and Goldwater, and the most disingenuous and empty rhetoric the Right has fallen back on in defense of the massive failures of the Bush years, all held together by a 'values' appeal that already passé among evangelicals and fundamentalists, let alone the general public.

You can always tell when a social movement is effectively dead by how nostalgic its members become about a claimed Golden Age. In the case of the Conservative Movement, their necromantic rites centering around Reagan and Goldwater are increasingly elaborate, central to their religion, and frankly pitiful.

Sure, we Democrats have our culture heroes—FDR, JRK, RFK, MLK—but we aren't nearly so strident about hearkening back to their particular strain of liberalism as a lost Golden Age that we must return to, and to which our politicians must pay obsequious obescience.

That's because Liberalism is alive and kicking and growing. Conservatism is a dead and discredited credo, destroyed by Bush and the Republican Congress of 1994-2006, now seeking a leader who can revivify it with a fresh perspective and newly invigorated values. That leader doesn't seem to be Sydney Hay—she's too ideologically rigid to acknowledge any new ideas.

I was really amused by the enthusiastic and detailed endorsement by Arizona Republican Congressman Trent Franks. Since the incumbent is in the dock, Renzi can't exactly pass the establishment torch, so Trent from next door is pinch-hitting. It should prove amusing to watch the Republican candidates in CD 1 madly scramble to avoid any association with Renzi.

Trent credits Sydney with a number of key accomplishments. He indicates she lead the campaign to require a super-majority for any tax increase in Arizona. The result has been to ratchet down tax rates permanently, destroying the Arizona state government's ability to fund essential services. Trent tells us that Sydney, a former teacher, also was largely responsible for the failed experiment of charter schools, and for diverting taxes to private and parochial schools.

Polices Sydney claims credit for have over the last two decades been largely responsible for Arizona's free-fall to nearly the bottom among U.S. states in almost every educational metric. With accomplishments like these in her past, electing her to office is sure to result in policies that will make us even more backward, poor, and uncompetitive.

Let's take a quick look at some of the 'ideas' Sydney wants to take to Congress...

Giffords and Mitchell: The New Center? Let's Hope Not... UPDATED!

NATIONAL JOURNAL: "The New Center"

National Journal is getting a lot of ink locally (e.g., here and here) due to their ranking the ideology of many of 2006's frosh congresscritters, including Arizona's Gabby Giffords and Harry Mitchell, smack dab near the center of the political spectrum.

When you take a closer look at the actual votes on which National Journal based their ratings, however, what they actually seem to be measuring is mostly how two key issues - Iraq and immigration - are causing some Democrats to throw out their principles in the name of expediency and poorly-judged pragmatism.

Note: The headings stand for Economy, Social,  and Foreign policy.

A closer analysis of the fairly small sample of bills upon which the rankings are based indicates that in most respects Giffords and Mitchell both generally hew closely to the party line on most issues other than immigration and Iraq. The moderate nature of both candidates is largely a feature of their shared (and mistaken, in my view) hands-off approach to the war in Iraq, and their perceived need to armor themselves against the immigration fire-fight in Arizona.

Giffords is not ranked as notably more "economically moderate" than, say, Rep. Ed Pastor - at least in terms of her actual votes. She has not been nearly as much of an economic conservative in her votes to date as her overall centrist ranking, and her membership in the Blue Dogs, might suggest.

What Mitchell champions, however, is clearly out of step with most of his caucus - not surprising considering he too made a bid to join the Blue Dogs. What is surprising is that his rhetoric, and to a lesser extent his votes, actually indicates that he is much more in tune with conservative tax philosophy (coddle the rich and soak the middle class), yet it was Giffords who got the nod from the Blue Dogs. Maybe Mitchell's tax rhetoric put him too far to the right even for the Blue Dog's comfort. In the end, I think that Mitchell's ranking as a 'moderate' on economic matters, is rather too generous. He actually deserves to be in amongst the Republicans proper when you take into account his advocacy, as well as his votes.

UPDATE 3/14/08: Mitchell has made it two years in a row now that he has voted against his own party's budget. If he's trying to establish his fiscal conservative credentials, I think he's more than done the job.

Despite their fairly middle-of-the-road rankings in social policy, neither member is sending many overt signals to the 'values voters'. They do score considerably more conservative than other Dems in the Arizona delegation and the Caucus overall, but that is almost entirely down to votes having to do with immigration and immigrant rights.

The big difference between 'social centrists' like Gabby and Harry and the rest of the caucus is how terrified they are of creating a record that can be characterized as 'pro-immigrant.' The callousness and pettiness that these 'centrists' will stoop to in order to avoid giving racists and xenophobes any ammunition is often farcical.

On foreign policy, both members score more conservatively than their Arizona Democratic delegation-mates, but that is predominantly down to their votes on Iraq. Their score also includes a few instances when their urge to throw money at a military system outstripped any fiscal restraint or desire to look deeper at our actual strategic needs - a common and unfortunate Democratic habit that our members default to in order to forestall being labeled as anti-military, but that results in massive pork and a flabby, wasteful military.

I will take a closer look at the particular votes that earned Giffords and Mitchell their milquetoasty middle-of-the-herd street cred after the flip, and consider how well-deserved are their carefully-crafted, centrist images...

 

Tim Bee's Big Surprise

Tim Bee stunned the Arizona political scene with a completely unexpected announcement that he is challenging Gabby Giffords for the CD 8 Congressional seat.

Seriously, though, Tim made it official -- he's in. I know, I was there. And, no, I didn't get tazed, Bro.

It was the kind of non-news news event one expects in the kabuki dance of American politics. But there were a few interesting bits.

Much more after the flip...

Sponsors Back-Pedalling on Employer Sanctions

Link: Employer sanctions law challenged by sponsors.

Looks like a number of Republicans are getting crosswise on the employer sanctions law now that it has taken effect and real enforcement actions seem imminent, threatening to put good, upstanding (and possibly Republican) businessmen on skid row.

This issue just screams DEMOCRATIC WEDGE ISSUE FOR 2008 STATE LEGISLATIVE RACES at the top of its lungs. I hope it's not too much longer before every other word coming out of the Arizona Democratic Party's mouth-piece is "employer sanctions." You don't get monumental political fuck-ups like this dropped in your lap every day, you know.

Much more after the flip...

Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas' Self-Promotion and Unethical Electioneering

Andrew Thomas, who is up for re-election this November, is again doing what he seems to be best at (other than blatantly harassing the media should they criticize him): pushing the ethical envelope to serve his political ambitions and ideological viewpoint.

He distributed a crime prevention booklet to Maricopa residents (Download the booklet) through the distribution networks of local newspapers (at an as-yet undisclosed cost to taxpayers) without any notice to, or specific funding from the Maricopa Board of Supervisors.

Deanne Poulos, the communications director for the board of supervisors, said the members were not told about the project and only found out after the booklets were distributed Friday morning. “At this time we’re still searching for a funding source,” she said. [E.V. Tribune]

Nor is this the first time that Thomas has blatantly used taxpayer money to get his name prominently before the voters of Maricopa. "Recently, Thomas has been criticized for spending $2.5 million in public money since he took office in 2005 to pay for public service advertisements that promote his name." [E.V. Tribune]

Most recently, Thomas kicked off an anti-DUI billboard campaign where his name is splashed in a broad red strip with large lettering across the bottom. The letters used for Thomas’ name are nearly as large as the letters in the board’s message.[E.V. Tribune]

Let me make perfectly clear that I think the idea of a County Attorney issuing a crime prevention guide is laudable and forward-thinking. To the extent that the purpose and effect of this publication is to reduce crime, I applaud and credit CA Thomas for publishing it.

But the devil lies in the details, as always...

Daisy Explains the Immigration Issue

I was surprised to find that I couldn't explain how the Right is using immigration as the latest wedge issue better than a cat. That's right. A cat. Just watch:

More good sense from cats...

Arizona State Representative John Kavanagh: Defending the Employer Sanctions Law

I posted some pretty strong views on how effective the new employer sanctions law taking effect January 1st will be, and expressed concern about their impact on Arizona's economy. State Representative Kavanagh, one of the sponsors of the sanctions bill here in Arizona, responded to my post and I invited him to respond to two questions, as well as make any other comments or arguments he might wish:

1) Just how does this legislation actually address the problem of immigration, rather than simply punishing people to make it appear that something is being done, and

2) how can this legislation can be implemented without grave harm to Arizona's economy where an estimated 1/8th of the workforce is undocumented labor?

To his credit, Rep. Kavanagh immediately accepted my invitation and prepared the following guest post for this blog. Consider how many Democrats would accept such an invitation from Espresso Pundit or Red State Arizona... credit Rep. Kavanagh with conviction, at least.

Please keep in mind these are Rep. Kavanagh's views and by publishing them here I do not endorse these views. I am presenting them so that his ideas can be fairly expressed and then critically engaged by readers, and ultimately by myself as well.

Please respond respectfully and factually. Take issue with his premises, his data, his reasoning, and his conclusions, even his prior voting record and public statements, but please avoid purely ad hominem attacks or emotional tirades. They aren't helpful - even if they can be lots of fun. Please keep in mind the questions I asked him, and focus on those and other issues of the public welfare.

"Arizona’s new Employer Sanctions Law is the third prong of a comprehensive program to deter people from entering the United States illegally and to get those already here to leave on their own. The other two parts of the reduction program are denial of public benefits and increased border security.

The Employer Sanctions Law compliments existing federal law which makes it illegal to be present in the country without legal authorization. While this existing law goes after the illegal immigrants (supply side strategy), the new Employer Sanctions Law makes it unprofitable for businesses to hire them (demand side strategy). This demand side strategy is based upon a mixture of simple economics and common sense.

I believe that early anecdotal information suggests that the law is working. In addition, more solid evidence related to decreasing school enrollments and increased applications for Mexican birth certificates at the Phoenix Mexican Consulate also suggest that illegals are leaving. While some of the exodus is surely due to the depressed construction industry, I believe the new law is also partially responsible.

Arizona’s economy will not be gravely harmed by this reduction in the illegal worker population because illegal immigrants are a drain on Arizona’s economy and we would be better off without them. (See the December 2007 Congressional Budget Office Report "The Impact of Unauthorized Immigration on the Budgets of State and Local Governments" (PDF download))

It is estimated that Arizona taxpayers are burdened with costs of about $1.3 billion per year because of illegals residing in our state. That estimate only includes expenditures for education, emergency medical care and incarceration and does not include the costs for other government services and law enforcement.

The $1.3 billion estimate also does not include the bill for benefits to the children of illegals born here who, by virtue of citizenship, are entitled to full government services, including welfare and costly government-sponsored health insurance. Were their parents not here illegally, we would not be paying these expenses.

Illegal immigrants harm Arizona’s economy in other ways:

• By working for lower wages, illegals lower market wages and take good jobs away from legal residents.
• Because hospitals cannot recoup all of the uncompensated costs of treating illegals, they raise the bills of legal residents who consequently pay higher medical bills or health insurance premiums.
• Uncompensated medical outlays for illegals are now estimated at about $400 million per year.
• Maricopa County Hospital loses $2 million weekly on uncompensated care due largely to illegal immigrants.
• At least one hospital in Cochise County has filed for bankruptcy and may close due to uncompensated care.

Illegal immigrants also degrade our state in other non-economic ways. Our national parks near the Mexican border have been environmentally scarred by the unauthorized roads and trails illegals create and the trash they leave behind, as they illegally enter our country.

Of course, most legal residents never see this damage because they are too afraid to visit our parks due to the violence that accompany the illegal entrants in the form of companion drug traffickers and coyotes.

In some areas of Douglas, residents are so fearful of transient illegals that they do not go out alone at night. In Phoenix, illegal day laborers and their supporters are disrupting a community and attempting to destroy a neighborhood family business that dared speak out against the harm, fear and disorder that loitering and trespassing illegal day laborers cause.

Illegal immigrants also make our communities unsafe. Illegals make up 8% of Arizona’s population but comprise over 12% of the felons incarcerated in our prisons. That means that illegals are 50% more likely to commit serious crimes than legal residents and that’s a fact that police chiefs in sanctuary cities ignore but cannot deny.

Since many illegal immigrants drive illegally without auto insurance, the cost of insurance to the rest of us increases to pay for damages caused by uninsured illegals. The list of additional costs goes on and on.

Supporters of illegal immigrant labor claim that illegals also give back to the economy by the taxes they pay. However, because many illegals work “off the books” where they pay no taxes and those that work “on the books” often do so at near-minimum wage rates that do not trigger income tax collection, illegal immigrants contribute little in taxes beyond a small amount of sales tax.

Illegal immigrants are only an economic benefit to unscrupulous businesses who hire them for cheap wages to maximize their own profit and give themselves a competitive advantage over honest businesses that obey the law and pay a living wage.

The claim that the exodus of illegal immigrants would harm Arizona’s economy is also based upon the false premise that our workforce is currently operating at 100% efficiency and that the loss of a fraction of it could not be partially made up by the increased productivity of existing workers and automation.

This same claim has been made in the past by both government and private sector workers facing layoffs during tight fiscal times. Those workers claimed that staff reductions would have dire consequences. Yet, all of the governments and most of the private companies that reduced their workforces carried on, as the employees that remained worked more efficiently.

The final false premise advanced by advocates of illegal labor is that the federal government will not increase the number of guest workers to make up for the lost illegal workers. While Congress does appear deadlocked on how to handle the illegal immigrants currently in the United States, one of the few areas of agreement among parties on both sides of the illegal immigration issue is that guest workers are alright, so long as they are admitted in a controlled manner that does not jeopardize the jobs or wages of Americans. Guest workers are available and are politically and economically feasible.

In conclusion, illegal immigration threatens our nation in both economic and non-economic ways and the near-open border that facilitates it threatens our national security.  Illegal immigration insults our laws, increases crime and poverty rates, strains our social service and educational systems, and costs taxpayers billions of dollars more each year.

And what do we get in return - a hamburger that costs 10 cents less? It’s just not worth the savings.

We must stop illegal immigration now and Arizona is doing that by denying jobs and benefits to illegals. If the federal government would do its job by securing the border and providing businesses with carefully screened guest workers to fill the jobs that legal workers cannot fill, we just might be able to solve the divisive and costly problem of illegal immigration."

State Representative John Kavanagh is a Republican who represents Arizona's Legislative District 8, which includes Scottsdale, Fountain Hills and Rio Verde. He was a co-sponsor of the Arizona Employer Sanctions Law and maintains the anti-illegal immigration website, www.protectAZborder.com.

ProtectAZBorder.com Launches: Helping Us Keep an Eye on the Right

State Rep. John Kavanagh (R - LD8) launched his anti-immigration website to support the employer sanctions law: ProtectAZBorder.com. One of the first things you will read on his site is the following:

"Arizona businesses are firing Hispanic immigrants, moving operations to Mexico and freezing expansion plans ahead of a new law that cracks down on employers who hire undocumented workers."

I guess in some universe this is good news.

The anti-immigration crowd have fashioned a stake which they have plunged through the heart of Arizona's business climate, and they call it employer sanctions.

12% of Arizona's workforce is undocumented labor. These anti-immigration radicals want to put the businesses that rely on that labor pool out of business. They have a naive and ideological belief that this law will cause undocumented workers to give up and return home because they can't find a job in Arizona. Most will merely go deeper underground, ensuring that they are exploited and abused by employers at greater rates. At best, some may move to other states. None will return to Mexico or other nations of origin as a result of this law. Not one.

The belief that this bill can address the immigration issue is as faith-based as the idea that the Iraqis would greet us as liberators. The mindset that complex and systemic problems can be fixed by simple and brute-force solutions is endemic to the radical authoritarian mind-set. Unfortunately, their fantasies of omnipotence don't map to reality with any success. This bill does nothing for America, and nothing for Arizona except ensure a recession; the only benefit is to the electoral hopes of the radical authoritarians.

The formation of new businesses in Arizona has ground to a virtual stand-still over the legal uncertainty that the employer sanctions law has created. The radical authoritarian immigration-haters point to this fact proudly. Why would you expand into or move a business to Arizona when you might face the loss of your license to operate, or even your corporate charter, should you be found negligent in hiring an illegal alien?

The sponsors of this bill are the enemies of our economy. Their obsession with taking the reins of a contentious political issue for purely political gain has made them ignore the very real costs and dangers this bill poses to all our financial futures. In the midst of a billion dollar budget shortfall, one might hope that the legislative leaders of our state would be interested in more than scoring political points with the most radical elements of their political constituencies. Such hope would be in vain.

One primary sponsor of this terrible bill was Senate President Tim Bee. Tim has already proven he has no respect for Arizona's laws with his not-so-stealth campaign masquerading as an "exploratory committee," so his lack of concern for Arizona's economy should come as no surprise. But consider that this darling of the business right, for whom the royal road to nomination has been cleared by financial threats against any potential challengers by men such as Don Diamond and Jim Click, is one of the very economic assassins who is trying to kill Arizona's economy as a sop to the racist and nativist groundlings of his party. Ironic, no?

Those who voted for this mess, and there are many Democrats who did so out of fear, ignorance, or whatever motivation, should apologize to their constituents. Employer sanctions by a single state is a suicidal move. It's like swatting a fly on your nose with a round fired from a .357 magnum. There might be some benefit from a well-coordinated national employer sanction law if combined with well-policed labor standards and a new legal status for currently undocumented workers already in this county, but there is no advantage to the unilateral economic seppuku that is Arizona's employer sanctions bill.

Karl Reiner: Some of the Consequences of Our Apathy and Detachment

It has been said that American voters like solutions to political problems that are quick, cheap or paid for by someone else.  In such an environment, elected officials are encouraged to postpone addressing problems that don’t fit the mold.  After a problem escalates into a crisis, the unnerved electorate reverses its position and the political leadership rushes to repair the damage. 

It may not be the best way to conduct national affairs, but we seem to like it. We have grown accustomed doing nothing for long periods and then reacting with a self-righteous vengeance when the problem spins out of control. 

Congress oversees the federal agencies responsible for border security, immigration and foreign relations.  It is aware that the majority of migrants attempting to cross the border into Arizona are Mexican nationals trying to enter the U.S. to find work.  For the past 25 years, Congress and the White House have ignored the fact that Mexico’s ongoing anemic economic performance was contributing to the problem.  Mexico is linked by geography to the southwestern United States.  It is a major U.S. trading partner and a component in resolving the illegal migrant issue. 

Through September 2007, our two-way trade with Canada totaled $277.0 billion.  For the same period, the total for Mexico was $167.8 billion.  A large number of jobs on both sides of the border depend on the commercial relationship between the three countries.  If Mexico had been a foreign policy priority for the last 25 years, the total for Mexico would be a great deal higher today due to its economic expansion.             

Because Mexico and Arizona share part of the national border, our futures are linked in many ways. Economic stagnation in Mexico drastically impacts Arizona. On the other hand, a prosperous and economically viable Mexico will benefit Arizona to a great degree. 

The U.S. government is proposing to provide Mexico with $1.4 billion to fight drug trafficking over the next three years.  At the same time, Congress and the White House should be looking into ways to get the Mexican government to stimulate economic growth.  The country’s legendary corruption problem needs to be addressed along with Mexico’s atrociously poor productivity growth rate.  The impediments stifling business formation, competitiveness and innovation in the economy have to be removed. 

The committee on foreign affairs in the U.S. House of Representatives made national headlines recently when it announced it had determined that the killing of the Armenians during the World War I era was a genocide carried out by the Ottoman Empire.  While the dismal fate of the Armenians during the period of collapsing Ottoman rule nearly 100 years ago is a subject worthy of historical study and evaluation, Arizonians should rightly question the priority given the subject by a Congress unable to come to grips with the immigration problem here at home.

Citizens have to demand that Arizona’s congressional delegation prod Congress to focus on Mexico’s economic situation because it is a key factor in determining how successful Arizona’s economic future will be.  The matter certainly should rate as high in importance as the recent revisit of World War I events.

The “no amnesty” policy championed by many as the solution to the illegal alien (as they call them) question has a goal of ridding the United States of approximately 12 million undocumented individuals.  While the implementation of this policy would create new government contracting opportunities for those willing to seek out, incarcerate and transport large numbers of people, it would be extremely disruptive to society as a whole.  Humanitarian concerns aside, the chaos caused by the roundup and wholesale deportation of a sizable chunk of the U.S. workforce is not an event this economy can easily withstand.

Deportation would also be a peculiar position for the government to embrace given its previous policy of more or less ignoring the situation.  By not acting when it should have, the U.S. tacitly encouraged the workers to come in.  The new immigrants, as were most of those in the past, were not bent on the destruction of the United States.  They came from places of little opportunity to find work in a country where they were allowed to fill jobs.  Their much derided economic contribution has been real; it cannot be simply discounted as being irrelevant.  The economic consequences of a deportation policy are real.  They have to be seriously considered as the debate over immigration policy continues.

In the 1980s, industry lobbyists persuaded Congress to deregulate the savings and loan industry.  As part of the process, Congress purposefully had the government retain responsibility for guaranteeing the safety of deposits in the deregulated savings and loans. The unpleasant consequences of the newly liberated environment became apparent to all when Charles Keating and his Lincoln Savings in Phoenix leaped into the headlines. 

To the astonishment of lawmakers, the deregulated and rowdily managed savings and loans were not helping to generate greater national prosperity; they were imploding on a massive scale. Their sequential failures during the late 1980s and early 1990s resulted in the severest blow to the U.S. financial system since the Great Depression. Over 1,000 savings and loans eventually failed.  The government dutifully acted on its guarantee, and the taxpayers footed a bill of nearly $124 billion to clean up the wreckage.  This amount was on top of the once overconfident industry’s own substantial losses. 

The lessons learned in cleaning up the savings and loan mess didn’t seem to stick.  The housing industry, one of the major drivers of the U.S. economy, has now become entangled in a financial mess that may take two to three years to remedy. It is estimated that about two million homeowners are carrying $600 billion in subprime adjustable-rate mortgages.  The low initial interest rates on these mortgages are expiring.  They are scheduled to ratchet up during the next two years. 

As a result of the combination of slipshod lending practices, cheap credit and the unrealistic belief that housing prices would always continue to climb, many of the home buyers are finding themselves holding mortgages they will be unable to carry at the new rates.  The regulators didn’t pay attention as the inventive mortgage financing industry promoted its teaser rate inducements to unwary buyers.  No one questioned the industry’s motives as it developed ways to turn these mortgages into investment securities, a process that detached the lender from the risk of default. Since the lender’s motivation to closely check the creditworthiness of borrowers was reduced, a degree of misrepresentation and even outright fraud crept into the system.

To make matters worse, the neatly packaged securities containing the subprime mortgages were marketed to buyers around the world as first-class investment products.  When the low preliminary mortgage rates began to expire about the same time as the housing market began to slow and prices leveled off, defaults on subprime mortgages started to rise.  Billions in what may be reduced value investments are now on the balance sheets of the largest global banks. The mounting losses could easily spill over into the pension and mutual funds that invested in the same securities.

One after another, large banks have begun writing down the value of their subprime assets and CEOs have started to exit. In this uncertain situation, many of the small borrowers, who didn’t understand what kind of obligation they were taking on, will get wiped out.  The banks will have to take massive write-offs, significantly devaluating their investors’ stock holdings.  Large numbers of employees will be laid off, the lucky ones getting severance pay. 

The corporate officers and directors, who organized, ran and oversaw this ugly show will do nicely. They will suffer a little mortification from the wave of relentless press stories exposing their lack of judgment and poor management practices.  They will, however, be able to retain the all bonuses and hefty salaries already in the bank. They will not be forced to give up their big houses or multiple cars.  Thanks to the money made in mortgage securities, they will not have to rely on social security payments when they retire.            

The effects are ricocheting through the economy.  The U.S. Department of Labor estimates around 100,000 jobs related to the financial services sector have already disappeared.  Foreign investors have become distrustful of American offerings; the value of the dollar is plunging.  Housing sales are slumping, construction is slow, and the median price of homes has dropped approximately 5 percent since last year.  Analysts are predicting an additional 5 to 9 percent drop before housing prices level off. 

The shock waves of the creative financing binge will reverberate throughout the economy, maybe pushing it into a recession.  The final cost has yet to be tallied.  It remains to be seen if the taxpayers will have to provide a bailout.

It is now clear that the undisciplined dealings in mortgages and securities will put a sizable dent in America’s economy.  As it did with the savings and loan debacle, Congress will hold hearings and move to tighten regulations.  The White House will look for ways to control the damage because the president’s appointees supervise the regulatory agencies. 

The problem has already hit home.  Arizona has been affected, the housing slump driving the state’s economy into a downturn. The University of Arizona’s researchers have found that, along with Michigan, California, Nevada and Florida, we have entered the beginning phases of a recession.

Karl Reiner is a friend of this site and an active voice for a fact-based approach to the issue of immigration from Mexico. He asked me to post this commentary here on BlogForArizona.com. This blog published previous articles by Karl on the world's richest man, the failure of the immigration bill considered by Congress this year and the economic underpinnings of Mexican immigration, as well as the transcript of an erudite lecture Karl gave on that subject.

Karl managed international trade and economic policy analysis at the U.S. Department of Commerce in Washington, DC. He served as an acting deputy assistant secretary during the first Bush and Clinton administrations. A Vietnam veteran, he is a graduate of the Ohio State University and holds a MS degree from the Garvin School of International Management. After retiring from government service in 1994, he did consulting and authored a novel, "Sgt. Bellnapp’s Secret", published in 2001, and a collection of historical essays, "Remembering Fairfax County, Virginia," last year.

 

Border Patrol Police State

I got this story from June Wortman's newsletter. She calls the incident harrowing, and I can't disagree. The rapidity with which police forces escalate encounters with citizens who don't behave exactly as they would wish, or worse, actually insist on being treated with respect and accorded their civil rights, is increasingly reminiscent of how an occupying army treats the indigenous population: always assume the worst and shoot first, ask questions later.

That's certainly not to say that there aren't conscientious and properly trained officers in every service. In fact, I'd say that such fine public servants are clearly the rule. But the psychology of us-versus-them, which  has always characterized law enforcement work, has in recent years been exacerbated by the wars (on drugs, on terror, on immigrants) in which stereotypes, prejudice, and contempt for the 'perps'  (that's 'us' by the way, not just 'them') have become a central feature of law enforcement. This has created permissive political climate toward law enforcement excesses.

We shouldn't tolerate lazy and abusive law enforcers any more than we should tolerate lazy and abusive prosecutors, judges, doctors, or bankers. Law enforcement is a profession and the means they have a great deal of discretion in their work and are granted a great deal of self-policing authority (internal affairs are police, after all). They may be unconscionably under-paid, but they should be held to the very highest standards of ethical and professional conduct nonetheless.

Police and other law enforcement are like any other profession: if you give them too much latitude or fail to impose vigorous oversight of their professional practices, some members of the profession will respond by cutting corners and getting away with whatever they can. There is an ever-growing tolerance of shoddy and abusive police practices by our lawmakers, our courts, and our executive leaders in the pursuit of results above all else. I see the real results every day in my work, in horror stories such as the following, and in the tragedies that result from police abusing their authority and resorting to force with a hair trigger that we read about all too frequently. This story could easily have had a far worse outcome.

Border Patrol Incident
7:30 am, November 27, 2007

"I was forcibly pulled over by the Border Patrol on my way to work. I have traveled the Arivaca Road every day for the past 10 years, mostly without incident. I have been harassed a few times. Bright lights in the rear view mirror, tailgating etc. But up until now I haven’t ever had any real trouble. I’ve heard stories of people being hurt, held at gunpoint, forced from their vehicles. This list goes on. My sister was hit in the face, dragged from her vehicle, thrown to the ground and handcuffed with her face in the dirt. I can’t say that in light of these things I feel very safe when it comes to the Border Patrol

I have always been told, in every self-defense class, even those taught by law enforcement, that you should go to a populated area before you pull over for anyone you don’t know including law enforcement. Slow down, pull over to the right side of the road as far as possible without leaving the pavement and continue to drive slowly until you reach a populated area.

Border patrol turned on their flashing lights behind me at about the 20 mile marker after following me for about 4 miles. I did what I was taught. I slowed down to 20 miles per hour, pulled to the side of the road and continued to drive. They followed me for a little ways and then the first Border Patrol pulled in front of me and cut me off. I hit the brakes and the second Border Patrol sandwiched me in. Both jumped out of their vehicles and pulled their guns. They screamed at me several times to get out of my vehicle. I told them no and they continued screaming at me. “Roll down the window. Get out the vehicle. Why do you hate authority?” etc. I tried to explain that I was moving slowly toward a populated area. I told them that stories of abuse abound. Just a mile down the road was the Cow Palace. There would be people there.

He told me “No, you’ve already proven that you’re going to run.

They finally allowed me to pull to the side of the road so that we weren’t obstructing traffic. Five more BP showed up. I didn’t leave my vehicle. They called the Pima County Sheriff.

The sheriff came. He asked for my ID and I gave it to him. I told him they had pulled their guns on me. He told me that I could be charged with a felony for not stopping immediately. I explained to him that my sister had been abused by them and that I just wanted to get to a safe place before I pulled over. He then told me that I had only to pull over and show them my ID. Other than that I’m not required to do anything further.

We waited until they ran a check on me. He handed me back my ID and told me I could go. They never told my why I was pulled over.

For the record I am a 49 year old grandmother. I have blond hair and blue eyes. I drive a small truck and I work at a book store."

From June Wortman: I know this woman who works in the Book Shop in Green Valley. The above will be published December 1st in THE CONNECTION, an excellent,  free,  monthly paper published in Amado and available at the Green Valley Library and other sites. It will also be posted on http://junesrag.pbwiki.com for anyone who wants to click into it.

Why Interior Border Patrol Checkpoints are Happening, Despite Giffords' Best Efforts

Have you wondered why the Border Patrol is so keen on placing a permanent checkpoint on I-19?

The answer is the GAO and OMB. The Office of Management and Budget 'Expect More' evaluations (note that last year's evaluation which specifically referenced the Tucson Sector's lack of a permanent checkpoint has been flushed down the memory hole before I thought to archive it) and the General Accountability Office's Congressional reports (pdf) both have identified the lack of permanent interior checkpoints as a major inefficiency in the Border Patrol's efforts to interdict contraband and illegal immigrants over a period of several years. In order to improve efficacy, and keep the OMB and GAO off their back, the Border Patrol, and Homeland Security, had made pushing back the Kolbe Doctrine a major priority.

Jim Kolbe, through his position on the powerful House Appropriations Committee, had been able to keep the Border Patrol from allocating any money to permanent checkpoints in the Tucson sector. The result was measurably lower performance in interdictions in comparison to border sectors with permanent interior checkpoints. The Border Patrol has been chomping at the bit to institute permanent checkpoints in the Tucson sector since Kolbe first restricted them in 2002, and it got its opening when he retired in 2006.

With Kolbe's retirement, it wouldn't have mattered whether a Republican or a Democrat won with respect to permanent checkpoints. In fact, arguably, if the Republican won, his ideological commitment to controlling illegal immigration probably would have pushed him into building permanent checkpoints much sooner, and with much less impact mitigation and community input than Gabby Giffords has managed to extract from Homeland Security and the Border Patrol. In any case, the Border Patrol was hell-bent on getting its permanent checkpoints, and no freshman legislator was going to stop them.

I certainly find plenty fault with our Congresswoman when I think she deserves it, but those who are tempted to blame Gabby for the coming of the permanent checkpoint to their communities are barking up the wrong branch of the government. Gabby can't hold back a flood with a teaspoon, but she has done a hell of a decent job to ensure that people in the affected communities had a say in the process.

Extracts from the report on the flip...

Governor Andrew Thomas... NOT!

American demagogues, such as Senator Joe McCarthy, tend to over-reach in a system designed to prevent over-reach (how we can explain the lack of resistance to Bush's over-reaching, I haven't yet figured out). Eventually, these authoritarian personalities, drunk on power and their initial success take a bite they are unable to chew. In McCarthy's case, it was the Army Hearings. In Andrew Thomas' case, it is the Phoenix New Times and its founders Michael Lacey and Jim Larkin.

To bring you up to speed I will summarize the situation to date.

The New Times published a story critical of Sheriff Joe Arpaio's real estate speculations that included his home address. That story was also posted to their website. Arpiao complained that posting his address on the web site violated an Arizona statute (§13-2401) that makes it a class 5 felony to publish personal information of certain public safety officials on the web in some circumstances.

"A.  It is unlawful for a person to knowingly make available on the world wide web the personal information of a peace officer, justice, judge, commissioner, public defender or prosecutor if the dissemination of the personal information poses an imminent and serious threat to the peace officer's, justice's, judge's, commissioner's, public defender's or prosecutor's safety or the safety of that person's immediate family and the threat is reasonably apparent to the person making the information available on the world wide web to be serious and imminent."

Did the Sheriff's address on the New Times website pose an imminent and serious threat to the Sheriff or his family considering that the information was easily available from other public sources, as well as the New Times' print edition? Was such a threat, if it existed, reasonably apparent  to the publishers of the New Times? The Sheriff and the County Attorney maintain that independent death threats against the Sheriff, many of which can't be publicly divulged "for security reasons," make the publication a threat. Ah, patriotism and "security," the last bastions of scoundrels.

Some legislative history is needed to put this in context. The law in question was passed in response to internet-based hit lists of judges and other public officials by extreme right-wing fanatics. The law was meant to address a specific problem of how to prosecute and discourage the posting of such hit-lists on the internet, not to harass and intimidate media outlets critical of an allegedly corrupt sheriff.

So, here's where the issue gets political. Andrew Thomas decided that he would pursue this charge, despite the law's clear and manifest misapplication to this case, despite the fact that there was no way a jury would ever find that publishing the sheriff's address on the New Times' web site constituted an "imminent and serious threat" to the Sheriff (amply demonstrated by the fact that over two years have passed and Sheriff Joe is still kicking), and despite the fact there was no way it was "reasonably apparent" that publishing on the internet that which had just been printed in their newspaper could pose a such a "serious and imminent" threat. There was no reasonable prospect of success in this prosecution. A fact that Thomas is saying is his reason for dismissing the case now. What exactly changed between his attack dog siccing the Grand Jury on the New Times and now that made the case unwinnable? Bad press, one must assume. These issues Andrew Thomas will consistently and obstinately elide or dodge in his defense of having maintained the charges against the New Times for years. The reason for that evasion is that the charges are completely baseless and maintained entirely for the purpose of political intimidation of a media outlet.

Thomas recognized that no one would stand for his office pursuing these charges, because of the conflict of interest (read, his personal political motivation to pursue these charges) would be too obvious. So he passed the charges off to the Pinal County Attorney's office. They properly did nothing for almost two years; in essence, they took a 'pocket veto' approach to declining to prosecute. So Andrew Thomas pulled the case back and farmed it out to his political attack dog Dennis Wilenchik. Wilenchik used to employ Thomas while he was running for County Attorney, and thus not doing much actual work for his salary. Wilenchik recently savaged the entire Maricopa bench for failing to 'properly' interpret Prop 106, which Thomas authored. Wilenchik was dispatched as special prosecutor for Trish Groe's DUI case, and though he was unable to make it go away, he sat on it until he was sure there was no way to dismiss the charges. Wilenchik is Thomas' creature, or the other way around. In any case, it is laughable that Thomas would think anyone would believe that there was anything independent about 'special prosecutor' Wilenchik.

Wilenchik convened a Grand Jury to investigate the charge, now almost three years old. Wilenchik got the Jury to issue a subpoena to the New Times (pdf) that was grossly and abusively broad. It demanded 4 years worth of server records, including personal information on New Times internet readers that could not conceivably be relevant to the case - Wilenchik and Thomas maintain that they might find information about those responsible for death threats in that hay stack, an absurdity not worth dignifying with a rebuttal. The subpoena was clearly just more attempt at legal harassment. It was never intended that the New Times should respond to it; it was intended that New Times spend thousands in legal fees defending against it.

But then Lacey and Larkin zigged when the were supposed to zag. They published the Grand Jury subpoena instead of complying or litigating. They took the venerable 4th estate option of taking the matter to the court of public opinion. Of course, to reveal Grand Jury deliberations is a misdemeanor, so they were breaking the law by doing so, but felt it was a justifiable act of civil disobedience. The effect was overwhelming and immediate. The nation's media started turning their focus to the dust up in the desert. Media outlets, seeing themselves in the New Times' plight, editorialized harshly and covered the story with very little sympathy for the man behind the curtain: Andrew Thomas.

Wilenchik, apparently deaf to the media's immediate outrage, turned up the heat and sent out Sheriff's deputies to arrest Lacey and Larkin that very night for that misdemeanor infraction. They rousted them from homes and their families, cuffed them, and threw them in jail for 7 hours on charges that would normally warrant appearance tickets. Again, the harassment that lay at the base of this whole fiasco was made so apparent that Thomas, who by now was seriously feeling the disapprobation from all quarters, not only from the national and local media, but even from conservatives in his own political constituency, had to pull the plug on his jolly little scheme to get some payback on the New Times.

Thomas fired Wilenchik as special prosecutor, though carefully saying supportive things about his crony and keeping the door open for future work for Wilenchik from the County Attorney's office (which has already piled up billings for Wilenchik's firm in excess of a million taxpayer dollars). Thomas held a press conference to fall on his sword and dismiss the charges and admit that 'mistakes were made' in that passive-voiced admission which admits nothing that politicians are so well-versed at. In short, he cut and ran, hoping to leave the episode behind him.

Watch the extraordinarily illuminating video of the press conference (part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4), or read the transcript.

But it's not going to be that easy for Thomas. You see, Andy Thomas dreams of being the Big Cheese in Arizona. The Governorship is the prize his eyes have been on all along. But with the national media now clued-in as to who and what Andrew Thomas really is: a snarling little rat terrier-sized Joe McCarthy, the only votes he's going to be getting are from folks who think that Ann Coulter has sound judgment. Even prudent Republicans are sounding the alarm about Thomas' judgment and respect for civil liberties, free press, and personal privacy. Thomas can duck and try to hide behind the bogus 'special prosecutor' he created of Dennis Wilenchik. He can claim that he's not responsible for the excesses of Wilenchik in prosecuting the case, but nobody believes that Thomas didn't know and approve of what Wilenchik was doing.

We know better, and the State Bar knows better. A complaint has been filed against Wilenchik and Thomas as a result of this fiasco. I can only hope that both will be disciplined and/or disbarred. But their over-reaching doesn't stop there. A whole raft of Maricopa County Superior Court Judges, whom Wilenchik tried to get recused from all cases involving the County Attorney (in essence, all those Judges' cases) because they disagreed with Thomas' interpretation of Prop 106, have filed an ethics complaint against Thomas, too. Andrew Thomas has stepped in it, and he deserves every moment of discomfort and distress it may cause him.

Andy Thomas has over-reached. He tried to harass the fourth estate by misusing the powers of his office in a calculated political vendetta. He tried to bait and discredit the whole Maricopa criminal bench just to score political points. He bit off way more than he could chew. He has just had his own Joseph Welch moment. Now people are seeing him for what he is and they aren't going to trust him with elected power ever again. That means Mr. Thomas can kiss his dreams of the Governor's office goodbye. All one ever has to do now to ensure his defeat is remind people of how he behaved during the New Times Affair.

"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, Mr. Thomas, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"

Voter Fraud Alert: The Latest Rat Fucking Targets Hispanic Immigrants

Maricopa County Recorder Elections Office has learned that an insidious fraud is being perpetrated upon legal immigrants living in Arizona. Apparently, unscrupulous people are going through the telephone book and finding people with Hispanic surnames and are calling them up or visiting their homes and asking them if they are interested in becoming U.S. citizens. If they answer yes, or say that they have started the process, these victims are told that the first step to becoming a citizen is to register to vote.

Plainly, this is untrue. You cannot legally register to vote until you have become a U.S. citizen.

A large number of innocent people are believing this story and are providing all of the information needed to complete a registration form. There are also cases where the victim is never spoken to but the information entered into the registration form is taken just from the telephone book. Even with this incomplete information, the forms are completed anyway, often using false signatures, invented birth dates and drivers license numbers.

These faked forms are then turned to the Maricopa County Elections office. At this point, the names and addresses of these victims are put into the County's system and then checked for validity, at which point the forms are rejected.

Here's the evil part of the story: any person who begins the process of becoming a legal U.S. citizen must obtain from their County Recorder a letter that they have never attempted to register to vote and provide it ICE. If the recorder finds them in the system, they cannot provide that letter, which means that person will likely never become a U.S. citizen, and could be charged with a felony.

So even though these victims may be here with legal documents, because some unscrupulous person is trying to earn $4 or $6 for each registration they turn in, or is trying to create voter fraud where none exists, they are destroying someone's dream of becoming a U.S. citizen.

Please pass the word on to anyone and everyone who may become a victim of this scam. If anyone receives such a call, please call your County Recorder's office and your county Democratic Party headquarters immediately and report the person's name and company so we can put an end to this abuse.

Maricopa Sheriff Arpaio's 500K Paranoiac Episode

Ran across a great local perspective on Joe Arpaio's six month long $500,000 investigation of an alleged plot against his life by immigration activists on P.S. Burton's blog:

Secret Informant initiates $500,000 In Public Expenditures:

Maricopa County Sheriff’ Joseph Arpaio spent an estimated $500,000 in tax payer dollars this past six months defending himself from an imagined assassination plot that he worried would incite a National furor over illegal immigration.

The imagined plot, according to a paid informant, involved the Minutemen hiring a Mexican drug cartels hit squad and a immigrant-rights advocate acting as middleman. Sheriff’s officials now admit none of the paid sources information seems to have turned out true. According to the informant, Mexican Nationals would be blamed for the assassination, carried out by Los Zetas, an enforcement arm of a smuggling organizations made up of former Mexican police and soldiers.

The informant, claiming to play the role of translator in the plot said he witnessed a down payment of $1.5 million for the hit on Arpaio. 88 sheriff employees were tasked to the investigation for about 16,720 hours on the clock including $82,000 in credit-card bills. The case details and expenditure reports, obtained by a public-records request.

The grand motive, as related by the paid informant, was to incite Americans about illegal immigration and a Nation in mourning for the loss of its beloved Sheriff Arpaio would demand congress empower the Minutemen militia to defend the United States border. Arpaio still claims there was good reason to believe the plot was real.

To date no formal request for a presidential level secret service detail has been made. Though the sheriff evidently considers himself a National leader who’s killing would cast the country into Kennedy like mourning.

The alleged plot was to be carried out Easter weekend. According to deputy Larry Black who admitted to the Arizona republic the informer provided only two pieces of intelligence that were provable: “He knew how long it takes Arpaio to walk from his downtown Phoenix office to his parking garage”, and “he knew the sheriff recently had dined at a particular Mexican restaurant” in north Scottsdale.

Black head of the sheriffs super double top secret special investigations unit said investigators had to take the threat seriously when they heard those facts. “The honest truth was he was believable.”Asked if any of the investigation verified any factual leads, Black said, “No, it didn’t. Black conceded he no longer believes an assassination plot was planned.

The plot is detailed in sheriff’s records, And began with a March 18 meeting in San Luis Río Colorado, Mexico.

It took place at a home referred to as the “green house,” 7 miles south of town, surrounded by a 6-foot-high block wall with a metal gate. According to the story, two Minutemen leaders secretly met with the administrator of a Mexican narcotics ring. The Minutemen wanted Arpaio killed to “rally more support for their cause, which is to secure the U.S.-Mexican border and stop illegal immigration.”

They agreed on a price of $3 million in cash, with a $1.5 million down payment. Elias Bermudez, a Phoenix immigrant-rights advocate and talk-radio host, was the middleman in the plot. Bermudez said he never heard of the plot until he was contacted by investigators. the hit team would kill Arpaio up close with handguns.

“Pure fabrication,” Bermudez said. “I told them I had no reason to wish for the demise of the sheriff. The idea of me and the Minutemen trying to hire someone to do this is outlandish.”

This just illustrates what an odd, paranoid universe Arpaio inhabits. The Minutemen are going to hire a Mexican drug cartel to whack him, with an immigration rights activist acting as middleman? You have got to be kidding me. And Arpaio wants us to trust him to have a role in the United State's relationship with Mexico by enforcing immigration laws? I don't think so. Anyone who could be induced to spend half-a-million taxpayer bones on some paid informant's drug-induced ramblings shouldn't even be holding public office. Arpaio should have seen through this fantasy from the get-go: no one would pay $1.5 million for his worthless hide.

GOP planning to campaign again on immigrant issue

Link: GOP pressing immigrant issue.

I didn't realize that Republican strategists were actually pushing Congressional recommit votes on immigration-related language to paint Democrats as pro-immigrant. I have to say, I'm utterly delighted that they are hanging that anchor around their own necks.

I think most Americans, and especially independents, recoil at policies and political stands they see as cruel, petty, or mean. And there is little in American politics today that is meaner and slimier than the hatred wrapped in patriotism that is the hard-right GOP message on immigration. I get a little frisson of delight when I imagine the ads they are brewing up using these votes.

"Gabby Giffords didn't vote to cut off the health care coverage of immigrant children. She didn't vote to kick immigrant children out of public housing. She wouldn't vote to punish public schools that enroll the children of undocumented immigrants. Gabby Giffords: she just won't screw those immigrant children."

Yeah. That'll work on the vast majority of Americans who aren't eaten up with xenophobic mania.

The GOP apparently didn't learn their lesson in 2006 when their ($) candidates who made immigrant-baiting a major theme of their campaigns got their clocks cleaned across the board. If they need some more tutoring, I think we Democrats should be happy to give it to them.

We need to establish a Democratic system of values regarding the immigration debate, however. The only reason why Republicans are driving this issue is because they at least have a consistent narrative - hateful and divisive though it may be. We Democrats need  to talk about eliminating the need for illegal border crossings, saving lives and reducing the crime along the border, treating both American and Mexican laborers fairly in both countries, and the great American tradition of welcoming and assimilating new citizens.

Democrats sound soulless and stupid when we ape Republican themes of cracking down on employers, and militarizing the border, and treating immigrants as criminals and undesirables; when our Democratic politicians 'me too' the block-headed policy initiatives of Republicans - like building a damn wall - it simply makes the insane seem sensible.

I don't want our party to create a compromise with the sheer insanity that passes for policy among Republicans. I would prefer the status quo ante to compromises that would make life even worse for the immigrants already here, endanger the lives of those that will surely come, and entrench harmful policies in our immigration law for another generation. This is a fight that we can win if we stop accepting the Republican terms for this debate: hatred, fear, xenophobia, and prejudice.

So the GOP wants to square off and make immigration a central issue? I say bring it on, because they have nothing useful to say on the subject. The only we won't win is if we accept that their vision of immigration of in America is in any way legitimate or useful. We have to name the prejudice and hate fueling the GOP's obsession with the immigration issue, or they get to continue to appeal to voters anxieties and prejudices without paying the electoral price. I am sickened when I hear Democrats talking about immigration in the same fearful and divisive way that Republicans do, simply because Democratic leaders aren't offering an alternative vocabulary of ideas.

We got lucky in 2006 that the American people are naturally resistant to demagogues, and largely resisted the GOP siren songs without much help from Democrats; we would be foolish to continue to rely on Americans' continued self-discipline if we aren't even offering a counter-narrative they can stop their ears with.

Andrew Thomas Greenlights Judge Ryan to his Thugs

In the parlance of thugs, to greenlight an enemy is to put out the word that the mark is fair game, and anyone who takes a whack at the target will be rewarded. It is therefore contextually appropriate to say that Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas has greenlighted Judge Ryan to the hate-filled immigration crowd who are his groundings.

Why is Thomas targeting a member of the judiciary? Because Judge Ryan has not denied bail to every suspected illegal immigrant that has come through his court.

Already the jackals who look to Thomas as their pack leader are baying for Ryan's blood. Dennis Wilenchik is disgracing himself by attacking Judge Ryan's independence and integrity with an unprecedented demand that Judge Ryan be recused from every case handled by the Maricopa County Attorney's Office; a demand that would essentially require Judge Ryan to resign from his position as senior judge on the Maricopa criminal bench. In short, they want to destroy Judge Ryan as a jurist and public servant. Thomas, and his hatchet man Wilenchik, want Ryan destroyed.

Is Judge Ryan denying bail to many suspected undocumented immigrants under Prop 100? Yes, he is. But not every to single one that could be denied bail under Prop 100. And that pisses Thomas off, because in his view, judges haven't any discretion to allow bail to suspected undocumented immigrants: every single undocumented immigrant must be denied bail according to Thomas' view of Prop 100.

Thomas' claim is a legal absurdity: that Prop 100 removed all discretion from Arizona's judges when determining bail eligibility for any suspected undocumented immigrant charged with a felony. Here's the constitutional article at issue (Prop 100 language is in red):

"Section 22.  A.  All persons charged with crime shall be bailable by       sufficient sureties, except:

      1.  For capital offenses, sexual assault, sexual conduct with a minor    under fifteen years of age or molestation of a child under fifteen years of age when the proof is evident or the presumption great.

      2.  For felony offenses committed when the person charged is already admitted to bail on a separate felony charge and where the proof is evident or the presumption great as to the present charge.

      3.  For felony offenses if the person charged poses a substantial danger to any other person or the community, if no conditions of release which may be imposed will reasonably assure the safety of the other person or the community and if the proof is evident or the presumption great as to the present charge.

      4.  For serious felony offenses as prescribed by the legislature if the    person charged has entered or remained in the United States illegally and if the proof is evident or the presumption great as to the present charge.

      B.  The purposes of bail and any conditions of release that are set by a judicial officer include:

      1.  Assuring the appearance of the accused.

      2.  Protecting against the intimidation of witnesses.

      3.  Protecting the safety of the victim, any other person or the       community."

One can plainly see that our constitution enumerates three other conditions under which the accused need not be admitted to bail. Conditions 1 through 3 have always been held by the courts, over decades of Arizona decisions, to lay out the framework within which a judge is to exercise his or her discretion as to whether or not to allow bail.

If the judge believes, given what he knows about the accused and the available facts, that a person who falls into one of the three enumerated classes should not be given bail, the constitution empowers the judge to hold the accused without bail. Prop 100 simply added a fourth condition - illegal entry and remaining - under which persons may be held without bail at the discretion of the judge. That's exactly what Judge Ryan maintains, that is what our legal history teaches, and that is exactly what angers Thomas so much.

You see, Thomas wrote Prop 100 to further his own political ambitions. He thinks that his private views on the matter should therefore be the final word on the subject. One can see that Thomas thinks that no undocumented person should ever be admitted to bail from his own words: "We ask you: When is an undocumented person, who is accused of a serious crime, not a flight risk?" Thomas' facile answer to his rhetorical answer is, of course, never.

The legal answer is, of course, when a judge, who is in the best position to know all the relevant facts about the accused, says that the accused is not a flight risk despite his immigration status. Thomas can't accept that judge might just know better than him and his little rhetorical question. Thomas can't accept that as a society we have empowered judges to make such judgments; not Thomas. Thomas' authoritarian personality is unable to accept that there are things outside his control.

Thomas and his henchmen will point to the recent Arizona Court of Appeals ruling in Hernandez v. Lynch and claim that the Arizona courts have upheld Prop 100's constitutionality. Indeed, the court did rule that Prop 100 is constitutional. But the courts have not held that Prop 100 mandates that judges deny bail to anyone they suspect is an undocumented immigrant. The ruling is simply irrelevant to that issue, and if Thomas were to test that issue in court, he would lose. But Thomas and his admirers are trying to use that irrelevant ruling of constitutionality to imply that their theory of it's application is also correct.

The constitution does not require a judge to deny bail. Ever. A judge could release on bail (or no bail for that matter) a serial-killing billionaire foreigner who tells the judge that he wants to kill some more and then flee the jurisdiction. No jurist would do that because they are conscientious and responsible people, but they have that power. That's part of being a judge, and all Thomas can do about that is bully any judge who tries to exercise his unconditional constitutional power as a judge under Prop 100. Thus does Thomas hope to accomplish by intimidation what he could never accomplish legally.

Part of being a member of the judicial branch of our government is being vested with the power to, well, make judgments. Thomas would deny judges discretion under Prop 100 whenever and however he can. In this case, through intimidation and thuggery. Thomas' attack on Judge Ryan is an attack on the whole judiciary and attack on judicial independence itself. It's a grab for unprecedented and unconstitutional power for prosecutors, and a denigration of our constitution, our legal traditions, and the quality of justice in Arizona.

Most of all, Thomas' attack on Judge Ryan is an assault on our civil liberties. Though Thomas is cleverly just picking on despised and powerless illegal aliens at the moment, he's proving himself more than willing to come after you, if you become despised and weak and it becomes politically useful for him to do so.

Thomas knows he can never win this issue in court, so instead, he is waging a PR campaign, assailing the integrity of a worthy public servant, and assaulting the independence of every judge in Arizona by proxy. And his misinformation campaign is working. His minions all believe, and state as fact, the mistaken theory that judges haven't any discretion in accepting bail under Prop 100. Mainly they believe it because they wish it could be so. Their eliminationist fantasies are fed and nourished by Thomas distortion and abuse of the law. Some of his admirers are claiming that Prop 100 flat-out mandates that undocumented immigrants be denied bail. That's flat-out wrong, but it sure is politically useful for Thomas and his plan to run for state-wide office by exploiting people's fear, anxiety and xenophobia to fuel his own thuggish and unethical political rise.

Thomas' unprincipled attempt to intimidate Judge Ryan is part of the larger pattern of ultra-conservative politicians working to undermine and intimidate the judiciary to achieve their political goals when they are frustrated by our constitution and legal traditions. Justice Sunday rallies that are essentially an Orwellian Two Minutes Hate of the judiciary, political threats and intimidation aimed our our judiciary to such a degree that even Sandra Day O'Connor feels compelled to sound the alarm about the trend, and the growing number of real and threatened acts of violence against the judicial profession are all part of an attack aimed at the very heart of the rule of law in this country.

Our judiciary is a thin black line between the rule of law and the tyrannical rule of demagogues. Rather than defending and honoring the judiciary as befits his office, Thomas is laying siege to his small front in the conservative assault on the judiciary.

Thomas is therefore most dangerous, and least ethical, politician in Arizona - and that's saying a great deal considering what a nest of yahoos, poltroons and bounders Arizona's GOP has become. He's proven himself willing and eager to abuse the legal process, misuse the power and prestige of his office, and to blur the boundaries of ethical behavior to achieve his political ambitions.

Shame on you, Mr. Thomas.

Andrew Thomas Propositions Arizona

The current Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas is a savvy politician. He knows what red meat smells like and he knows his constituents' feeding schedule. And he has skillfully used ballot propositions to position himself with voters and to shape the debate on crime and immigration.

He created and sponsored a proposition in 1996 that established his cred as a crime fighter in Arizona. Prop 102, the "Stop Juvenile Crime" measure, didn't stop juvenile crime, but it did change our constitution to allow the eventual abolishment of the juvenile justice system. I guess the idea is, "If no more juvenile justice system, then no more juvenile crime."

So far, legislators have been content to use the power inherent in Thomas' proposition to increase the power of prosecutors to transfer violent juvenile offenders to the adult criminal justice system. But the power to abolish the juvenile system remains dormant, waiting for a someone like Thomas to use it to score political points when running for Attorney General or Governor.

More recently, Thomas hatched Proposition 100 in 2006, which denies bail to undocumented immigrants. Thomas is now using it to try to force the recusal of judges from ALL cases before his office if they don't interpret the proposition the way he likes. It is an unprecedented attack on judicial independence by a public attorney, and it comes at an ideal time to begin whipping up his base for another run at state-wide office.

Let's hope Thomas doesn't get a chance to handle the Attorney General's or Governor's office the way he has handled the Maricopa County Attorney's office. He's virtually outsourced his civil division to the law firm of Dennis Wilenchik, the Phoenix attorney-ideologue who supported Thomas through his law firm while Thomas ran for the County Attorney position. Now that favor is being paid back with hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of contracts granted to Wilenchick's firm by Thomas, not to mention Wilenchick's status as Thomas' unofficial consiglieri and political hatchet man.

It was Wilenchik who held off indicting State Representative Trish Groe on Aggravated DUI charges for months until the legislature was out of session. It is Wilenchik leading the witch-hunt against Maricopa Superior Court Judge Ryan over immigrant bail status. It was Wilenchik at the heart of Sheriff Joe Arpaio's smear of opponent Dan Saban, and is behind Thomas' and Arpaio's scheme to embarass and harrass Terry Goddard over a allegations that disgraced State Treasurer David Peterson bribed him by paying statutorily-mandated legal fees in connection with the Attorney General's investigation of his office on civil fraud charges.

Arpaio, Thomas, and Wilenchik have formed a law-enforcement powered political machine that stands ready to abuse their official powers to trounce anyone who challenges their control and stands in the way of their ambitions. How much more corrupt and powerful will this cabal become if Thomas gets his mitts on the Attorney General's office, or the Governor's office?

I don't want to find out.

Guest Commentary by Karl Reiner: The World’s Richest Man Is a Symptom of Mexico’s Shortcomings

A number of business publications recently carried reports regarding Carlos Slim. With a fortune estimated at $60 billion, the Mexican businessman has become the world’s richest man.  Slim replaced Bill Gates of the United States who held the top spot for a number of years.  According to the reports, Slim’s family business holdings in Mexico account for an astounding 5 percent of the country’s gross domestic product.  The companies controlled by Slim have a massive impact on the Mexican economy.  They comprise 35 percent of the value of the Mexican stock market.  Slim holds a dominant position in the telecommunications industry and is a major player in the automotive, retailing, and banking sectors.

The Mexican government has followed an imprudent policy of opening some markets to privatization and limited competition, while at the same time doing little to regulate them.  Slim and other shrewd business operators have taken advantage of the situation and have become billionaires in the process. One of the sad consequences of this policy has been the stifling of competitiveness and innovation in the Mexican economy. The government has allowed a colossal concentration of economic power to develop in a country desperately in need of real competition and the new investment needed to spur economic growth.  According to Mexico’s Finance Ministry, the country has recorded an atrocious zero percent increase in productivity during the last 25 years. 

Mexico could be said to be on the road to becoming a plutocracy - a government of, by and for the rich.   As economic power concentrates and the economy languishes, the 7 percent annual economic growth rate needed to improve education, create jobs and trim down the country’s staggering poverty level has become unachievable.  Those unfortunate enough to be caught at the stagnant bottom end of Mexico’s economic spectrum have little choice but to trek north, to search for work on the U.S. side of the border. 

Carlos Slim can’t be faulted for taking advantage of the irresolute regulatory situation prevailing in Mexico.  With his business acumen, he would have also found success in a more structured commercial environment. His triumph does, however, highlight the need for the Mexican government to make the changes needed to foster true competition, implement the rule of law, attract investment and deter corruption. Given the power of the entrenched interests with a stake in maintaining the status quo, it is going to be a difficult process. The reformers in Mexico are going to need all the outside support they can get. With the immigration situation the U.S. faces as a consequence of Mexico’s flagging economy