Patriots of SaddleBrooke Press Release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

PRESS RELEASE

Contact:  Richard Brinkley

210-627-3627

tbg@wbhsi.net

PATRIOTS HOST “SUPER MEET & GREET”

Bruce Ash, National Republican 
Committeeman to MC

SADDLEBROOKE, AZ – JULY 21, 2012 – The Patriots of SaddleBrooke is hosting a “Super Meet Greet” candidates at the federal, state and county levels.  Bruce Ash has agreed to MC the event on August 7, 2012, at the Mountain View Country Club from 4:00 PM to 7:00 PM.

The following candidates will appear at the “Super Meet and Greet:”

Federal level     

Wil Cardon, United States Senate; Jonathan Payton, CD 1; Gaither Martin, CD 1.

State level        

Al Melvin, AZ Senate; Steve Smith AZ House; Adam Kwasman, AZ House.

Bob Stump, ACC; Susan Bitter Smith, ACC; Bob Burns, ACC.

County level   

Douglas Wolf, Assessor;  Lando Voyles, County Attorney; 

Anthony Gonzalez, School Superintendent; 

Derek Arnson, Sheriff;  Paul Babeu, Sheriff; 

Tom Bearup, Sheriff; Jack McClaren, Sheriff; 

Nancy Discher, County Supervisor; Anthony Smith, County Supervisor.

Oracle School District         

Board Members: Jeri Taylor; Jeff McClure

The Patriots of SaddleBrooke is a non-partisan assembly of conservative Americans dedicated to embracing their civic duty and being actively involved in the political process.  The foundation of the Patriots of SaddleBrooke is involvement at all levels of government.

###

For more information or media inquiries contact Richard Brinkley at tbg@wbhsi.net or 210-627-3627

Board of Supervisors Retreats on Property Tax Rate Gambit

On May 23, 2012, the Pinal County Board of Supervisors considered the proposal before it: approval or disapproval of the Pinal County tentative budget for fiscal year 2012-2013 in the amount of $334,515,835. Why is this item so important?  Pinal County has the second highest primary property tax rate in the State. This is a chance to lower the primary property tax rate.

County Manager Fritz Behring began the presentation. County government consumed roughly 28 cents of each tax dollar. What consumed the rest of the tax dollar? Cities and Towns, 6%; School Districts, 40%; Central Arizona College, 13%; Other, 13%.

Mr. Behring’s presentation mentioned that Pinal County has started on a path of increased financial responsibility. General Fund Revenues are stabilizing but growth is modest. Effective financial management allows Pinal County to reduce the primary property tax rate while maintaining fiscal responsibility.

Mr. Behring continues that the 2012-2013 County priorities are (1) Public Safety, (2) Health Care, (3) Transportation, (4) Jobs and Economic Development, and (5) Accountability. In addition, Pinal County will reduce the primary property tax rate by 5%, from $3.99 to $3.79 per $100 of assessed valuation.  Great news!

But wait.  Supervisor Pete Rios wants to give the County employees a one percent increase, which will offset part of the property tax rate reduction. Can he do it?

Mr. Behring stated that Pinal County has the second highest primary property tax rate in the State.  The Pinal County primary property tax rate per capita is $230 versus the State average of $179.  In addition, Pinal County has the lowest per capita income in the State.  Implied but not spoken: is this really the time to give County employees a salary increase or give property tax payers relief?

Supervisor David Snider, District 3, adamantly maintained that property tax payers needed relief before County employees were provided a one percent increase. What is the value of one percent?  On a $50,000 salary, one percent is worth $500 annually or $19.23 per paycheck before taxes; after taxes: $13.27, or about the cost of one lunch per pay period.

Clark L. Smithson, District 2, replaced Bryan Martyn, and was sworn in at the beginning of the Board meeting.  Supervisor Smithson, ostensibly a Republican, hemmed and hawed, repeatedly saying, “and on the other hand,” demonstrating his strong stand on “squishiness.”

Finally, Supervisor Rios called for a motion to provide a one percent increase for the employees. There was no second. The motion died. Then Supervisor Rios moved that the budget be predicated on a $3.89 per $100 assessed valuation and further moved that the Budget Office come back to the Board with a revised budget. The vote: Supervisor Snider voted no. Supervisors Rios and Smithson voted yes. Supervisor Smithson caved under the gaze of Supervisor Pete Rios.

There was a loose understanding that the new tentative budget would be revealed at the next Board meeting on June 6^th.  The next day, one of our friends at the County notified us of a quickly scheduled Special Session of the Board for May 25^th at 9:30 AM.

It appears that Board of Supervisors was trying to pass the tentative budget on the day before a long weekend with little notice. Members of Patriots of SaddleBrooke Vince Leach, Dan McHenry and Richard Brinkley responded to the meeting along with a handful of Pinal County citizens, some of who were called by the Patriots.

The Agenda item #1 (the only agenda item) was to approve a tentative budget of

$336,572,544, or $2.1 million more than the County Manager submitted. The new tentative budget increased the proposed primary property tax rate from $3.79 submitted by the County Manager to $3.89, which meant the original property tax rate decrease of 5% was slashed to 2.5%.

All members of the Patriots of SaddleBrooke addressed the Board of Supervisors, along with a few other Pinal County citizens. These citizen orators criticized the new tentative budget. Homeowners needed relief from Pinal County’s egregious property taxes. Now was not the time to provide employees a salary increase. How can a rural county have the second highest primary property tax rate in the State?

Supervisor Smithson, who had received a number of emails from irate citizens provided the motion: a budget of $334,515,835 at a primary property tax rate of $3.79 per $100 of assessed valuation. 

Pinal County citizens won the battle and the Patriots of SaddleBrooke, as well as the few citizens in attendance, deserve honorable mention for having preserved a 5% property tax reduction for Pinal County citizens.

Our Health Care Watershed

Next month, the United States Supreme Court is hearing what has become known as “Obamacare.”  The case is the result of 26 states filing suits in federal courts and differing opinions from several federal appellate courts.

Of course, the first order of business will be deciding whether there are any enumerated limits to the federal government.  The Constitution states there are specific enumerated powers delegated to the federal government with all remaining powers reserved to the States and the People, respectively. 

The Obama administration is going to state that, for the first time in United States history, the government has the right and authority to require all Americans to purchase a product (health care) in order to live in this country and, necessarily, there are no limits to federal authority.  It will base its argument on novel interpretations of the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause.

The Commerce Among the States Clause has generated more court cases than any other Clause. The arguments focus on the definition of “to regulate,” “Commerce,” and “among the several states.” The Supreme Court still struggles with these terms.

Regarding the Necessary and Proper Clause, one should recollect Chief Justice John Marshall’s admonition: “ Should Congress, in the execution of its powers, adopt measures which are prohibited by the constitution; or should Congress, under the under the pretext of executing its powers, pass laws for the accomplishment of objects not entrusted to the government; it would become the painful duty of this tribunal, should a case requiring such a decision come before it, to say that such an act was not the law of the land.”

The individual mandate does not make sense. The States, who have banded together to oppose Obamacare, will state to the Justices that, “Neither the federal government nor the numerous lower courts . . . ‘have identified a single other federal law throughout our Nation’s entire history that compels individuals to enter into commerce,” i.e., the government has no legal basis for its position.

In addition to the individual mandate, Obamacare expands Medicaid to approximately 16 million people. A program originally designed for the poor will now cover about 25% of Americans at a cost the States cannot afford. The States will argue that the fiscal burden of such an expansion is so coercive as to be unconstitutional.

What the Supreme Court will essentially decide in this case are the limits of congressional power. Will the enumerated powers of Congress be enforced? Or will Congress have unfettered power to regulate any and all aspects of our lives? The Supreme Court will determine whether the Constitution’s structural limitations on congressional power will be altered.  The Supreme Court will address whether States sovereignty remains intact as well the applicability of the Tenth Amendment. And, most important, The Supreme Court will decide the future of our concept of dual federalism.

We are at a watershed moment. Whether or not the United States remains a nation of limited government and individual liberty now rests with the Supreme Court.

Arizona IRC ED Denies Budget Recommendation

It was at the Independent Redistricting Commission hearing that SaddleBrooke resident Vince Leach rose to speak before the Commission. Leach spoke to the cover-ups and legal battles in which the Commission is currently engaged (as reported by numerous news media). Leach urged the Commission to be transparent and focus on the real issue: redistricting.

Leach mentioned to the Commissioners that the Commission’s budget, for the ten year cycle, is $10 million as recommended by the Department of Administration and reported by the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC). Leach was concerned that the last Commission cycle budget was $6 million but had to be increased to $9.5 million due to lawsuits filed against the Commission’s redistricting. Would this year’s budget also see a 58% increase, to $15.8 million, due to lawsuits filed against Commission decisions and backroom machinations?

After concluding his remarks, Leach returned to his seat in the “overflow” room. Before he could sit down, Ray Bladine, Executive Director of the Commission, confronted Leach, accusing him of providing false numbers. Leach provided a copy of the JLBC report, verifying the Department of Administration ten year $10.2 million budget recommendation.

Bladine, in spite of having seen the JLBC report, countered that the numbers were false. He accused Leach of presenting misleading material, which Leach denied. Bladine then stated, “Now I know what I am dealing with,” or words to that effect. When Leach asked Bladine to explain his comment, Bladine refused, repeating, “Now I know what I am dealing with.”

Bladine then placed his hand against Leach’s shoulder not once but twice. Leach told Bladine to take his hand off Leach’s shoulder, his voice loud enough to draw attention and witnesses to the confrontation.

Bladine was interviewed regarding the incident. He denied any confrontation with Mr. Leach but admitted putting his hand against Leach’s shoulder. Bladine further stated that this year’s budget appropriation was $3.5 million. He neither acknowledged that Leach was discussing the 10 year cycle not just a single fiscal year nor admitted that the Department of Administration had made a budget recommendation for $10 million.

It seems unusual that an Executive Director of the IRC would not know that the Department of Administration had recommended a budget of $10.2 million budget for the ten year redistricting cycle. This is public information.

We the People Can Do Better

A United States Representative sends lewd pictures of himself to six females, and then brazenly lies to the press and his peers about his actions. An Arizona State senator has a public brawl with his girl friend in the middle of a public road and tells police he cannot be arrested because he is a sitting senator. A Pinal County supervisor disrespects his constituents by describing his constituents’ questions and statements as “moronic.”

What is the common thread in the behavior of these politicians? Hubris: an unbridled arrogance, an excess of ambition and pride. Another common thread is a total detachment from the reality of the electorate who elected these people into office, only to discover these politicians are not representative of the electorate but are self-representative.

Are politicians arrogant before they are elected to office or do they become arrogant as a result of being elected into office? How does political arrogance begin? Is political arrogance a façade covering up a lack of self confidence? Why are politicians more prone to lack of humility and lack of civility? These are the people who should be looking out for us. Instead, they seem to be looking out for themselves.

We see the same arrogance at the federal and state levels, only to a much worse degree. It is not ordinary political arrogance, it is more, as described in the opening paragraph. It is a general break-down of our ethics, where immoral acts are condoned as long as the act does not violate some statute, where politicians use their positions of power to indulge and cheat. It is a corrupt philosophy of “the ends justifies the means.”

Surely, we "the People" can do a better job of selecting our representatives.

Supervisor Pete Rios’ Popularity Death Spiral

At the close of the Board Meeting last week, a Pinal County citizen stood to address the Board of Supervisors. As usual, Supervisor Rios told the citizen that he had only three minutes.

The Pinal County citizen began by mentioning that over a year ago, State budget cuts and cost shifts could be anticipated. The citizen continued to respectfully address the Board of Supervisors. Suddenly, Pete Rios and fellow Supervisor David Snider started laughing and smiling at some inside joke, totally ignoring the citizen speaker. It was a display of utter contempt to and for a citizen of Pinal County.

Finally, the Pinal County citizen addressed Supervisor Rios directly: “Supervisor Rios, do you want to share with us what is so funny?”

Pete Rios immediately grabbed the gavel, pounding it furiously on the desk, yelling,” You’re out of order,” repeatedly. Spittle could be seen on Supervisor Rios’ quivering lips. Rios lost control. His behavior was bizarre and reflected badly on himself, the Board of Supervisors and Pinal County.

The Pinal County citizen stood his ground proudly. He had not disrespected the Mr. Rios or the Board. It was Pete Rios who brought disgrace upon himself and his fellow Board Supervisors.

Almost immediately, the Board of Supervisors meeting degenerated to a close and fellow citizens rush to congratulate not Pete Rios but Vince Leach, the honest citizen who called Pete Rios on his disrespectful behavior.

Leaving the Supervisors’ meeting room, I overheard a disgruntled citizen commenting about Pete Rios and his behavior, ‘These guys think they walk on water . . . until you flush it.”

Senate Bill 1540: The Facts

There has been a growing misunderstanding of Senate Bill 1540, concerning political flyers, petitions and homeowner associations, by primarily those individuals who have not read the bill. Those who have not read the bill decry the bill allowing multiple political campaign signs on residential property. The amending language of the bill does not even mention the number of signs; it does cover freedom of expression: sign content and production. What follows is the amending language of the bill: To make it a class 2 misdemeanor to knowingly remove, alter or deface any political mailers, handouts, flyers or other printed materials of a candidate that are delivered by hand to a residence. To allow door to door political activity, including solicitations of support or opposition regarding candidates or ballot issues, and to allow circulation of political petitions, nomination petitions and petitions in support or opposition to an initiative, referendum or recall on property normally open to visitors. To allow an Association to prohibit door to door political activity regarding candidates or ballot issues from sunset to sunrise. To require, for each person engaged in the political activity, a prominent display of an identification tag, along with prominent identification of the candidate or ballot issue that is the subject of support or opposition. To prohibit a planned community from restricting the number of candidates supported, the number of public officers supported or opposed in a recall or the number of propositions supported or opposed on a political sign. To prohibit a planned community from requiring political signs to be commercially produced or professionally manufactured or prohibit the utilization of both sides of a sign. The amending language of Senate Bill 1540 has nothing to do with the number of political signs but everything to do with protecting our Constitutional right to freedom of expression. For those individuals who do not like the idea of candidates or their supporters engaging in door to door activity, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that residents can post a “no solicitation” sign on their property and refuse to engage in conversation (Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc., et. al. v. Village of Stratton, an 8 to 1 decision). This 2002 decision also reaffirmed the right to engage in door to door activity for political or religious purposes. Senator Melvin confirmed that in the six years he has run for elective office, he has gone to thousands of homes and has been welcomed by the residents. He can count on one hand the number of times he encountered someone who did not want to engage in conversation. Senator Melvin further said, “I am sure that this is the experience of most candidates running for elective office. For those people who are still too lazy to read the bill but who want to yell about political signage, Pinal County allows each residence to have up to 32 square feet of political signage. Now, that’s something to talk to your County Supervisor about.