Arizona Commentaries

Arizona IRC ED Denies Budget Recommendation

2011-08-16T15:09:00.000-07:00

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

2011-06-26T13:51:00.000-07:00

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

2011-05-30T09:13:00.000-07:00

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

2011-03-27T10:02:00.000-07:00

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.

Pete Rios’ Attempt at Misdirection

2011-03-18T13:37:00.000-07:00

An anonymous complaint was filed with the Pinal County Sheriff and County Attorny’s Office on January 24, 2011. This complaint was forwarded to the Arizona State Attorney General on February 9, 2011.

The complaint alleges that Mr. Rios, current Chair and Supervisor of Pinal County’s Board of Supervisors, does not reside within the boundaries of his supervisory district and that he has submitted fraudulent travel vouchers.

Apparently, Mr. Rios resides in Apache Junction but owns additional properties in Dudleyville and Superior. The complaint alleges that Mr. Rios has claimed mileage reimbursement from his home to work. County policy allows Supervisors to claim mileage for work purposes but not from home to work and back. The IRS does not allow mileage reimbursement from home to work and back.

In initial investigation by Arizona Republic Staff Writer Lindsey Collom showed that he starts his day in either Dudleyville or Superior, and that Rios was reimbursed over $8,000 in 2010.

So, assuming that Mr. Rios is innocent of the allegations why doesn’t he just answer the allegations? Instead, he launched a vicious attack on Sheriff Paul Babeu, his staff and “cronies.” The question is, why is Mr. Rios attempting to misdirect the questioning and focus away from the allegations and, instead, attack a popular Sheriff?

So let’s begin asking the right questions. Mr. Rios has three properties. Which property is his primary residence? Is that residence in District One?

Mr. Rios claims he won a Superior Court case regarding his residency and claims the court ruling shows Dudleyville as his primary residence. However, just because a Judge ruled Dudleyville as Rios’ primary residence 30 years ago does not mean Dudleyville is Rios’ primary residence today.

For Mr. Rios to hang his hat on a 30 year old case is weak. Where does Mr. Rios spend the preponderance of his time? Where does Mrs. Rios live? Let’s interview the neighbors.

Mr. Rios accused Sheriff Babeu of attempting to silence board members in Pinal County. Anybody who has attended a Board meeting in Pinal County knows Mr. Rios cannot be silenced. He is the kingfish of Pinal County. Mr. Rios’ comments are simply misdirection to remove the spotlight from him; his misdirection is not working.

Mr. Rios accused Sheriff Babeu of attempting to get control of his budget, saying the Sheriff doesn’t want to come to the board to obtain expenditure approval. What’s wrong with an elected official controlling his or her own budget? These people are not political appointees. They are elected officials accountable to the people, not to Pete Rios.

Yet, Mr. Rios continues to obfuscate with his attempted misdirection. If Mr. Rios has done nothing wrong, then make all travel expense reimbursement vouchers available to the public.

If Mr. Rios has done noting wrong, then let him identify his primary residence as the residence he lives in the most. It may have been Dudleyville 30 years ago. It may be Dudleyville today. Or it may not.

Answer the questions, Mr. Rios. Let’s clear the air. Your attempts at misdirection are already making people question your motives.

Is Supervisor Bryan Martyn Gaffe Prone?

2011-03-17T15:01:00.000-07:00

On March 15, 2011, Bryan Martyn co-authored a letter to the Arizona State legislature, in general, not to anyone specifically. In the first paragraph of the letter Supervisor Martyn wrote:

“Tough times demand bold and innovative solutions to problems that face us as a nation, state and county. We in Pinal County have implemented both bold and innovative solutions to our current budgetary crisis. We continue to streamline processes, enhance our partnerships, cut or reduce programs and eliminate personnel and implement a pay freeze. We have effectively reduced the size and cost of county government over the past two years (emphasis mine).”

From FY 2009-2010 to FY 2010-2011, the annual budget increased from $400.2 million to $429.9 million, or 7.4%. The General Fund portion of the budget increased by $12.3 million or 6.7%.

Property taxes also increased with the FY2010-2011 tax rate increasing from $3.36 to $3.99, $.63 or 18.7%. Even with excluding the so-called cost-shift from the State of $.28, the Pinal County tax rate still increased by $.36 or almost 19%.

Supervisor Martyn must be using “new math” in support of his claim of reducing the size and cost of government. By all traditional measures Pinal County government grew larger and more expensive.

On the same day, during a Board of Supervisor meeting, Supervisor Martyn, in response to concerns voiced by a citizen regarding matching federal funds, overly emoted “Praise the Lord,” numerous times in having $1,5 million in matching funds for Hunt Highway improvements. The Supervisor Martyn snarled at the audience that the $1.5 million was not “your money.” Well, Supervisor Martyn, if it is not “our” tax dollars then whose tax dollars are the $1.5 million?

Supervisor Martyn seems to have forgotten, as most hyperbole-prone politicians, that all tax dollars are local whether gift-wrapped in federal, state, county or city colors. When Supervisor Martyn uttered his faux pas, members of the audience started coming out of their seats. He quickly closed by saying, “We’ll talk off-line.” Smart move.

Rumor has it that Supervisor Martyn wants to make a career in politics by running in the new Congressional District in 2012. With two enormous gaffes in one day, he’s off to a fine start.

Irresponsible People in Responsible Positions

2011-01-09T09:46:00.000-08:00

Moments after the tragic shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords, Arizona State Senator Linda Lopez blamed members of the Tea Party for the tragedy. What proof? What evidence? Senator Lopez had not one shred of evidence yet, she, nevertheless, irrationally blamed amorphous members of the Tea Party.

Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, who should have known better, displayed his lack of professionalism by deploring that Arizona had become “a mecca for prejudice and bigotry.” What proof? What evidence?

A deranged twenty-two year old male committed a horrendous act, killing and wounding innocent people. Was there proof of a conspiracy? Among the assailants favorite books is the Communist Manifesto. It doesn’t sound like a Tea Party member to me.

The actions and comments of Sheriff Dupnik and Senator Linda Lopez were plain stupid. But, here we have a case where Dupnik may be correct: Arizona may be a mecca for prejudice and bigotry . . . of irresponsible people in responsible positions.

It would be in the best interest of Arizona for Sheriff Dupnik and Senator Lopez to resign their offices in shame.

A Violation of Due Process - Part 2

2010-12-27T09:21:00.000-08:00

The Pinal County Board of Supervisors has possibly exposed taxpayers to a major lawsuit over how the County pays overtime to its Deputy Sheriffs. In the original article exposing the arbitrary limits and policy manipulations by the County, the following questions were posed:

On what authority can the County deprive a deputy of property rights obtained through honest labor?

On what authority can the County manipulate internal policy to force its Deputies to not only work for “free” (unpaid “comp” time) but also sacrifice their earned vacation time (vested property right) as a result of the County’s manipulation of policy?

Now it comes out that the County, when confronted with a Deputy’s need for overtime money to pay for essentials at home, the County refuses to pay overtime owed until the Deputy can show that he truly needs the money by showing financial statements, bills and other documentation. On what Constitutional authority does the County rely upon for this egregious invasion of privacy?

Pinal County may have legal exposure at this moment. Nothing the County is doing with regard to its overtime policy for Deputies is ethical or legal: it is as politically motivated and as corrupt as it gets.

Members of the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office have made formal demands for overtime payment of overtime earned. One employee of the Sheriff’s Office made a request on November 19th. On November 30th, the Pinal County Human Resources Department acknowledged receiving the request.

On December 14th, the Human Resource Director punted the problem down the road, saying he had just sent out a new policy for comments and he will be using the new policy, if approved, for cash payouts. But until it is approved, he will not process cash payments for overtime.

Initially, Ms. Brandi Clark, Human Resources Manager, wrote the employee that the process will take one to two weeks, which puts the request for payment into mid-December, a full four weeks after the request was made. It looks like the County is stalling until January.

Apparently, the Deputy Association’s attorney has already sent the County a “cease and desist” letter regarding the intrusive and invasive process the County established for payment of overtime. It is my understanding the Association’s attorney is ready to take the next step.

In the course of correspondence with Supervisor Rios, he made the following post script on December 22nd:

“PS...We are working on OT pay...Most will more than likely be very satisfied with the solution........” I hope so, for it is not only a matter of correcting the current process but also repairing past damages.

The Pinal County Citizens for Excellence in Government await the County’s resolution to this harmful and morale destroying issue.

A Lady and Her Facts

2010-10-31T16:15:00.000-07:00

I was struck by the glaring differences between the candidates as they answered questions at the Basis School debate. Cheryl Cage answered in sound bites and generalities. Al Melvin answered with sources and facts.

Ms. Cage repeatedly talked of closing $10 billion in tax credits and loopholes. After the debate, I asked Ms. Cage for a list of these tax credits and loopholes. After all, since she knew the amount she should have a tabulated list. Apparently not: Ms.Cage refused my request.

On the topic of “all day kindergarten,” Ms. Cage lamented that all day kindergarten was not compulsory and that children were suffering, a typical progressive-socialist lament. She failed to state that there is credible research on both sides of the topic. It seemed as if she wanted her own opinion and her own facts. Sorry, Ms. Cage, you can have your opinion but you cannot have your own set of facts.

In addition, Ms. Cage resorted to meaningless statistics in her answers. For example, she lamented that Arizona was last in per pupil funding at $9,200. This statistic is meaningless without framing it with qualitative data. At $9,200 per pupil, Arizona graduates 70% of its students on time.

America’s Promise Alliance, in its study “Cities in Crises: Closing the Graduation Rate,” found that in the country’s 50 largest cities, which all fund students at higher levels than Arizona, the graduation rates are 53%. Arizona’s graduation rate of 70% is at the national average. The obvious conclusion is Arizona is more effective and efficient in graduating students on time. We can do better but it is not the doom and gloom picture painted by Ms. Cage.

Ms. Cage, in attempting to explain away the doubling of the State General Fund budget from $5.5 billion to $11 billion under Governor Napolitano (2002-2008), flippantly responded that the reason the budget exploded was Arizona experienced 40% growth in its population. Not true. The United States Census Bureau shows that between 2000 and 2009, Arizona’s population grew by 28.6%, or 11.4% percent less than Ms. Cage’s 40% even adding three additional years. My analysis shows growth between 2002 and 2008 to be just under 19%. Once again, Ms. Cage is devoid of any facts.

Regarding solar energy, Ms. Cage has stated that, “Studies have shown for every $1 million dollars invested in solar will provide 13.5 jobs to the nuclear industries 4.5 jobs.” I am a proponent of solar. I have solar on my house. What I am not a proponent of is mass solar installations that misuse the environment. Spain attempted to “go green” several years ago with dismal results.

“For every new position that depends on energy price supports, at least 2.2 jobs in other industries will disappear, according to a study from King Juan Carlos University in Madrid . . .The premiums paid for solar, biomass, wave and wind power—which are charged to consumers in their bill – translated into a $774,000 cost for each Spanish ‘green job’ created since 2000, said Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at the university and author of the report . . . The loss of jobs could be greater if you account for the amount of lost industry that moves out of the country due to higher energy prices . . .” I asked Ms. Cage on more than one occasion how she rationalized net job losses? She has yet to provide an answer.

I firmly believe Ms. Cage is a nice lady but she cannot run on soap opera dramatics. Proposed policies must be based on facts not feelings. This is Ms. Cage’s weakness: she prefers her opinion over objective facts. I think this will be the cause of her loss to Senator Al Melvin.

A Violation of Due Process?

2010-09-17T15:38:00.000-07:00

The Pinal County Board of Supervisors appears to be facing significant resentment from the men and women of the Pinal County Sheriff’s Department. About two years ago, in an effort to control cost, the County arbitrarily limited overtime on a quarterly basis. When that limit is met, the County forces deputies to work overtime for unpaid compensation, which is essentially time off. However, the County appears to be illegally making money in the process.

The legal perspective is quite interesting. Once a Deputy has worked overtime, the County incurs an accounting liability for the value of the overtime worked. The Deputy has an inherent interest in this value as a property value. It is the Deputy’s property.

When the County placed an arbitrary limit on the overtime the Sheriff’s Office could work, it replaced overtime payment with unpaid “comp time.” However, the County also stated that the Deputy had to take “comp” time off first before vacation time. As a result of the accumulated “comp” time, the Deputy was unable to access his vacation time.

So we have a case of the County Government arbitrarily restricting overtime payment for work received from the Deputy. In addition, the County forces the Deputy to accept unpaid “comp” time in return for overtime worked.

Unfortunately, the PCSO is understaffed due to hiring restrictions placed on it by the County. The understaffing creates a situation where the PCSO is forced to work overtime to meet minimum staffing levels that prevent the deputy from using up previously earned “comp” time. Some beats go unmanned due to understaffing. Because the Deputy cannot use up his earned “comp” time, the County prohibits him/her from using earned vacation time. At the end of the County’s Fiscal Year, any unused vacation is erased off the books.

The Deputy has a property interest in his/her earned vacation time. The County recognizes this property interest as a liability to the County: they owe the Deputy the value of the vacation earned. When the County unilaterally took the earned vacation away from the Deputy, the County deprived the Deputy of his property interest without due process of law (5th and 14th Amendments) at a minimum.

On what authority can the County deprive a Deputy of property rights obtained through honest labor? On what authority can the County manipulate internal policy to force its Deputies to not only work for “free” (unpaid “comp” time) but also sacrifice their earned vacation time (vested property right) due to the County’s own manipulation of policy?

This issue has been referred by the Board of Supervisors to a work group to meet in October. This will be an interesting meeting as the two Democrat Supervisors do not like the Republican Sheriff. This issue is not only a morale and safety issue for the deputies but a potential legal issue for the County Supervisors.

Nancy Young Wright’s Narrow Viewpoint

2010-06-26T14:55:00.000-07:00

A review of Nancy Young Wright’s website is very revealing. She lists ten issues and here is the gist of what she says:

Budget: “. . . She will push to protect funding for education . . .Businesses want a strong educational system . . .We must plan and provide for schools, parks and other infrastructure . . .”

From FY 2000 to FY 2009 (est), total Federal, state, County and local spending on K-12 has increased 88%, or an average of 8.8% per year, about twice the rate of inflation. The data source is the Joint Legislative Budget Committee. Per pupil funding has increased 49% or about 4.9% annually, or about 1.5 times the rate of inflation. It appears that, contrary to Nancy Wright Young’s position, the schools are adequately funded. The problem is the school administrators are not using the funds properly.

Economic Development: “Nancy believes that the key to improving Arizona’s economy lies in investing in our public schools and universities . . .”

As stated above, the Legislature is adequately funding the schools. School administration is the problem. In 2009, only 56.9% of the school dollar reached the classroom. The Office of the Auditor general found that declining classroom dollar percentages indicated supplanting, which means that schools administrators are shifting Classroom Site Fund (CSF) monies from the classroom to non-classroom purposes: a violation of State statute.

Education: “. . . Nancy will fight to restore our public schools . . .She will push for higher salaries . . . Once we have rebuilt our schools to an adequate level of funding . . .”

Instead of voting for higher taxes and more money for schools, Nancy Young Wright should be actively looking at where the problem lies: school district administrators. Shifting CSF funds to transportation and other non-classroom categories directly harms the students. The Auditor General has found a clear association between classroom dollars and student achievement. Districts with higher classroom dollar percentages appear to have higher percentages of students who met or exceeded AIMS Math, Reading and Writing Assessments. This association holds true even after controlling for the effects of poverty.

Energy: “. . . She supports incentives for solar energy and research for clean alternatives. She supports Green construction . . .”

Nancy Young Wright’s counterpart, Cheryl Cage, who is running against Al Melvin for State Senate, supports solar. Ms. Cage stated in an Op-Ed that, “Studies have shown for every $1 million dollars [sic] invested in solar will provide 13.5 jobs to the nuclear industries 4.5 jobs.” What Ms. Cage did not say is the solar jobs will be low paying while the nuclear jobs will be high paying. Also, for every solar 13.5 jobs created other industries will lose 30 jobs. It’s obvious that neither lady has really thought about solar energy and its impact on our economy.

Environment: “. . . She will advocate for clean air and water for our state. . .”

Well, that’s nice. I bet everyone reading this article will advocate for clean air and water. The question is how do we meet the challenge? How will it be funded? It will have to be executed on a State and Regional basis. How to get there? Nancy Wright Young did not say.

Health care: “Nancy supports programs to attract and retain the health care professionals we desperately need.”

Well, this is nice too. When the Obama health bill passed, 46 million uninsured were added to Medicaid and other government programs. At that moment, the United States suddenly had a physician shortage (“Physician Shortages: How’s That for Hope and Change,” 10/09) of over 54,000 primary care physicians. Training physician takes time and money. So does training Nurse Practitioners and Physician assistants in the numbers now required.

She also failed to discuss health care rationing taking place since ObamaCare was signed into law. Arizona’s AHCCCS is slashing benefits to enrollees over age 21. Physicians are already refusing new Medicare patients and dropping existing patients due to low reimbursement rates. Medicare Advantage patients will lose their Medicare Advantage benefits due to reduction in Medicare funding by Nancy Wright Young’s Democratic Party. Nancy Wright Young failed to comment on the depth of the problem or propose any solutions.

Open Government: “”Nancy is a strong advocate for citizen participation and will fight to preserve our right to the initiative and referendum process . . .”

This is a daring stand. Unless I missed something, no one has advocated taking the initiative and referendum away from the people.

Taxes: “Nancy believes that Arizona’s entire tax structure must be examined for fairness and stability. Our current budget crises in Arizona can be traced to too much dependency on sales tax and on a lack of diversification in our economy . . . She supports impact fees for the costs of new infrastructure such as roads, sewers, parks and schools to lessen the tax bill to existing residents.”

Arizona got into trouble with increased spending under Governor Janet Napolitano. I agree with Ms. Wright’s statement that our entire tax structure must be examined for fairness and stability. States like Texas, Nevada and Florida prosper without an income tax. Why can’t Arizona?

I also disagree with implementing new impact fees (increased taxes) for costs of new infrastructure. The fees will be passed on to the consumer in the price of the product or commodity. Taxes are too high now.

Transportation: “. . . Nancy supports statewide cooperation on a transportation plan that includes alternative transportation, impact fees for roads, and local control . . . She strongly supports the rail system connecting Tucson and Phoenix and the provision of bio-diesel and alternative fuel stations for the general public.”

Again, a nice sentiment but clearly not thought out. The increase in ethanol production has caused the price of corn to sky rocket. Tortillas in Mexico almost doubled in price. Bio-diesel and alternative fuels are exotic subjects for which there is no mass of customers. What is needed is serious discussion on what our communities need versus what they can afford. Nancy Young Wright offers no serious discussion.

Veterans: “Our veterans deserve our support and adequate resources for medical care, education and continued care . . .”

Thank God she got this one right.

Of the ten issues she listed on her web site, Nancy Young Wright had one answer for Budgets, Economic Development and Education: pour more money into public schools. This is after the Auditor General has found school districts are mismanaging the money they already have. To provide additional money to school districts to mismanage is insane.

Nancy Young Wright supports solar energy, which will destroy more jobs than it creates. Clearly, she has not seriously thought about the long term effects of alternative energy impacts on our economy.

She took a breath-taking stand for clean air and water without providing any policy details.
She repeated the problem of physician shortages without stating how many physicians we’re going to need, how we’re going to find them, how we’re going to fund them . . . obviously she has no clue. That’s why she could only state the obvious problem.

Nancy Young Wright’s position on open government was vacuous. Her response on taxes was higher taxes in the form of impact fees. Her comments on transportation were superficial.

We want our representatives in Phoenix to think. Where are Nancy Young Wright’s ideas? Where is her ability to think outside the proverbial box and create new solutions? Higher taxes and pouring more money into education as school administrators mismanage their spending is outrageous.

Serious issues demand serious thinking by our elected representatives. Nancy Young Wright has demonstrated she is not serious. She is a blinded shallow thinker, narrowly focused on pouring money into public education without accountability, without checks and balances but with sheer abandon.

Nancy Young Wright is not a serious thinker. The Democratic Party can do better than Nancy Young Wright.

Cheryl Cage and Her Own Facts

2010-06-21T11:25:00.000-07:00

Cheryl Cage has been issuing questionable press releases attacking her opponent, Senator Al Melvin, with manufactured and unsupported charges. She is entitled to her own opinion but not to her own facts.

In a June 16th Op-Ed column in the Explorer, Cheryl Cage stated, “In his op-ed (Arizona should consider atomic energy 6/9) Mr. Melvin manipulates the facts to support his push for Arizona to become a nuclear waste destination so we can become ‘very rich.’”

So what did Senator Melvin really say? “Any practical plan for our future must include alternate energy sources, and any alternate energy plan must include atomic energy. In truth, Arizona can be a very rich and prosperous state with plentiful and affordable electricity through atomic power, and we can also have plentiful and affordable water through desalinization.

“ . . . The Electric Power Research Institute states that by 2030, states with atomic reactors will see their electric rates rise by 45% and states with no atomic reactors will see their electric rates rise over 265%. When one looks at the cost to produce electricity per kilowatt-hour, atomic energy is 2.5 cents compared to solar and wind up to 14 to 17 cents. Coal and natural gas are 4 to 7 cents, yet over time these costs are bound to increase . . .”

Ms. Cage, attempts to deceive the reader by stating, “He states that nuclear energy costs 2.5 cents per kilowatt hour compared to solar and wind (notice he lumps solar and wind together) at around 14 to 17 cents per kilowatt-hour. What he doesn’t tell you is that the stated 2.5 cents per kilowatt-hour does not include capital costs (which make up 80% of the energy production cost) or costs of transmission . . .”

What Ms. Cage failed to tell the reader is the costs for coal and natural gas, and solar and wind, also do not include capital costs. So Senator Melvin is comparing apples to apples.
If Ms. Cage takes exception to this comparison, let’s talk about the billions of dollars being wasted by the government on doubling our nation’s use of solar and wind: doubling moves usage from 1% to 2% of all energy used in this country, a very inefficient use of taxpayer dollars.

Ms. Cage then stated that, “Studies have shown for every $1 million dollars [sic] invested in solar will provide 13.5 jobs to the nuclear industries 4.5 jobs.” What Ms. Cage doesn’t say is the solar jobs will be low paying while the nuclear jobs will be high paying. Also, for every 13.5 jobs created other industries will lose 30 jobs.

For those of you who want evidence, just look at Spain. “For every new position that depends on energy price supports, at least 2.2 jobs in other industries will disappear, according to a study from King Juan Carlos University in Madrid . . .The premiums paid for solar, biomass, wave and wind power—which are charged to consumers in their bill –translated into a $774,000 cost for each Spanish ‘green job’ created since 2000, said Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at the university and author of the report . . . The loss of jobs could be greater if you account for the amount of lost industry that moves out of the country due to higher energy prices . . .”

Ms. Cage continues with her misinformation: “His comparison about the ‘footprints’ of solar versus nuclear is equally disingenuous. He refuses to acknowledge solar panels would not just be sitting in a large field; they would be placed throughout a community (top of homes and businesses, parking lots and infill areas). He states that Palo Verde’s footprint is only 6.3 miles because he chooses to ignore the impact of mining uranium.”

This is what Senator Melvin said in this Op-Ed” “To have a photovoltaic facility that produces the same daylight electricity as the Palo Verde Nuclear facility in Phoenix, it would take solar panels 250 miles long (almost the distance from Tucson to San Diego) and one mile wide with a footprint of 250 square miles, compared with Palo Verde’s footprint of 6.3 square miles. There is definitely a role for solar to play in fulfilling Arizona’s energy needs, but the base load of 80 percent of all our energy needs could and should be met by atomic energy. . .”

Ms. Cage’s statement that, “He refuses to acknowledge solar panels would not just be sitting in a large field . . .” is disingenuous at best. Senator Melvin was making a comparison. Of course, we could put all those solar panels on buildings instead of a field, which some companies are doing, but the footprint would probably double to 500 square miles.

Her comment about uranium mining is simply a distraction. Solar and wind can and do have large footprints. Every time I drive through Palm Springs I see miles and miles of windmills, the majority not moving. Why? Ms. Cage has not yet found a way to manage the wind but she has found a way to create her own wind and her own facts.

Being the progressive-socialist she is, Ms. Cage is against nuclear power. She is adamantly against reprocessing nuclear waste, which France has been doing for years. In fact, 80% of France’s electricity comes from nuclear reactors. You would think the Ms. Cage, as a lover of European style socialism, would embrace nuclear energy.

Unfortunately, Ms. Cage comes across as a left-wing ideologue willing to distort known facts, conjure up her own facts and then irresponsibly attack others based on knowingly false information.

Character and integrity? Draw your own conclusion.

An Interview With Terri Proud, Candidate for LD 26 House Representative

2010-06-01T08:15:00.000-07:00

RDB: Terri, Welcome. Thanks for doing this interview.

Proud: Thank you. I’m glad to be here.

RDB: What considerations factored into your decision to run against Nancy Young Wright?

Proud: There were quite a few actually. One of the biggest issues for me was the health care bill. When President Obama started to present the health care bill and I knew what it all entailed, having a friend in Canada, having a friend who recently came over here to become a citizen, him and his wife from Ireland, living in a socialist government and knowing what their health care system was, I didn’t want to see that here in our country.

I learned that Nancy Young Wright was going around doing coffee events trying to get people to support the health care bill. That concerned me because I didn’t want to see our country go down that road. The more I began to investigate her voting record and understanding the platform she stood on, it concerned me because that type of mentality is a progressive-socialist mentality and I didn’t want to see our State turn into that. That’s one of the major decisions as to why I’m running: we need to return to what our founding fathers intended for each individual – our right to choose - that’s part of freedom and liberty

RDB: Since immigration seems to be in the forefront of topics today, what is your position on SB 1070?

Proud: I love it (laughter). Absolutely love it. I think we should have done this years ago.

RDB: According to Project Vote Smart, since 2008, there have been six house and Senate bills concerning immigration. On five of the bills, your opponent voted against passage. In each instance, the bill passed. In the sixth, most recent bill, SB 1070, Nancy Young Wright didn’t even bother to show up to vote. It seems, with 70% of Arizonans in favor of this law that Nancy Wright is on the wrong side of the immigration issue. Your view?

Proud: My view is you’re absolutely correct. She is on the wrong side. As a legislator, there are times when we need to do what’s best for the constituents and not have our own personal views in there. When we have illegal immigration that is costing our State billions of dollars and we are in the deficit we are in, you would think as a State Legislator that we would sit down and say ‘we need to start looking at what’s best for our State fiscally.

We have immigrants coming over here illegally, costing tax payers billions of dollars. We have illegal immigrants working and receiving State benefits, and we have Phoenix legislators up there saying, “oh, but that’s okay”. It’s not okay. If people are breaking the law, we need to stop that. I think it gives a false message to our kids that it’s ok to break our laws. If people are breaking the law, they need to be punished. They need to do things the right way.

I don’t have a problem with legal immigration. If immigrants want to come over here, do it the right way. I don’t have a problem with the worker program that they want to implement but I do have a problem with people coming over here and not taking the proper steps and proper channels to enter our country legally.

RDB: As Dennis Miller once said, “I don’t mind them coming over, just sign the guest book on the way in.”

Proud: Absolutely.

RDB: Rasmussen Polling shows 63% of the American people want to repeal Obamacare. To that end, approximately 15 to 18 states have joined in a lawsuit against the United States government. Recently, Arizona SB 1001 was passed authorizing the Governor to Challenge the federal Health Care bill, since the State’s Attorney general, a progressive-socialist Democrat, refused to do so. Your opponent, Nancy Wright, voted against SB 1001, which passed by overwhelming margins. It seems that in addition to immigration, your opponent, Nancy Wright, is on the wrong side of the health care issue. Would you agree?

Proud: I would absolutely agree. Again, here it is, she’s not listening to the majority of the people. Again, this is what’s happening with this socialist mentality. Politicians at the federal government don’t want to listen to the majority of the people. We have that same mentality in our State.

RDB: How would you have voted on SB 1001 and for what reasons?

Proud: How would I have voted on it (laughter)? I would have said one word: YES. (laughter) Absolutely. We’ve got to have freedom, here, in our country. I look at Greece today, at Greece’s financial problems, all caused by a socialist mentality.

Ronald Reagan said, in his “Time for Choosing” speech: “The Founding Fathers knew a government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that; it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose.” President Obama’s 16,000 additional IRS agents for his health care law have nothing to do with health care; it has everything to do with force and coercion.

This is what I see happening. This is all about controlling people. The health care law isn’t about providing health care to people. We have a health care system in our country. To replace the one we currently have is unwarranted. Why not just improve what we already have? There are other avenues for health care. So, this is not about health care.

Back in the 70’s when they were starting this welfare program, Ronald Reagan, in his speech, “A Time for Choosing,” said we have accepted the purpose of Social Security but:

“. . . we're against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those people who depend on them for a livelihood. They've called it "insurance" to us in a hundred million pieces of literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified it was a welfare program. They only use the term "insurance" to sell it to the people.”

I have another quote, this one from Representative John Dingell, D-MI, who spilled the beans when he admitted, “Let me remind you this (Americans allegedly dying because of lack of universal health care) has been going on for years. We are bringing it to a halt. The harsh fact of the matter is when you're going to pass legislation that will cover 300 [million] American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.” To control the people . . . the admission is stunning.

RDB: Nancy Young Wright is a member of the Arizona House Education Committee. She voted against HB 2713 that prohibited a public educational institution from discriminating against students or parents on the basis of a religious viewpoint or expression. She voted against HB 2001 that granted tax credits for school tuition organizations that sponsor disabled or displaced students who wish to enroll in private schools. She also voted against HB 2281 that banned ethnic study curriculums that advocated the overthrow of the United States Government, that promoted resentment against a race or class of people and that were racially divisive. All these bills passed. What do you think are the most critical education issues facing Arizona today?

Proud: For someone, and when I say someone I mean Nancy Young Wright, to stand on a platform of education and say she is pro-education, Then you see her record of voting against bills like these. This is the type of individual we need to vote out of office. We need our representatives to be honest, to let us know where you stand, to be true to where you stand and do what you say you’re going to do.

I was at a Legislative update at the Northwest YMCA a few months ago. I heard Nancy Young Wright talk about the separation of Church and State and why religion shouldn’t be in public education. Here’s my take on the issue: Thomas Jefferson wrote the words “Separation of Church and State” in a personal letter not a legal document. It wasn’t separation of God and State; that’s why you see God on our money, on our coins, and on our Supreme Court walls. The real issue is the prevention of government from establishing a State religion and forcing individuals to tithe that State established religion. Freedom of Religion ensures that individuals may worship the God of their choice in the church, synagogue or mosque of their choice. In my opinion, history is being falsified and taught to our children so that truth will not be known. Knowing our true History means knowing the truth

Education is a huge problem that we’re facing right now in the State of Arizona. My sense of what’s going on in our educational system is that we are feeding our kids information but we’re not educating them. We’re feeding them information but starving them of knowledge. I think if we get back to the simple concepts of reading, writing, arithmetic and true history you’re going to find that our kids are going to be educated and have a sense of purpose. We have temporally lost that.

The progressive-socialist Democrats think we need to socialize our kids more, that they need to learn more about social issues like - sex education. There was a bill they tried to pass where they wanted to teach age appropriate sex education to kindergarteners. This is the priority of the Democrats up in the House. Let’s teach our kids, kindergarteners, sex education, age appropriate, but they don’t want to focus on reading, writing and arithmetic. When we have kids that are in schools for six hours a day for twelve years and they can’t pass an AIMS test, a test we have to “dumb down,” an AIMS test . . . we have problems. We know we’re not educating our kids. It’s not about more money. It doesn’t matter how much money the schools have, if they don’t get to the basic core of what education is our kids are not going to be educated.

RDB: The current teacher certification process is cumbersome, time-consuming, and does not ensure selection of competent teachers. Seniors do a lot of volunteering and, for the most part, are well-educated. Would you favor a program of having qualified seniors teaching at local schools on a volunteer basis without having to undergo the current certification process?

Proud: Absolutely. Absolutely. We have many people who are very qualified to teach our children properly. I think that’s been proven with homeschooling.

RDB: Staying with the education topic, a lot of people believe education to be the next big civil rights issue. In Washington, D.C., the Bush Administration sponsored a scholarship program for 1,700 low income students who were predominately black. The program was successful and the students were doing much better in private schools. However, President Obama signed a Democrat sponsored bill canceling the scholarship program at the behest of the teachers’ unions. What is your position on using public funds to place students in poorly performing public schools into high achievement private schools, magnet schools and even secular schools sponsored by religious groups? To put it another way, if President Obama can place his kids in private schools because these schools are better than some public schools, why can’t the children of low-income parents access the same schools and receive a quality education?

Proud: Every child learns differently. That’s why some children do better in charter schools, some children do better in public schools, and some children do better in private schools. Is it a parent choice? Absolutely. Every child learns differently.

It is the parents who are also paying with their tax dollars, and parents should be able to choose whatever school they want. It’s about parental choice.

My opponent voted against a bill to strengthen parental rights. The bill, SB 1309 ensured that in our state law parents have the right "to direct the upbringing and education of their child." It also required that children not be taught sex-related curriculum in public schools without parental consent. It just confirmed even more that she wants to take away our freedoms and liberties as parents, as a people, and that is unacceptable to me.

We, as parents, know what’s best for our kids. We have that right to make these choices as to where we want our children to go. You would think someone who stands so strongly on educational issues would want children to be educated in the best environment that is best suited for that child. Again, this is another example of the socialist mentality of “I know what’s best for you, not you.”

RDB: With regard to gun issues, it is quite clear Nancy Wright is a big time progressive-socialist. Project Vote Smart records Wright as voting against any liberalization of Arizona gun laws even though the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled the Second Amendment applies at an individual level. What is your position on the “right to bear arms?”

Proud: I was the Arizona State Coordinator for the Second Amendment March. Someone once stated that a society that is without arms is a vulnerable society. I become involved with the gun issue when Obama was first elected because I knew he was anti-gun. In a gunless society, women are the first to be victimized. That’s just a fact. Nancy Young Wright voted against that. I have two daughters and I want them to have that right, to carry a gun. I’m a huge advocate.

RDB: Let’s talk about the State budget. The legislature has been cutting spending and the budget. Recently, voters approved a temporary sales tax increase of one percent that is expected to bring in close to $1 billion a year. Future cuts are necessary. As an Arizona State Representative, what areas of our budget would you look at for reductions in spending?

Proud: There are two areas. Number one is the Department of Economic Security. According to the Goldwater Institute, we currently spend over $85 million in the Department of Economic Security for people who are not working. They get a government check, they have kids, and DES was supposed to actively help these people look for a job. DES has not. People come in, they apply for these programs and they sign them up. They qualify them. Off they go.

I personally would like to see a change, a total reform, in the welfare program, and for it to look like this: DES is a temp agency. It’s a working temp agency. When we have help wanted signs in MacDonalds and we have these help wanted signs in all these other places, and you look in the newspaper and you see janitorial help wanted and we’re spending over a $85 million because people don’t want to work, we have a problem.

I think what I would like to see, again, is DES become a temp agency. If you’re receiving a government check, you’d better be actively looking for a job. They need to show that they are actively looking for a job because when you’re unemployed, your job for 35 or 40 hours a week is to look for a job. Period. If you cannot provide any type of documentation or proof that you were out looking for a job, you don’t get a check. Period.

We need to eliminate this “we’re going to support you attitude” because we don’t teach that to our own kids. We teach our kids, if you want something you need to work for it. You need to earn that. That’s how we teach our kids. What are we telling our kids today when we’re say, ‘okay, you know what, you don’t have to work. You just go fill out a form saying you can’t find work and we’ll give you a check and we’ll support you.’ It’s a spoiled mentality. It’s a lazy mentality. That’s one of the things I would like to do, to totally reform how DES works.

Benjamin Franklin once observed, “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. . .”

Look at where we are today with 50% of the American public not paying any taxes and Obama promising the largesse of our treasury to these people. It’s frightening.

RDB: How would you have voted on the one percent temporary tax increase?

Proud: I voted against it and I’ll tell you why. I downloaded this list this morning. It’s a list of ballot propositions going back to 1912. Four or five years ago we did a tax increase again for education programs. It was a .6% tax increase that we voted on for 20 years because this was going to help educate our children. Then there was another bill in here where it allocated the tobacco taxes to go towards education. When we have over half our budget going to education and they still need more money, money is not the problem. It’s just a band-aid. The core issue is what we are teaching our kids.

RDB: It has been proven time and again that government stimulus packages do not create private sector jobs and are a complete waste of taxpayer dollars. What specific policy initiatives do you favor for private sector job creation?

Proud: I think the government just needs to get out of the way. Let the people create jobs. We have a lot of restrictions. Here, just in Pima County, I know people who have tried to open up a business, who have opened up a business, and the red tape they have to go through is ridiculous. By the time half of them are half way into it they’re just ready to say forget it. But they can’t. They’ve invested too much time; they’ve invested too much money.

The process of starting a business here is ridiculous. There’s so much red tape in it. It’s getting to a point where we need to start looking at why we are this way? Why are we in so much red tape? Is it about just money? Is it about accumulating more money? We need to become more business friendly and let people open up their businesses easily.

RDB: There are reports that average federal government salary and benefits exceed average private sector salary and benefits by a significant factor. This may be true for Arizona too. We all know this relationship is not sustainable. Would you favor a policy that stated average public sector salary plus benefits cannot exceed X percent of average private sector salary plus benefits?

Proud: Yes.

RDB: As a follow-up, would you, when elected, would you favor Arizona State government would complete an annual or periodic survey comparing public sector compensation and benefits with the private sector in order to prevent an imbalance like the one at the federal level?

Proud: Yes. Yes, I would. Absolutely.

RDB: Regarding your opponent, Nancy Wright, the Arizona Federation of Taxpayers rated her a 6 out of 100 points on budget and spending; the Goldwater Institute gave her an F for her progressive-socialist politics; The Center for Arizona Policy gave Wright a 7 out of 100 on family and children issues; and the National Rifle Association gave her a F on gun rights. What other weaknesses do you see in your opponent?

Proud: (Laughing) The fact that she got an F from the Goldwater Institute when she is co-hosting a conservative Goldwater film (more laughter) the other night. And she wouldn’t identify herself as the progressive –socialist Democrat she is. That baffles me.

Yes, she has a lot of weaknesses. The fact . . . this mentality we have in the federal government, this socialist mentality, we have this same concept in our State. That’s why State races are so important. Number one, we live here. I don’t plan on moving. We can have a conservative federal government and still have a very liberal State. That’s kind of where we’re headed right now. We have a socialist mentality in the federal government and we have people who are sitting in the Arizona House who have that same mentality. We need to get our State back to a conservative basis, back to conservative values, and if you don’t plan on moving, you need to get involved in these State races. This is where it’s going to affect the majority of the people.

RDB: Terri, we’ve covered a lot of ground. Is there anything else you would like our SaddleBrooke residents to know about you or your positions?

Proud: Yes. If there is a position that somebody wants to know where I stand on, I actively encourage people to contact me. I get phone calls randomly . . . people wanting to know . . . especially when Proposition 100 was on the ballot . . . quite a few people asked me how I was going to stand on that issue.

I stand strong on my issues. I don’t apologize for where I stand. If I don’t agree with a certain thing I would definitely say so. I would encourage anybody to give me a call and ask me where I stood on a particular issue, if I haven’t covered it or they haven’t seen it on my web site.

RDB: Thank you very much for doing this interview.

Proud: Thank you.

Unfit for Public Office?

2010-05-30T09:00:00.000-07:00

On Friday, May 21st, two Democrats hosted a film documentary on Senator Barry Goldwater by his grand-daughter. Current State Representative Nancy Young Wright and Senatorial candidate Cheryl Cage neither spoke at the event nor identified themselves as progressive-socialist Democrats. Both attempted to engage attendees in conversation after the film.

To the surprise and chagrin of Wright and Cage, two Republican candidates attended the event: candidate for State Representative Terri Proud and candidate for State Treasurer Barbara Leff. The SaddleBrooke Republican Club asked both candidates to comment on the bizarre behavior of Nancy Young Wright and Cheryl Cage.

In part, Terri Proud stated, “. . . we must never lose our vigilance and get distracted by liberals or moderates who dress up in conservative values and sound bites . . . Nancy Young Wright and Cheryl Cage, both very liberal Democrats running for State office, held an event where they brought the grand-daughter of Barry Goldwater to show how conservative they are, in an attempt to appeal to a demographic they have both scorned before . . .”

“Barry Goldwater left a legacy of true conservatism of limited government, lower taxation, and individual rights in which Nancy Young Wright and Cheryl Cage both oppose as outspoken supporters of Obama and Giffords. We must watch to make sure that those people we vote into office actually believe in his legacy as opposed to just using the sound bites and trading in on his good name.”

Barbara Leff commented, “I thought it was odd that two Democrats, who did not live in SaddleBrooke, put on an event and did not advertise it as a Democrat event. I spoke to several attendees, telling them I was visiting SaddleBrooke, and wondered who was sponsoring the event. They all said Nancy Young Wright and Cheryl Cage. . .”

“It seemed that Nancy and Cheryl were trying to position themselves as moderates, hoping to attract a variety of people to their event by using Goldwater . . . Not mentioning that they were the Democratic candidates seemed less than honest . . . Nancy and Cheryl were not happy to see Terri [Proud] there. It was fun to see Cheryl’s face when Terri introduced herself . . . Next time they should just be honest and call it a Democrat event . . .”

Let’s see. President Obama campaigned in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts and lost two governorships and one Senate seat.

Seeing the proverbial handwriting on the wall with adverse poll results and angry constituents, at least four Democrat Senators and ten Democrat Representatives have announced they are not running for office in the next election.

Now we have the likes of Nancy Young Wright and Cheryl Cage slinking in a darkened room showing a Goldwater documentary, not acknowledging their affiliation with the Democratic Party and attempting to convince attendees they are something they are not by name association. Their behavior can only be described as disingenuous and deceptive.

The Arizona Immigration Debate

2010-05-05T04:24:00.000-07:00

The killing of Arizona Rancher Robert Krentz and the wounding of Pinal County Deputy Sheriff Lou Puroll, at the hands if illegal immigrants, has put a laser like focus on the reaction of Hispanic citizens who profess their rights are being violated by Arizona’s new law (the law does not take effect until July).

There is no doubt that there are those race exploiters who are taking advantage of the situation and inflaming passions. People like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Raul Grijalda, and President Obama come to mind. But, this is in keeping with the history, traditions, and practices of the progressive-socialist Democratic Party since its inception: the Democratic Party can never escape its racist heritage.

Hispanic writers like Ernest Portillo Jr, in the Arizona Daily Star (5/2/2010), quoted legal immigrants saying that the intensity of anti-immigrant sentiment is growing. The intensity of anti-illegal immigrant is growing but just about everyone I’ve talked to is very positively pro-immigration as long as you follow the rules. As Dennis Miller once said, “We don’t mind you visiting us, just sign the guest book.”

The biggest issue with those who disagree with the new law is that Hispanics will have to have identification to show law enforcement. If anyone is stopped by a law enforcement official for a violation of motor vehicle law, he or she has to provide a driver’s license. Federal law requires any foreigner to carry identification. Why are illegal Hispanic immigrants not protesting federal law? Ignorance and misinformation are the tools of the progressive-socialist radicals managing the protest.

If I write a check for groceries, the vendor always asks to see identification. I leased a sump pump from Home Depot the other day and was asked for my driver’s license and a credit card. What’s the big deal about showing identification?

The big deal is that illegal immigrants cannot show they are in the country legally. The big deal is Hispanics traditionally vote with Democrats even though, like Blacks, the Democratic Party, treats Hispanics badly. The Democratic Party would like nothing better than to have illegal immigrants voting Democratic. This was proven by the use of ACORN activists by the Democratic Party during the presidential election in numerous instances of fraud.

The Wall Street Journal article, “Killing Stokes Immigration Debate,”(5/2/2010) described a young 20 year community college student living in Mesa who was protesting the law because his family had been living illegally in Arizona for ten years. The student claimed his family will have to leave Arizona. Probably so, as he self-identified and admitted his family was here illegally. The student talked about moving to California or New Mexico. What he did not talk about was correcting the problem.

Hispanic immigrants who came to the United States legally have nothing to worry about.
Only those Hispanic immigrants who came here illegally should be worried. Since there are anywhere from 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants in the United States, I’m not surprised that they are reacting.

The repeated failure of the federal government to secure our borders makes the federal government complicit and responsible for the death of Robert Krentz and the wounding of Deputy Sheriff Lou Puroll.

The Arizona law mirrors federal law. Why didn’t Hispanic activists react to the federal law? Primarily because the federal government did not enforce it. Arizona intends to enforce the law: thus, the reaction primarily by radical progressive-socialists and illegal immigrants.

President Obama has called the Arizona law misguided. Does he also call the federal law misguided? Is this why his administration refuses to enforce it? Then, again, Mr. Obama has an aunt living in this country illegally.

American citizens of Hispanic descent have started voicing their disapproval of the race exploitative reaction to the law by illegal immigrants and progressive-socialist radicals.. They or their ancestors came to the United States legally and they think illegal immigrants should follow the same rules. My mother immigrated to the United States over sixty years ago. My wife immigrated to the United States over forty years ago. They followed the rules. So must Hispanic immigrants in this country illegally.

There are two Hispanic communities in this country: the legal community and the illegal community. The legal Hispanic community must not allow itself to be emotionally swept up by race exploiters.

As Americans, we must stand for border security and promote legal immigration. As Americans, we cannot tolerate murders or shootings of innocent people by illegal immigrants. As Americans, we must eliminate the illegal immigrant issue, thoughtfully and legally. The Arizona law is a sensible first step in the process.

Stick to the Facts and Take the High Road 3

2010-04-30T13:29:00.000-07:00

Ronald Reagan said, “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.” Yet Jesse Kelly, in his April 29th press release, attacked Republican Jeff Flake, comparing him to Congressman Charlie Rangel who is finally sinking in a sea of ethics charges. Here is part of Kelly’s press release:

“Tucson, AZ On April 22nd, Jonathan Paton attacked Representative Gabrielle Giffords for supporting the STRIVE Act. Paton benefactor and patron, Representative Jeff Flake is also a major sponsor of the STRIVE Act. How can Paton attack Giffords over this issue when one of his major supporters sponsored the very same bill? Worse yet, part of the money that Paton raised out of Maricopa County came from Jeff Flake’s campaign, no doubt given by people who supported Flake’s open endorsement of Amnesty! Just as Giffords returned the tainted donations from Representative Charles Rangel, Paton should return the Flake Amnesty funds.”

Does this mean that the money Jesse Kelly received from a fundraiser with Tom Tancredo, who has said SB1070 goes too far, should be returned to the people in that fundraiser? “People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones,” as the old adage goes.

What makes this interesting, though, is that Jesse Kelly apparently sought Jeff Flake’s endorsement but did not receive it. The Tucson Weekly also revealed that Jesse Kelly sought John McCain’s endorsement but Kelly was rebuffed.

Then Kelly denied he had asked for the endorsement but the Tucson Weekly quoted the Kelly campaign’s email asking for the endorsement. When Kelly did not receive McCain’s endorsement he endorsed J.D. Hayworth.

History appears to be repeating itself with Jeff Flake. Kelly’s request for endorsement is denied, now he attacks Jeff Flake, comparing him to Charlie Rangel?

The Arizona Daily Star also reported, “Republican Jesse Kelly in Congressional District 8 has been touting the support of U.S. Rep. Mike Pence, rumored as a possible future House speaker or 2012 presidential wannabe. So it drew some interest when the Indiana politician's name disappeared from a list of endorsements on Kelly's website. "The congressman has made no endorsement in that congressional race," said Bill Smith, Pence's chief of staff, adding that his office asked that the Pence's name be removed.” Will Jesse Kelly next attack Mike Pence on some goofy charge?

All Republican candidates in CD8 should stick to the facts, take the high road and observe Ronald Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment.

Sovereign State Duty to Protect Its People

2010-04-25T09:50:00.000-07:00

Whether you like her or not, Governor Jan Brewer did the right thing by signing Senate Bill 1070, an act strengthening Arizona’s ability to protect itself and its citizens from illegal immigrants.

Contrary to President Obama’s socialist rhetoric that the act is misguided and would undermine the notions of fairness, the bill does exactly the opposite. It is not discriminatory . . . except against illegal immigrants.

What one has to acknowledge is any notion of fairness in this country was discarded when Mr. Obama stripped bondholders of their assets in General Motors and Chrysler and turned ownership over to the United Auto Workers, an organization that certainly did not earn or deserve ownership.

The Arizona act prevents any city or county or other political subdivision from limiting enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws. The federal government is responsible for border security. However, when the federal government abdicates its responsibility to secure the borders, it is the responsibility of the State to protect its citizens.

Once the illegal immigrant passes through the border, the illegal immigrant becomes a State issue as well as federal issue. The State of Arizona has a right, an obligation, a duty to protect its citizens, especially when the federal government refuses to do so.

Mr. Obama now threatens the people of Arizona with his Justice Department by examining the “civil rights and other implications” of the new law. Mr. Obama would be better off to provide comprehensive border security. What about every citizens’ right to be free from harm caused by illegal immigrants? Too bad Robert Krentz, Arizona rancher, cannot ask this question. He was murdered by an illegal immigrant who was tracked back into Mexico.

If the federal government refuses to protect the border and attempts to limit the State’s ability to protect itself, in violation of federalism and State sovereignty, each and every border State will seriously have to consider the option of secession. The U.S. Constitution is silent on the subject, meaning the power to secede is reserved to the States or the people through the Tenth Amendment.

Threats Absent of Any Proof is Political Theater

2010-04-24T14:09:00.000-07:00

In the tradition of Democrat senators and Representatives who challenged the Washington, D.C., Tea Party attendees, walking through the crowds with cam recorders, trying to record epithets and racist comments without avail, Democrat Raul Grijalva claimed victimization from alleged threats and closed his Tuscon and Yuma offices. Yet there is not one scintilla of evidence that a threat was made.

The one consistency among Democrats claiming victimization is the absence of evidence. Even the broken glass door at Gabrielle Giffords Tucson office is absent of evidence. Who destroyed the door? It could have been Giffords’ staffers at her behest. We’ll never know. There is no evidence. It is simply political theater.

Now, Grijalva continues to work against the interests of Arizonans. First he called for a business boycott against Arizona, which harms even his own constituency. Now he has called for the federal government to limit cooperation with Arizona officials.

In both instances, Grijalva has attempted to violate U.S. Constitutional rights of Arizonans by asking the federal government to treat Arizona and all Arizonans in a lesser manner than the federal government treats all other states. By urging a boycott, he is attempting to injure all Arizonans financially.

By taking these actions Grijalva has violated his oath of office to protect and defend the United States, meaning all states including Arizona. Grijalva has engaged in a premeditated effort to harm all Arizonans. His hatred of Arizonans and Arizona is not political theater.

Gabrielle Giffords Misleads Her Constituents

2010-04-17T09:56:00.000-07:00

Once again, Gabrielle Giffords misled her constituents, this time in her Health Care Reform statement praising the Affordable Health Care for America Act. Her politically biased, one-sided description speaks volumes about her lack of integrity and how she views seniors in her congressional district . . . with cold-hearted loathing.

Giffords stated the Act “will provide security for seniors, guarantee access to health insurance coverage for the uninsured and make health care affordable for the middle class . . .” and that the Act will “[i]mprove Medicare for 135,000 beneficiaries . . .” What Giffords did not tell her constituents is 279,833 Arizona seniors will lose their Medicare Advantage coverage because Giffords voted to gut Medicare funding by $500 billion. Giffords cannot gut Medicare and simultaneously improve it.

2010

Giffords announced a number of “benefits” to health reform:

* New health care plans and select grandfathered plans will allow 57,000 young people in District 8 to remain on their parents’ insurance policy until their 26th birthday.

* Children with pre-existing conditions can no longer be denied health insurance coverage. The law prohibits that practice for new health plans as well as grandfathered group plans.

* Children covered by Medicaid or State Children’s Health Insurance Programs cannot be dropped from the plan.

* Adults covered by State Medicaid programs cannot be dropped from the plan.

What she failed to tell her constituents is the federal government will reduce Medicare reimbursements for hospitals who provide seniors with long-term and inpatient and rehabilitation care. Giffords certainly made her seniors feel more secure. First she eliminates their Medicare Advantage coverage then reduces Medicare reimbursements to hospitals.

2011

Here are Gifford touted benefits of health care reform in 2011. First, Medicare Part D recipients who fall into the "donut hole" will receive a 50 percent discount on their prescriptions. A new, voluntary insurance plan providing modest cash assistance for long-term in-home or nursing home care becomes available.

Insurance companies will be held accountable for unreasonable rate hikes. The law supports states in requiring that insurance companies submit justification for requested premium increases. Any company with excessive or unjustified premium increases may not be able to participate in new health insurance exchanges.

Employers will start reporting the value of employees' health care benefits on their W-2s. Community health centers will get increased funding to treat low-income and underserved individuals.

What did Giffords fail to tell her constituents?

* Medicare Advantage cuts begin.

* Seniors will be means tested and forced to pay higher Medicare Part D premiums.

* Medicare reimbursements will be reduced for seniors who use MRI and CT scans begin.

* Medicare reimbursements for seniors’ use of ambulances and durable medical equipment will be reduced.

2012

Giffords noted that nonprofit insurance co-ops will be created to compete with for-profit insurance companies. Physicians, hospitals and payers will be encouraged to band together in "accountable care organizations."

* What did Giffords fail to tell her constituents?

* The federal government will cut Medicare reimbursement rates to any hospital with high readmission rates.

* The federal government will cut Medicare reimbursement rates for seniors on hospice care.

* The federal government will cut Medicare reimbursement rates for seniors on dialysis.

2014

Giffords stopped describing the “benefits” of the Democrat health care reform act at 2012. Do you wonder why? Here’s the reason.

The federal government will establish an Independent Payment Advisory Board with powers to make further, draconian cuts in Medicare reimbursements.

2015

The federal government will cut Medicare reimbursements for seniors who depend on home health care.

Giffords failed to tell her constituency the truth, the whole unvarnished truth. Giffords has betrayed her senior constituency. She repeatedly failed to inform them of the draconian cuts in reimbursements . . . only in Medicare.

The federal government is not making any cuts in reimbursements for the federal employees’ health plan. Tri-care (for military dependents) reimbursements are not being reduced. Only Medicare reimbursements are being reduced. Only Medicare Advantage health coverage is going to be slashed.

Giffords and her fellow progressive-socialist Democrats have targeted seniors for health care coverage reduction, health care reimbursement reduction and health care premium increases.

Giffords claims to be a fiscally conservative blue dog but she is just a Pelosi lapdog who willingly and knowingly put a knife in the back of every senior in her congressional district.

Thank you to Congressman Mark Kirk, R-ILL, for his permission to use information from his web site. And good luck to the Congressman as he runs for Barack Obama’s old Senate seat.

Sales Tax Increase? Easy Answer

2010-04-14T14:58:00.000-07:00

Alberta H. Charney, in the Eller College of Management Spring economic report, wrote an article, “What Will It Cost If Voters Reject the One-Cent Sales Tax Hike?” The article is a textbook piece of propaganda.

Charney stated that passing the sales tax will raise about $1 billion annually (taking it from the private sector) But, she goes on to state, the government spends those dollars, pumping money back into the economy: “That spending by the public sector adds to aggregate demand just as private sector spending does.”

My analysis: taking money from the private sector to pass through government to prime the pump of the private sector is not only inefficient but also ineffective: government has to spend part of that tax money on its own operation. For example, the government tax removes $1 billion from the private sector but returns, for example, only $800 million to the private sector. In effect, government is always less efficient because it has to use part of the tax revenue to tax, collect and spend.

Then she works her way through an analysis that the cost of the sales tax increase will cost Arizona only 7,400 jobs. Failing to approve the sales tax increase will cost Arizona 20,500 jobs. What she doesn’t say is the 7,400 jobs are in the private sector; the 20,500 jobs are in the public sector. Ergo, approving the sales tax increase will save over 13,000 jobs.

As I read it, saying no to a sales tax increase reduces the size of government not the private sector. Saying yes to the sales tax increase reduces the size of the private sector by eliminating 7,400 private sector jobs, saves 13,000 plus public sector jobs, does not reduce the size of government and increases taxes by $1 billion during a recession.

I know how I’m voting.

Republican Candidates’ Positions on the Border

2010-04-14T09:38:00.000-07:00

It is interesting and revealing to compare each of the candidates’ positions on the “Border.” It is easily determined which candidates have actually given serious thought to the issue as opposed to a “sound bite.”

The candidates that gave serious thought to their positions have some similarities: they are Commissioned Officers in the Reserve (one in the Army, one in the Air Force); both are combat veterans; both are college graduates; and both have traveled abroad outside of the military.
Their positions, as posted on their websites, on the Border follow.

Jonathan Paton’s website – “Jonathan Paton endorsed an 18-point border security plan released today by the Arizona Cattle Growers' Association, stressing the urgent need for immediate action to end lawlessness along the border.

And Paton - who attended the press conference in Phoenix today where the plan was released - called on Gabrielle Giffords to finally listen to her constituents and adopt the group's recommendations.

Paton also continued his call for U.S. troops to be sent to the border - No. 2 on the "Restore Our Border Security Plan" - as a mechanism to add security and reduce violence immediately.

"I applaud the cattle growers' multifaceted plan to bring security immediately and will continue to work to bring action to this national security threat," Paton said. "This is not a new problem. Sadly, the ranchers and citizens living along the border know that better than anyone. Still, our politicians have continuously ignored the violence and mayhem in Southern Arizona. Gabrielle Giffords has dithered on this issue and ignored the people in her own district for too long. She's talked tough in TV ads here at home, but gone to Washington and voted to weaken our security. That's unacceptable.

"Many of the provisions in the plan are things that Jonathan has long supported, both as a state lawmaker and a candidate for Congress. Those include: sending troops to the border, making it a felony to enter the country illegally, writing the state's human smuggling law and increasing funding to catch and prosecute those who break our immigration laws. Paton also opposes amnesty or a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

Giffords, however, has said one thing in Arizona - but done another in Washington.

She was a co-sponsor of the STRIVE ACT, which provided a path to citizenship for illegal aliens. The bill also included the DREAM ACT, which would provide education benefits for illegal aliens as well as permanent residency. (HR 1645, 2007)And she voted against funding the construction of at least two layers of reinforced fencing, and the installation of additional physical barriers, roads, lighting and cameras along the border (RC 490, HR 2638, 6/15/2007).

"We need real action, not just election year rhetoric," Paton said. "I'm confident that enacting this plan by the cattle growers will finally bring us closer to securing our border and reducing the violence that is plaguing our community."

The 18-point plan:

1. The judicial and law enforcement systems, which handle prosecution of these criminal activities, shall recognize and apply an enforcement mechanism that provides for the prosecution of illegally crossing into the U.S. over the Border, for the first time, as a felony barring any person from ever working or receiving residency visa status in the U.S. No exceptions.
2. Immediately deploy operational units of the U.S. Military to the Arizona/Mexico Border. Station overwhelming Border Patrol/Military blocking force denying illegal entry at the Border.

3. Establish permanent Forward Operating Bases (FOB) immediately adjacent to the U.S. border with Mexico. (Suggesting at least one FOB every 12 miles)

4. Overhaul and add teeth to the “Pursuit and Apprehension” policies for Law Enforcement to assure deterrence and protect U.S. residents and State authorities from potential harm. In the first instance, authorize the U.S. Military, Border Patrol, State and Federal Law Enforcement Agencies to use these beefed up policies to enforce existing laws.

5. Authorize the use of force in the interdiction of vehicles and aircraft illegally crossing the U.S. Mexico Border. Empower the Local Law Enforcement leaders to adjust policies to meet conditions on the ground and not rely only upon inflexible procedures preventing Border Security.

6. Enforce all existing immigration laws without exception. Streamline and expedite deportation of illegal aliens.

7. Add 3,000+ Arizona BP field agents by 2011. Assure additional incremental hardware is part of Field Agent deployment.

8. Increase County Law Enforcement permanent “Stonegarden Funding” for additional deputies and fully equipped 4 x 4 patrol vehicles.

9. Expedite 2010 deployment of new generation digital radio technology to Arizona and New Mexico Border Patrol.

10. Substantially increase Border Patrol Recon 3, MSS/Radar and FLIR mobile surveillance units and operators. Assure additional incremental agents are deployed to operate this hardware and technology.

11. Replace outdated Border Patrol Air & Marine Rotorcraft air support with contemporary rotorcraft and small single engine fixed wing. Deploy air support on/near the U.S. Border.

12. Establish mandatory Cellular coverage for remote non-service areas.

13. Equip Border Patrol and County Law Enforcement with GMRS “Rhino” GPS radios allowing homeowners and ranchers to communicate in remote areas.

14. Establish “No Seam” Wilcox/Douglas, Arizona and Lordsburg New Mexico Border Policy Corridor into its own Border Patrol Sector.

15. Increase and fund additional Arizona Horse Patrol Units.

16. Streamline federal claims process for recovering damages caused by illegal alien burglaries, vandalism and ranch infrastructure/livestock losses to include feed stock losses on both private & public lands (fires).

17. Adequately fund State and Federal Attorneys’ Offices to assure timely prosecutions of Border related offences. Stiffen 9th Circuit Appeals Court immigration and narcotics prosecutorial policies.

18. Measure Border Security success on the community via a monthly disclosure of all crimes, by title and code, committed and suspected to be committed by illegal alien activities which have conducted burglaries, home invasions, and ranching infrastructure/livestock losses. Establish operational transparency for Arizona residents of illegal alien and smuggling activity in their respective Border Patrol Sector and Communities to include County law Enforcement statistics and incidents.”

Brian Miller’s website – “We Arizonans, of all backgrounds, live with the problems of a porous border every day. Many of us have been the victims of violent crime, theft, and home invasions as a direct result of this border problem. We know that more than 90% of people who come to our great nation do so to make their lives better, but that does not excuse us for not addressing this serious problem.

We Americans have a right and responsibility to know and decide who enters our homeland, and I believe a robust immigration policy will aid in the future health and success of America. To do this, the federal government must fulfill its responsibility to secure our international borders and maintain operational control.

Our current situation has encouraged a permanent underclass without equal access to the law. This is dangerous to everyone and promotes continued illegal behavior and increased resentment among citizens, legal non-citizens, and those here illegally. Though it is unlikely we will ever eliminate illegal crossings without eliminating the moral hazards created by our welfare state, we must work toward realistic solutions. Only with a multi-faceted approach will we address the underlying economic dynamics that drive this issue.
We cannot secure our borders until we minimize the illegal immigration problem. To do that, Congress should:

1. Demand the enforcement of existing laws to the maximum extent possible

2. Deny federal welfare for those here illegally, to sanctuary cities, and to nations whose citizens come here illegally

3. Deny “anchor-baby” and chain migration by clarifying the 14th amendment

4. Deny amnesty

5. Create a robust, market-based, legal immigration system

6. Create an accountable, employer-based, temporary worker program

With the illegal immigration problem in hand, the Border Patrol and our court system then have a manageable problem of thousands or hundreds of incursions, not millions. To solve the remaining problem, the federal government should:

1. Provide for strategically placed walls and barriers

2. Provide all required resources to the Border Patrol and local law enforcement

3. Provide for ground-based sensors and airborne assets”

Andy Goss’ website – “We must insist our laws are enforced regarding our borders. People who are here illegally should not be rewarded with any sort of amnesty or benefits or a job. When caught, they should be returned to their country of origin. Those companies that hire illegal aliens should be punished and punished severely. This will result in attrition. If there are no jobs available for the illegals, they will leave on their own. Sanctuary cities like San Francisco and others should lose ALL federal funding. The E-Verify system should be law.”The problem with our porous southern border is not only Mexico. Terrorists can and have crossed our southern border and this presents a clear danger and unacceptable national security risk. The risks to Americans from drug cartels, grand theft auto, gang violence, identity theft and terrorism should not be tolerated nor should the drain on our nation's welfare system and hospitals.”

Jesse Kelly’s website – “Our borders must be secured and America needs an increased presence along our borders in order to halt drug trafficking and gang violence. I support a double fence along the border, like the one in San Diego.”

You can draw your own conclusion.

Stick to the Facts and Take the High Road 2

2010-04-06T16:02:00.000-07:00

It seems that the pressure is on the Republican candidates in CD8.

Jesse Kelly once again stumbled over the facts in a Tucson Weekly interview, accusing Jonathan Paton of being pro-open borders and pro-amnesty: “When the establishment, open-borders, amnesty crowd gets behind a candidate like Jonathan Paton, that candidate is normally very well funded,” Kelly says. “But it should tell the public something that Jeff Flake and Dick Armey and Jim Kolbe will stand with Jonathan Paton and Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Duncan Hunter and Trent Franks stand with me.”

Paton’s record is clearly not pro-open borders or pro-amnesty. Paton is endorsed by border hawks Sheriff Paul Babue, Andy Thomas and Russell Pearce. Babue pulled his support for Jesse Kelly after Jonathan Paton entered the race.

Brian Miller also stumbled. The Tucson Weekly reported that Miller only raised $60,000 compared to Paton’s $500,000, causing Miller to exclaim that Paton had raised $100,000 in one home and $500,000 in nine weeks. Miller then allegedly asked if America was a democracy or another elitist attempt to decide the election [I use the term “allegedly” because the Tucson weekly did not use quotes].

In any case, I think it high time to invoke Ronald Reagan’s eleventh commandment: “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.” Each candidate can make his points by sticking to the facts and taking the high road.

Jonathan Paton reports more than 1,000 donors, $500,000 raised

2010-04-05T13:37:00.000-07:00

Jonathan Paton’s press release showed impressive fund raising. The other candidates have yet to release their respective reports. Unless the other candidates are equally as impressive in fund raising, we could see one or two candidates folding in the next month or so.

The strategies each of the candidates are employing could become very interesting as the primary plays out.

Payton’s press release follows.

Jonathan Paton reports more than 1,000 donors, $500,000 raised

Impressive 9-week tally shows strong in-state support for defeating Gabrielle Giffords

In his first nine weeks as a candidate, Jonathan Paton has already topped an impressive $500,000 in contributions from more than 1,000 individual donors - a total that is expected to place Paton among the top Republican challengers in the country.

Paton announced today that he will report $500,715 in first quarter contributions - more than twice his original first quarter goal. He credited the total to hard work and strong support in Arizona for defeating Gabrielle Giffords this November.

The figure, a reflection of the energy behind Paton's candidacy, promises that this exciting Southern Arizona race will remain in the national spotlight.

"Such overwhelming support for our movement is testament to how anxious Southern Arizonans are for new representation," Paton said. "Defeating Gabrielle Giffords' political machine, which is relying on the likes Nancy Pelosi, will take a great amount of money and effort. Such early and strong support for our campaign will send a loud message to Washington that we take this fight seriously."

More than 90 percent of Paton's contributions came from Arizonans, while only 53 percent of Giffords' contributions this cycle are even from individual donors. In fact, between his fundraising launch on January 26 and March 31, Paton received more than 1,100 individual contributions. Less than one percent of his money came from Political Action Committees - whereas Giffords has received a whopping 36 percent of her money raised this cycle from PACs, according to her last available report.

Paton raised an average of more than $7,700 per day - $55,600 per week. For comparison, in her first race in 2006, it took Giffords 16 weeks to top $500,000, raising an average of $35,600 per week during that time frame.

Paton, a native Tucsonan and graduate of the University of Arizona, is known for never forgetting where he came from. An Army Captain, in 2006, Paton voluntarily enlisted for service in Iraq during the darkest days of the war. As our state senator, Paton was known as a reformer, who continuously went head-to-head with former Gov. Janet Napolitano and state bureaucrats.

Paton's message of limited government, fiscal discipline and economic freedom is a stark contrast to Giffords' votes for the stimulus, cap-and-trade and government health care.

"We're just getting started," said Paton. "Between resources, grassroots support and help from residents all across Southern Arizona, I'm more confident than ever that we'll see success in November."

For interviews or more information, contact Daniel Scarpinato at 520-668-7518 or daniel@patonforcongress.com

Stick to the Facts and Take the High Road

2010-03-27T09:04:00.000-07:00

It seems Jesse Kelly is nervous about Jonathon Paton’s entry in the CD8 race. On March 24th, Kelly’s web site blasted Paton: “Our public servants must be held accountable for their actions. It is a red flag when a career politician who voted for Janet Napolitano’s billion dollar spending increase hedges on future tax votes . . . “

Kelly needs to check his facts. Paton opposed Napolitano’s budget and joined with Republicans in forcing her to accept the Republican compromise, which included tax cuts.

This is not the first time Kelly has exaggerated. He was one of three candidates invited to a Q&A” at Saddlebrooke in early January 2010. Shortly after the event, Kelly advertised on his web site that he had won the debate. When a Vice-President of the Saddlebrooke Republican Club asked Kelly’s campaign manager to make a correction, he refused, allowing false information to remain on the site.

I wrote an analysis of the “Q&A” for the Saddlebrooke Republican Club blog on January 8th. There were seventeen responses to the article, including all three candidates who thought the analysis fair. No one thought there was a debate or a winner. Review the blog and responses and draw your own conclusion.

As soon as Paton entered the race the Democratic machine focused on him by sending a records request on Jonathon Paton, looking for anything and everything. The Democrats even filed a bogus complaint with the Federal Elections Commission: all standard operating procedure for the Democrat’s Dirty Tricks Division. Jesse Kelly has been “campaigning” for 12-18 months and the Democratic machine ignored him.

As soon as Paton entered the race, the Cook Political Report changed its rating of CD8 from “solidly Democratic” to “likely Democratic.” Jesse Kelly should be concerned. Paton is shaking up the race and even the Democrats are concerned and reacting . . . to Paton’s presence.

Jesse Kelly entered the race early and as a potential favorite. However, it seems he has factually “stumbled” a number of times. Facts are stubborn things, as someone once said. Misstating the facts, intentionally or otherwise, will always come back to haunt you.

Stick to the facts and take the high road.

Gifford’s Voting Record Will Hurt Her in the 2010 Election

2010-02-25T07:57:00.000-08:00

Gabrielle Giffords voted for approval of the $787 billion stimulus bill without reading it beforehand. The consequence of this omission is Giffords could not have known that the stimulus bill was back-loaded for 2010 and beyond. Only 30% of the stimulus bill was spent during 2009, the year we needed to see at least 70% of it spent..

Giffords also voted for the so-called “cap and trade” bill, also without reading it or the related amendment. In her letter to constituents, Giffords proudly claimed that the bill will actually reduce the average household utility bill by seven percent.

Energy rates are projected to increase by 90%. Even President Obama admits that energy prices will “skyrocket” under “cap and trade.” On average, the cost for electricity for my residence is about $200 per month for electricity. Under ACES, the acronym for the “cap and trade” bill, my monthly rate will increase to $380. Gifford claimed that rates will decrease by 7% by 2020.

Although the rate will be much higher than $380 per month in 2020, let’s use $380 as our example. A 7% decrease in 2020 translates to a monthly rate of $353.40 or a 77% increase over today’s rate. I don’t know what kind of math Gifford used but it does not add up. There is no 7% decrease, only a 77% increase. Experts agree that rates for electricity, gas, and natural gas will almost double across the board under this bill. ACES is a massive tax increase on the American people and Giffords has participated in one of the largest hoaxes in this nation’s history.

In the July 16, 2009, edition of Arizona Capitol Times, Giffords was interviewed. In the interview she claimed that 50 million people did not have access to health care and another 20 million are underinsured. The numbers are estimates not facts. Further Giffords claim that 50 million people do not have access to health care is palpably false. What these people do not have is health care insurance but they do have access to health care.

Additionally, Giffords has followed Nancy pelosi’s orders on not only the stimulus and “cap and trade” bills but also the so-called S-CHIP $33 billion expansion of government health care, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (a sop to trial lawyers), the Stupak antiabortion amendment compromise to the health care bill, the Affordable Health Care for America Act adding $2 trillion to the deficit, the Medicare Physician Payment Reform adding more than $200 billion to the deficit, and the Permanent Estate Tax Act increasing inheritance taxes to 45% on estates larger than $3.5 million.

In one of Giffords’ emails to her constituents, she wrote:

I always appreciate hearing from constituents, like you, who are informed and interested in the important issues affecting Arizona and the nation. My job as your representative is to help you connect with federal agencies, access services and get your questions answered thoroughly. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if you require assistance.

Giffords failed to mention that her most important responsibility is to represent her constituents. Gabrielle Giffords is not a Blue Dog. She’s Nancy Pelosi’s lap dog. So far, it appears that she has been doing Nancy Pelosi’s business rather than the people’s business: not a very good track record to run on in the next election.

Gabrielle Giffords is Nancy Pelsoi

2010-01-23T14:13:00.000-08:00

Gabrielle Giffords likes to portray herself as a Blue Dog Democrat. Her voting record belies her Blue Dog claims. Giffords is a Nancy Pelosi clone: a radical far left liberal who voted the way Nancy Pelosi wanted her to vote. Let’s review the facts.

The so-called $787 billion “Stimulus Bill,” which not one member of the House of Representative read because major parts were not even printed, was approved by the House on February 13, 2009. Approximately 30% of the money was spent in 2009 providing no stimulus and no jobs. Unemployment climbed past 10% even though President Obama claimed it would keep unemployment below 8%. Gabrielle Giffords voted for the bill without reading.

The so-called S-CHIP $33 billion explosion of government run health care was originally designed to cover poor children. The Congressional Budget Office stated this bill opens coverage to higher income children and opens the program to adults for the first time. Gabrielle Giffords voted for the bill because Nancy Pelosi demanded her vote. The bill passed on January 14, 2009.

The so-called Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is anything but fair. It is a sop to the trial attorneys that allows alleged pay discrimination lawsuits to proceed years after any alleged discrimination took place. This bill increases the legal costs of businesses, which will contribute to higher prices to consumers. The bill is without value but passed the House on January 9, 2009. Gabrielle Giffords voted for the bill because Nancy Pelosi demanded her vote.

The American Clean Energy and Security Act, the so-called “Cap and Trade” bill is the largest tax increase in American history. The bill is based not even on “settled science” but plain bad science, with data intentionally manipulated by politically drive and corrupt scientists. The House passed this bill on June 26, 2009. Gabrielle Giffords voted for the bill because Nancy Pelosi told her so.

The Stupak Anti-Abortion Amendment, which passed the House on November 7, 2009, was added to the so-called Affordable Health Care Act for America Act to prevent federal funds from being used for abortions. Pelosi actually fought against passage of this amendment but lost. Pelosi allowed the Amendment to be offered in the House as a compromise toward passage of the Health Care bill. Gabrielle Giffords voted for passage of the Stupak Amendment.

The Affordable Health Care for America Act, which in the final analysis was found unaffordable by Massachusetts voters, was passed on November 7, 2009. This bill added over $1 trillion to the deficit because certain costs were stripped from the bill to artificially lower the cost. Even the Obama administration stated the bill would add to the deficit. Gabrielle Giffords voted for a bad bill because Nancy Pelosi told her so.

The Medicare Physician Payment reform Act, passed by the House on December 19, 2009, was the legislation stripped from the Health Care bill above to artificially lower the bill’s cost. This bill adds more than $200 billion to the cost of health care and is an example of the dishonesty of House Democrats. Gabrielle Giffords voted for this bill because Nancy Pelosi said so.

The so-called Permanent Estate Tax Act of 2009 was passed by the House on December 3, 2009. The bill provides for a 45% inheritance tax on estates larger than $3.5 million. It cancels a one year repeal of the tax schedule for 2010. The tax is not indexed for inflation, which like the Alternative Minimum Tax, will continue to increasingly tax more and more income from taxpayers. It is a bad bill that taxes money already taxed. Gabrielle Giffords voted for this bill. Why? You already know.

Gabrielle Giffords has not been doing the people’s work. She has been doing Nancy Pelosi’s bidding. Giffords voted eight out of eight times for bad bills. She even voted for at least one bill without reading it. She cannot deny it. She has betrayed her constituents. She has betrayed her oath. She has betrayed her country.

The shame of it. She should resign.

The Day Climate Science Died

2009-12-09T14:28:00.000-08:00

Dr. Roy Spencer and other leading climate scientists (“‘Cap and Trade’ or ‘Cap and Tax,’” American Commentaries, 6/28/09) must feel vindicated at the news revealing that a group of scientists in England and America conspired to manufacture “global warming” as a world wide menace. Unfortunately for the “good” climate scientists, climate science died at East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit.

It is now known, thanks to an unidentified whistle blower, that thousands of emails and documents, now posted online, support the fact that radical left climate researchers have been tampering scientific evidence to show a non-existent trend in global warming. The evidence of the global warming scam has been in the hands of the so-called main stream media for over a month but they refused to report it, thus contributing to a cover-up of what can be described as a crime against humanity.

In the absence of the so-called main stream media, bloggers and climate change skeptics analyzed the data and found convincing evidence that Climate Research Unit scientists manipulated data to not only falsify but also outright counterfeit data to support global warming. These same scientists cooperatively worked to hide their crimes from external auditors and deleted information to avoid freedom of information requests (a violation of the law). They also conspired to keep contrary opinions from being published in respected journals and United Nations reports, while denying the legitimacy of skeptics because they were not published in these same journals and reports.

Who are these so-called radical left scientists? Doctor Phil Jones of the Climate Research Unit, who has been forced to step down from his position until the completion of an independent review. Doctors Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes of Pennsylvania State University, who authored the fabricated “hockey stick” graph that falsely abolished the medieval warm period. Keith Briffa, another Hockey-Team leader, whose temperature graphs, derived from tree ring data from Yamal, Russia, were cited by the IPCC as supporting evidence of Mann-Bradley-Hhughes assertion of unprecedented 20th-century warming.

“The whistleblower’s data file reveals that there is very close collusion indeed between key figures in the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia and in both NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center. Members of all of these entities in the scientific establishment are also members of the Team. They co-ordinate their results, and they co-ordinate how they present their results, and they co-ordinate how, between them, they control or seek to control – to a remarkable extent – the entire process of the UN’s climate panel, as well as the process of publication of learned papers in scientific journals, and even the appointment of reviewers and editors.”

It is clear that those radical left community has perpetrated a political fraud on humanity in the name of science. As a result, climate science is dead as is ‘global warming.” Not only the corrupt scientists involved but also those like Al Gore and other dishonest politicians pushing a radical left change in society based on fabricated data for the sole purpose of dictatorial political control have been discredited.

The people in the East Anglia Climate Research Unit profited in the amount of $20 million in research grants. Al Gore has made millions from his fraudulent propaganda film, “An Inconvenient Truth.” The so-called “Cap and Trade” bill passed by the House would have cost Americans hundreds of millions of dollars in new taxes and increased energy prices. The dishonesty of the radical left is palpable. Even Al Gore has backed out of a speaking engagement in Copenhagen. Why? He can’t stand being questioned about the global warming scam.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s cynical Endangerment Finding in April that green house gas emissions qualify as an air pollutant and this false finding is the basis for a draconian increase in regulations and regulatory bureaucracies is based on a so-called “precautionary approach.” Let’s remember that “the defining characteristic of a green house gas is that it is relatively transparent to visible light from the sun but can absorb portions of thermal radiation . . . That said, the main green house substances in the earth’s atmosphere are water vapor and high clouds.” It’s apparent that the EPA’s conclusion is not only “precautionary,” it doesn’t even come close to being called science.

CO2 emissions are not pollutants, they are plant food. Plants take in CO2 and emit oxygen. This is another balancing act brought to us by nature. We need the plants to keep taking in CO2 emissions so we can have more oxygen. Wind and rain circle the globe to cool hot spots. We don’t need radical left bureaucrats, scientists and ex-politicians to take away our liberty through the fraudulent science of global warming or climate change.

The day that global warming was exposed as fraudulent is the day climate science died.

Governor Jan Brewer . . . Has She Learned Her Lesson?

2009-11-16T10:09:00.000-08:00

Jan Brewer finally filed her statement of organization to indicate she is running for Governor next term. The question is will she have the support of the Republican Party?

In my last commentary on Governor Brewer, I wrote, “. . . Governor Brewer may be Governor but she is not actively leading Arizona to a budget solution. She is sitting on the bench, complaining, waiting for something, anything, to happen. As Winston Churchill once said, “When the eagles are silent, the parrots jabber.” Governor Brewer has been jabbering.” She continues to jabber.

Where are Brewer’s fresh ideas to fix the deficit? Where are her overtures to the legislative leaders? Where are her initiatives? She stated in an Arizona Capitol Times column, “There is still a lot of work to be done and it is clear to me that this is the moment I was born to serve . . .”

Okay, she has been Governor for eleven months, the budget deficit remains unresolved and she’s failed to take the lead on resolving the budget impasse. Jan Brewer has been a “do-nothing” Governor for eleven months. Her only accomplishment has been to veto budget legislation repeatedly, exacerbating the deficit problem.

Now it appears that there is some movement to address the $2 billion deficit and reduce it by $600 million but from the perspective of a citizen this is unacceptable. This action still leaves a deficit of $1.4 billion. In addition, FY2010 is estimated to have a $ 3 billion deficit.

It is clear that Brewer’s veto of the budget submissions has placed Arizona in a precarious position. And I have to believe she did so purposely. All along she has wanted a temporary tax increase, a tactic Republicans opposed to protect the citizens of Arizona. Now, she’s pushed Arizona so far into a hole the legislature may have to agree to a sales tax increase. A bitter pill, indeed, raising taxes on Arizona citizens at a time a great many are greatly hurting due to the recession.

I cautiously approach any tax increase, especially temporary tax increases, that somehow morph into permanent increases. If the legislature agrees to a temporary tax increase it must be contingent on Governor Brewer agreeing to the following conditions which all have to be approved by the voters:

The temporary tax increase bill shall include a sunset date and language that prevents the legislature of Governor extending the tax increase beyond its original sunset date.

The federal monies the Governor’s office traditionally receives and handles as part of the State of Arizona Total Funds Budget process shall be controlled by the legislature.

The voter mandates that remove legislative responsibility for approximately 33% of the General Fund Budget shall be repealed.

The statutory restrictions on one-third of the General Fund Budget shall be repealed by the Legislature and approved by the Governor.

Here are the reasons behind the four petitions. First, it is too easy for the Governor or legislature to become attached to a temporary tax increase (just look at quagmire inside Congress). The sunset date and restrictive language are intended to make this bill temporary.

Second, no one is really responsible for the Arizona budget. The Governor controls a piece ($18 billion in federal dollars). Third, the voters essentially control about a third of the General Fund budget through voter mandate ($3.3 billion). Fourth, another third of the General Fund Budget requires action by the Legislature and Governor to initiate change. The remaining one-third of the General Fund ($3.3 billion) is discretionary and controlled by the Legislature.

Essentially, of the Total Funds Budget $28 billion, the Legislature unilaterally can only impact $3.3 billion or 12% of the budget, still subject to the Governor’s veto pen. The Governor should be taking the lead on repealing voter and statutory mandates, thus spreading budget reductions across the entire General Fund instead of jamming draconian reductions on only one-third of the General Fund. The legislature is the body from which revenue and expense bills need to originate. The legislature should be solely accountable, subject to the Governor providing the traditional check and balance through the power of the veto pen.

The Republican Party needs to position a strong leader at the next primary race for Governor. Arizona needs a tough, inspirational leader who knows how to collaborate with others in order to get the job done. In her June 1, 2009, cover memo to her Five Point Plan and budget document, Governor Brewer absolutely painted herself into a corner:

Conclusion. My standards for signing the FY 2010 General Fund budget are more steadfast today than they were in early March. I will not sign a budget that relies primarily on debt and federal stimulus dollars. I will not sign a budget that incorporates unrealistic spending cuts, excessive gimmicks or phony revenue projections. I will not sign a budget that, in the interest of expediency, dims Arizona’s future.

Aside from all but impugning the good faith of the legislature and accusing the legislature of excessive gimmicks and phony revenue projections, Brewer basically implied she would only sign a bill that included a tax increase, which is one of her five points. So she slams the legislature, stamps her foot and whines that she wants it her way. Brewer gave us a brilliant example of lack of leadership and lack of collaboration. Considering we are nearing December and still do not have a budget, Governor Brewer’s “do-nothing” profile has dimmed Arizona’s future. And she did it all by herself.

As I stated in my last posting regarding Governor Brewer, “. . . failure to successfully lead Arizona this year will spell disaster for any chance of success at the ballot box. Success this year is not only resolving the budget impasse but also growing the economy, successfully soliciting businesses from California, establishing public-private partnerships for toll roads, bullet trains, construction of nuclear plants, construction of salt water conversion plants, solar energy plants, hospital complexes, web infrastructure, etc.”

As Governor Brewer concluded in her June 1st letter:

The clock is ticking – loudly. It is time to come to grips with the fact that a budget that complies with the non-negotiable [emphasis mine] standards described above will contain elements that are politically and ideologically repugnant and that will create hardships for individuals, families and companies that don’t deserve it.

Governor Brewer’s intransigence in budget negotiations has hurt every Arizonan. She has unilaterally accomplished what she warned the legislature not to do: she has created hardships for every Arizonan through her failure to lead, failure to compromise, and failure to build a better future.

I don’t think she’s learned her lesson.

Governor Brewer Needs to Recalibrate if She Wants to Remain Governor

2009-10-22T09:54:00.000-07:00

Governor Jan Brewer’s “reactive” mode of behavior is puzzling. She stated Arizona businesses may have to wait longer than 2012 for the tax cuts she promised. Why?

In front of the Tempe Chamber of Commerce, Governor Brewer complained that the legislature refused to adopt her plan to ask the voters for a temporary sales tax increase over three years. She whined that “the will [of the Legislature] wasn’t there to send it [proposal for tax increase] out to the people . . . so now I’m a year behind in our plan to get this all kind of squared away and get us onto the path of prosperity and kind of turn the engine around.” Why?

First, Governor Brewer may be Governor but she is not actively leading Arizona to a budget solution. She is sitting on the bench, complaining, waiting for something, anything, to happen. As Winston Churchill once said, “When the eagles are silent, the parrots jabber.” Governor Brewer has been jabbering.

Second, Governor Brewer conveniently forgets that we cannot tax ourselves into prosperity. The healthiest State in the Union is Texas. It has neither an individual nor corporate income tax (Texas does have a franchise tax). Governor Brewer should be looking at models that work (Texas) not models that fail (California). Leaders run toward the problem not away from it.

Third, Governor Brewer had it backwards: the Legislature showed backbone in saying no to a sales tax increase. To date, the lack of “will” has been the Governor’s problem: the will to lead by example, the will to sell her message (it failed because the plan was not well thought out), and the will to think and move with a purpose (sitting on the sideline doesn’t cut it).

Fourth, Governor Brewer needs to produce a new plan to meet the changing environment. Putting a new cover on last year’s budget proposal is not honest and will lead to State Government inertia and budget failure; and, as with Apollo 13, failure is not an option. The Governor must contact Legislative Leaders without her three year sales tax proposal. She should be prepared to discuss fresh ideas, hers and the Legislature’s. The objective is to solve the budget problem for the people of Arizona; it is not to cut budgets to the bone or exclusively raise taxes. The Governor must embrace change . . .be flexible in her thinking.

Fifth, Governor Brewer must create a list of fresh ideas before her meeting with the Legislative leaders. Start with economic growth. This is the key. Economic growth creates jobs. Jobs create consumer demand. Turn to the private sector for expertise on economic growth (government employees generally do not have expertise on economic growth; their skills sets are focused in a different direction).

Sixth, having Department heads recalculate budgets at a 15-20 percent reduction is sound, prudent planning leading to “what if?” scenarios. Letting Departments cry to the local newspaper is counter-productive, frightens employees when they need a morale boost, and generally leads to embedded bitterness between the Governor’s Office and the Legislature. The Governor needs to view adversity as an opportunity.

At the end of the day, everyone must agree that revenue must meet or exceed expense. If planned expenditures exceed planned revenues, reduce expense. Do not sit on the sidelines hoping for revenue increases. Be pragmatic. Sophisticated managers know how to manage their budgets, especially during our current economic slowdown. This is not an alien event for the majority of us.

Whether or not Governor Brewer desires to remain in office past the next election, failure to successfully lead Arizona this year will spell disaster for any chance of success at the ballot box. Success this year is not only resolving the budget impasse but also growing the economy, successfully soliciting businesses from California, establishing public-private partnerships for toll roads, bullet trains, construction of nuclear plants, construction of salt water conversion plants, solar energy plants, hospital complexes, web infrastructure, etc.

Let me leave Governor Brewer with one last piece of advice: listen aggressively and intently not only because it is polite and courteous but also successful leaders listen before they act. Failure to lead Arizona out of its current problems will only lead to a Brewer defeat at the next election

President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize

2009-10-11T12:32:00.000-07:00

President Barack Obama has been named the 2009 recipient for the Nobel Peace Prize. But what did he do to earn the prize? Obama has been in office for only eight months.

The Nobel Committee said the prize was for Obama’s “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” Essentially, President Obama is receiving the Peace Prize for failing to establish peace in Afghanistan, Iraq, Middle East and the United States. In America, Obama is the most polarizing President in my life time. But Obama is in good company.

President Jimmy Carter won the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to establish peace in the Middle East. Carter did not win the Nobel Prize for achievement, only for trying. To this day, peace has not been established between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
But, hey, Jimbo tried . . . that’s all that counts!

Former Vice President Al Gore accepted the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize for “his strong commitment, reflected in political activity, lectures films and books [and] has strengthened the struggle against climate change.” Essentially, Al Gore’s flawed propaganda film, “An Inconvenient Truth,” could not be shown without “serious scientific inaccuracies, political propaganda and sentimental mush” were explained to children prior to viewing the film. Al Gore should have been greatly embarrassed at having his flawed propaganda film exposed for what it is. But not Big Al. He proudly accepted the prize despite the fact that Global Warming has been proven a scam by serious scientists.

Shouldn’t President Obama be ashamed for accepting the Nobel Peace Prize when nothing he has done in his presidency to promote or establish peace? Gideon Rachman, a foreign affairs columnist for the Financial Times, wrote in his blog, What did Obama do to win the Nobel Peace Prize:

“ . . . I doubt that I am alone in wondering whether this award is slightly premature. It is hard to point to a single place where Obama’s efforts have actually brought about peace - Gaza, Iran, Sri Lanka? The peace prize committee said that he is being rewarded for his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy”. But while it is OK to give school children prizes for “effort” - my kids get them all the time - I think international statesmen should probably be held to a higher standard.

It is also very odd timing. In the next couple of weeks, Obama is likely to yield to the wishes of his generals and to send many thousands more troops to Afghanistan. That will mean he is a wartime president, just as much as Bush or Lyndon Johnson. If Afghanistan ends up being Obama’s Vietnam, giving him the Nobel Peace Prize will look even sillier in a few years time.”

President Obama stated he will go to Norway to accept the Nobel Peace Prize. The hypocrisy of awarding Obama the Peace Prize is exceeded only by Obama accepting the Peace Prize. If President Obama accepts the Prize, he should publicly state that he is accepting the Prize on behalf of every man and woman serving in our military, for it is our military that has done far more than anyone to promote peace, even making the ultimate sacrifice in the quest for peace.
President Obama did not earn the Nobel Prize; the men and women of our armed forces have earned the Nobel Peace Prize . . . many times over.

Physician Shortages: How’s That for Hope and Change?

2009-10-11T12:29:00.000-07:00

Currently, the United States has approximately 921,823 medical physicians. Of this total, there are 320,795 Primary Care Physicians (excluding OB/GYN).

The U.S. population is approximately 306 million. Subtracting 46 million “uninsured” leaves a “net insured” population of 260 million.

There are 123 Primary Care Physicians per 100,000 “net insured” population. Adding 46 million “uninsured” to the covered health care population reduces the number of Primary Care Physicians from 123 per 100,000 population to 105 per 100,000 population. This is not only a 16% drop in Primary Care Physicians per 100,000 population but also recognition that this statistic represents very real health care rationing.

“A study by the Association of American Medical Colleges found that if the current pattern of declining first-year enrollment at American medical schools continues, "the country will have about 159,000 fewer doctors than it needs by 2025.” In light of the 16% drop in Primary Care Physicians per 100,000 population, how many new physicians will the United States require to maintain a ratio of 123 Primary Care Physicians per 100,000 population?

Mathematically, the United States will need an additional 54,205 Primary Care Physicians (Medical Specialists are another story). Primary Care Physicians represent about a third of the physician population. Another study calculated that the United States will need to produce an additional 10,000 physicians annually to avoid a signifiant physician deficit by 2025. This 10,000 is over and above the numbers graduating now.

Assuming (1) that a third of the 10,000 physicians needed go into Primary Care, (2) that graduating physicians go into Primary Care at the rate they have over the last few years, and (3) excluding a growing poulation to keep the calculation simple, it will take over sixteen years to reach 54,205 additional Primary Care Physicians. During this sixteen year period, health care will be rationed due to a lack of physicians. And a growing population will only exacerbate the situation.

None of the bills floating through Congress address the lack of physicians. The United States has a shortage of Primary Care Physicians now. Faced with the growing shortage of Primary Care Physicians, federal officials are considering several proposals.

One would increase enrollment in medical schools and residency training programs. However, finding sufficient numbers of qualified future physicians and maintaining medical schools standards are issues that have not been solved.

Another proposal would encourage greater use of nurse practitioners (NP) and physician assistants (PA). Depending on individual State laws, Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants can diagnose and treat patients under a Physician’s supervision. Increasing the number of NPs and Physician Assistants in a timely manner faces the same obstacles as increasing the number of qualified physicians.

A third would expand the National Health Service Corps, which deploys doctors and nurses in rural areas and poor neighborhoods. If increasing the number of Physicians, Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants is problematic in the first two proposals, it is certainly a non-starter in this instance.

What is certain is Americans will face health care rationing on a significant scale as a result of a Democratic Congress and Administration ramming a flawed health care bill, absent any checks or balance, against the American people.

The Uninsured Problem?

2009-09-09T12:57:00.000-07:00

Here is a breakdown of our uninsured population:

46,000,000 Total estimate of uninsured

(9,700,000) Are not U.S. citizens

(17,000,000) Have annual incomes greater than $50,000

(14,000,000) Already qualify for Medicaid

4,700,000 Truly uninsured

307,000,000 Total U.S. population

10.22% Truly uninsured as a percent of total uninsured

1.53% Truly uninsured as a percent of total U.S. population

Why is the Obama administration attempting to destroy health care for 98.47% of the population in order to provide coverage for 1.53% of the population?

Would it not be far less expensive to give the 1.53% truly uninsured access to Medicaid?

The issue is not health care; the issue is the radical left’s unfulfilled need to control our lives and make all American subservient to another “President for Life.”

Town Hall With Representative Gabrielle Giffords

2009-09-02T10:46:00.000-07:00

Last night, Gabrielle Giffords hosted a Town Hall meeting at the Sahuaro High School in Tucson. The audience was passionate, loud and angry on sensitive issues but, for the most part, well behaved.

Unsurprisingly, Representative Giffords again demonstrated that she does not understand health care. She stated that while she has not signed on to any of the health care bills, she does not support the notion of a single payer system but does support the “public option” concept. The ‘public option” is the first step in building a single payer system. She seems not to recognize this fact.

HR 3200 requires the appointed (not elected) Health Commissioner to determine a target medical loss ratio[1] for all health plans. A medical loss ratio is determined by dividing health care claims expense by premiums received. An 85% loss ratio has generally been considered acceptable. The remaining 15% covers administration and profit. The “public option” is, conceptually, not for profit. The Health Commissioner could establish a loss ratio of 90% or even 95%, causing private health care plans to leave the market.

Another significant fact in health care insurance is spreading the risk over larger numbers of people. The ‘public option,” if it is to be held to the same rules as private health care plans, will need to cover millions of people . . . healthy people to offset the influx of uninsured. Once the flood gates are open, they will never close.

Representative Giffords supports “tort reform,” which is a good thing. The fastest and easiest way to reduce health care cost is “tort reform,” something President Obama will not support.

In response to a question regarding the demise of Medicare Advantage, Giffords stated that she supports Medicare Advantage but the plan must have lower reimbursements. This is the mantra of the Obama administration. Quality assurance is now a euphemism for “cost control.” Obama bends the cost curve by reducing provider reimbursements.

The Federal Government reduced reimbursements on Medicare and Medicaid. This is the reason the majority of physicians restrict their practices to a very small percentage of Medicare and Medicaid patients. This is the reason an increasingly large number of physicians will not accept any new Medicare or Medicaid patients. The “public option” will reimburse at Medicare rates, initially, then begin cutting reimbursements in the name of cost control.

The Arizona Daily Star quoted Giffords as saying this Town Hall was the most passionate she has hosted. The Star quotes Gifford:

“I feel great, it was a very substantive discussion . . . Tempers ran high. Change is hard . . . But more than anything, what I heard, what I heard was frustration with a broken system.”[2]

Giffords meant “broken health care system.” The frustration she heard was not about a broken health care system but about a broken and ineffective Government in Washington. One earnest questioner rose to ask a question but first asked everyone to forget about being a Democrat or Republican or Independent, to forget about whether one is conservative or liberal. Instead, in 2010 and 2012, his voice rising, we clean up Washington, D.C!

The emotional explosion from the audience crossed party lines and political philosophies. It was clear this audience was fed up with what was happening in Washington . . . fed up with government take over of the housing and mortgage industries . . . fed up with government take over of General Motors and Chrysler . . . fed up with the government attack on the health care system. If Gifford did not “get it” she will face a very tough re-election in the 2010 elections.

Another questioner asked, “what happened to our right to choose? How can we trust government when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac went bankrupt, and with Medicare and Medicaid failing financially? We need to put people back to work.” Another standing ovation, across party lines, across political philosophies.

Gabrielle Giffords replied that Medicare, Medicaid, TriCare and the military health systems are government systems and they work. First, Medicare, Medicaid and TriCare are not government single payer plans. The Government contracts with private health plans to administer and manage the plans. The federal employees’ health care plan is also administered and managed by private health care plans.

It is now clear that Gabrielle Giffords does not understand health care and she has certainly misread her constituents. If Giffords votes for HR3200 or any bill with a “public option” she will be turned out of office.

[1] HR 3200, Section 116 (a), page 24.
[2] Arizona Daily Star, September, 2, 2009, page A4

Why Is Gabrielle Giffords Hiding?

2009-08-22T10:40:00.000-07:00

During the August recess, instead of meeting with constituents in town hall meetings, Gabrielle Giffords virtually disappeared from public view. Why is Gabrielle Giffords hiding from her constituents?

Giffords’ own public relations release is a canard. She states she is against any form of single payer plan but she supports the notion of a “public option,” which is the first step toward establishing a single payer health plan.

Gabrielle Giffords uses the “straw man” approach in talking about health care. She has met this man or this woman, who has lost their insurance and continues with a short story about this man or woman and the difficulties they face. Yet Giffords has not provided any names so the so-called story can be verified.

During a town hall meeting in Douglas, Arizona, a man attending the meeting was openly carrying a weapon, which is legal in Arizona. A few days later, Gabrielle Giffords claimed she was threatened by the armed protestor. Yet, later in the month, Giffords stated, for the record:

“I saw the guy out of the corner of my eye, but I was really focused on the people who I was meeting with one-on-one. There was a guy who was yelling some pretty disparaging comments," Giffords said. "I could hear him, but the situation was not out-of-control at all . . . Only later did Giffords learn that the man had a gun. She said he wasn't waving the weapon around or trying to threaten people with it.”

It is clear that Giffords has either fabricated the “gun” issue or she is has lied about what happened to gain political advantage against ordinary citizens voicing concern and unhappiness with health care bills in Congress and Giffords’ support of HR3200, which contains a “public option.” The fact that neither Gifford nor her staff filed charges against this “desperado” is revealing.

Giffords has given interviews to the Arizona Daily Star, has conducted telephone town halls but she has refused to conduct in person town halls. Why? She doesn’t want to meet with her constituents because she knows her constituents are not in favor of draconian spending that translates to a government takeover of health care.

Giffords has demonstrated she is not a strong person. Instead of doing the “people’s work” Giffords is doing Nancy Pelosi’s bidding. Her constituents know it and Giffords is afraid to face her constituents because she can’t explain her subservience to Nancy Pelosi.

Analysis of Giffords Interview with the Arizona Daily Star

2009-08-13T05:20:00.000-07:00

Representative Gabrielle Giffords was interviewed by the Arizona Daily Star. The interview was published on August 11, 2009. She has held only one town hall meeting during the August recess. Her Tucson office staff will not allow callers to talk to her because her schedule does not permit it. Unbelievable! Is she afraid to face her constituents? An analysis of her answers to the Daily Star is revealing.

Arizona Daily Star – “Why is health care such a volatile issue?”

Giffords – “My position is to listen to constituents, learn from the very best information available and ultimately make sound, rational decisions that are going to be beneficial to the people of the 8th Congressional District.

What I’ve seen in the last couple of weeks is that people want to have created for them a forum where they can be disruptive rather than actually providing me with information in a way that is going to give me their personal perspective and educating me on their point of view . . .It’s been a little troubling.”

Analysis – Giffords failed to answer the question. The reason health care is such a volatile issue is because the majority of people, based on any number of polls, are not in favor of a single payer or public option. People believe Obama’s plan is bad for the country because of its estimated cost and the rationing of health care that a single payor scheme brings with it. Further, the American people are concerned with a Democrat led Congress attempting to rush another expensive program through Congress absent checks and balances.

Giffords statement that people want a forum where they can be disruptive is a “straw man.” Which people want to be disruptive? People are angry because they cannot get a straight answer from their politicians, whether in a town hall or in an interview. Dissent is patriotic. Remember Hillary Clinton’s shrill statement that dissent is patriotic? Giffords says her position is to listen to her constituents but her behavior contradicts her words.

Arizona Daily Star – “What do you mean by a public plan?”

Giffords – “A public option that a health insurance company cannot deny you from applying to their program but you are able to access to a cafeteria-style plan of health care. So for those 47 million Americans that have no coverage right now that they are able either to get some subsidy through the federal government to buy into the plan, or to just directly buy into the plan to get some coverage and not be denied.”

Analysis – Again, Giffords doesn’t answer the question. In fact, the first sentence of her response doesn’t make any sense. It demonstrates that Giffords understands neither health care nor HR 3200.

A public option allows government to structure premiums at below market prices, causing private health plans to desert the market place. The public option, in HR 3200, encourages illegal aliens to obtain subsidized health care at taxpayer expense. Section 152, page 50-51, of HR3200, states “Except as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provisions of high quality health care or related services.”

Arizona Daily Star – “So do you mean public option in the sense of the subsidies or that it would be a Medicare kind of thing where there are reimbursements?”

Giffords – “To further complicate things – it’s probably why we’re here – is that there are five different bills that currently exist. And the House plan is completely different from the Senate plan. The Senate is not even talking about a public option. They are talking about a co-op program. I don’t even fully understand the examples they are using. I think there are only two co-ops in the country right now . . .I’m not in the Senate, so I am not following that as closely.

“This plan that doesn’t actually exist in writing – the president also does not have a plan, he talks about his plan, but he has no legislation – is that if you are currently insured , you keep your private insurance, you should not see any radical change in your coverage . . .

“We’re not going to take on everyone’s health insurance. So if you like what you have and are able to keep it, there will be no change . . . At this point, there is a public option that’s going to be available. But who participates, how much does it cost, how you get in, who’s eligible, those things are still being discussed.”

Analysis – The question and answer are confusing. First the questioner asks about subsidies (to the public option members?) and reimbursements (to providers?). The Arizona Star Reporter does not know enough about the topic to ask a clear question. The question was so botched and vague it could not be answered directly by Giffords.

There are five different health care reform bills in various stages of development. HR 3200, the only House bill to pass out of committee is the only one published in draft form. Giffords should be familiar with HR 3200 but her answer indicates she is not familiar with the bill.

Section 123 (beginning at p.30) of HR 3200 calls for a committee composed of 18 President-appointed individuals and 8 Federal employees (26 non-elected citizens) to consist of providers, consumer representatives, employers, labor, health insurance issuers, experts in health care financing and delivery, experts in racial and ethnic disparities, experts in care for those with disabilities, representatives of relevant governmental agencies and at least one practicing physician OR other health professional and an expert on children’s health."

This group will determine benefit designs for America. Other than the surgeon general, a physician is not even guaranteed to be on the committee. In effect, twenty-five non-elected, non-clinical political appointees will make health care decisions for the American people. This is a direct intrusion into the patient-physician relationship.

The public option also calls for a Health Care Commissioner, appointed by the President, with advice and consent by the Senate, as part of the executive branch of government. This is another non-elected political appointee.

Arizona Daily Star – “How is that paid for between the insurance company, the doctor and the person, all of that?”

Giffords – We got the cost of the bill to less than $1 trillion at this point. I think it’s around $900 billion or $850 billion at the moment and more than half of these costs are created by reductions by current health-care providers for their costs, like for example, for Medicare. So it’s driving down costs from insurance companies by hospitals, the pharmaceutical industry as well, to reduce the cost – that’s how half of it is created . . .

Another big part of those costs are going to be for, currently, by a tax increase for the wealthiest 1.2 percent of population to 1.5 percent of the population. Again, that number is currently in flux right now. What we’re talking about is after all the deductions, if you make over $300,000 after your deductions, so you’re probably making over $1 million in income, I’d say, but once you go through your expenses, that there would be a less than 2 percent tax on these folks . . . That’s one of the plans, but that’s a general thought at the moment.”

Analysis – The first observation is Giffords has difficulty in orally expressing herself. She should be embarrassed at the first two sentences of her answer. The second observation is she really does not have a detailed grasp of the bill, probably because she did not read it in its entirety. What it boils down to is simply no one knows the true cost of the bill. The Congressional Budget Office has scored parts of bills but the total bill has not been scored.

Using average costs we can compare costs to Giffords numbers. Health care is estimated (by the government) to cost $8,100 per capita annually. Private health care spends 53% of medical cost and the government spends 47% of the cost. At $8,100 per person, the aggregate cost of health care is estimated at $2.430 trillion annually. There are a little over 306 million people in the United States. Private health care plans cover 200 million people. Of the 106 million remaining, about 46 million are uninsured, leaving about 60 million covered by some government program (Medicare, Medicaid, S-Chip, Military, etc.).

Private health care’s share of the medical cost is about $1.287 trillion or $6,440 per capita. Government’s share of the medical cost is about $1.142 trillion or $10,775 per capita. This is not surprising. The government cannot with any form of efficiency run its own departments. For example, the Postal Service is facing a current fiscal year deficit of $6 billion. Private health care plans are 1.7 times more efficient that the government in providing health care. And Giffords supports a “public option” when the government could not manage a “cash for clunkers” program?”

Arizona Daily Star – “A single payer system is off the table because of cost?”

Giffords – “Not even because of cost, because it’s too radical of a shift for the American people.

“Right now, single payer is just not right, with such a strong employer based health care system that we have in our country, and the satisfaction that a lot of people have with the status quo. There is not enough information on what health care is costing us right now . . .”

Analysis - Giffords is right in saying we don’t know how much health care costs today. Using average costs (in the analysis above), we can start developing a truer cost picture. What is particularly galling is how much money and time was and is wasted constructing bills in the House and Senate without knowing the costs of each bill. Congress failed to do its homework on health care. So, we’re going to end up with approximately five bills. Competing bills in each chamber will have to be reconciled. Then the bills of each House of Congress will have to be reconciled. And once we’re down to one bill, it still has to be scored by the CBO. And the estimated cost calculated by the CBO could kill the bill much like the CBO calculations of portions of a bill quickly altered the scope of the bill.

Further, section 223 (p.121) of HR 3200 requires use of the Medicare fee schedule for the public option. Currently, most physicians limit how many Medicare patients they will see due to Medicare’s substandard fee schedule. In fact, most physicians will see only those Medicare patients that were the physicians’ patient before they reached sixty-five years of age. Now Congress wants to expand the number of patients in a government funded “public option.” The question will be how many physicians are going to participate in the “public option” with substandard fee schedules? With every “public option” they allow into their practices, physicians will see a decrease in reimbursements resulting in a decrease of revenue.

Arizona Daily Star – “Is there any one thing you see has an obstacle in passing legislation?”

Giffords – “From a very top level it’s just misunderstanding . . . Using rhetoric that is not even adequately defining what the situation is, and this is from some of our community leaders, there’s a tremendous amount of misinformation.

“I think Congress has to do a better job, I think the president has to do a better job . . . I think people have to do a better job really doing their research to know what’s going on. It’s not going to happen overnight. We’re going to continue to continue to try to educate folks and hopefully we’ll get something accomplished.”

Analysis – First, I recommend Giffords read HR 6200. The bill contains a “public option” at section 221 (p. 116). If there is any misinformation it’s coming from proponents of a single payer universal plan. At President Obama’s town hall on August 11th this year, he flatly stated that he has never promoted a single payer plan. Yet, two years ago Obama said he did. There are recordings of both occasions.

When we have one party in control of the House, Senate and White House, absent any checks or balances, the American people should be worried that this political party is not doing the right thing.

When we have the controlling political party writing stimulus, cap and trade, and health care bills in the back rooms of Congress, absent checks and balances, and excluding the minority party from participation, the American people should be worried that this political party is not doing the right thing.

When we have a controlling political party whose members engage in criminal activities and ethical violations, and the applicable Ethics Committees either refuses to initiate an investigation or just sits on the evidence, the American people should be worried that this political party is not doing the right thing.

“It is a very serious thing for a political creed or political party when they are compelled in spite of themselves to hail national misfortunes as a means of advancing their cause.”- Winston Churchill.

President Obama Endorses Negative Eugenics

2009-07-24T12:16:00.000-07:00

In President Obama’s world, universal health coverage includes the use of negative eugenics as a way to reduce health care expense. Obama supported negative eugenics as a State of Illinois Senator when he voted no on a law to provide medical help for babies who survived a botched abortion. Now he is willing to deny health care to needy patients, starting with seniors in his quest for health care reform.

The only way Obama can impact health care costs is to reduce the level of care received by seniors on Medicare. This means forcing doctors to provide less care through a reduction of tests, procedures and prescriptions. Obama’s plan to reduce Medicare funding by $500 billion at the same time the boomer generation begins retirement is no mistake.

Included in the House health care bill is the creation of the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. The goal of this Federal Coordinating Council is the implementation of negative eugenics specifically targeted at Medicare patients. The Federal Council is modeled after England’s version, the British National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) that approves or rejects treatment. For example, NICE has a rule of thumb that states health expenditures are inappropriate if they involve spending more than $22,000 to save six months of life. Consequently, British cancer patients do not have access to drugs that are available to patients in the United States. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that 25,000 British cancer patients die prematurely every year due to these arbitrary restrictions.

Ezekiel J. Emanuel[1], brother to Rahm Emanuel, President Obama’s Chief of Staff, wrote in a 1996 Hastings Center Report:

“The fundamental challenge to theories of distributive justice[2] for health care is to develop a principled mechanism for defining what fragment of the vast universe of technically available, effective medical care services is basic and will be guaranteed socially and what services are discretionary and will not be guaranteed socially. Such an approach accepts a two-tiered health system –some citizens will receive only basic services while others will receive both basic and discretionary health services. Within the discretionary tier, some citizens will receive few discretionary services, other richer citizens will receive almost all available services, creating a multi-tiered system.”

More recently, Ezekiel Emanuel co-authored another article focused on the allocation of scarce medical interventions. The article reviewed eight simple allocation principles categorized into four separate classifications: treating people equally, favoring the worst-off, maximizing total benefits, and promoting and rewarding social usefulness. The article then reviewed multi-principle allocation systems: The United Network for Organ Sharing points system, quality-adjusted life-years, and disability-adjusted life-years. These reviews were simply a lead-up to recommending an alternative system: Complete Lives System.[3]

The Complete Lives System “. . . prioritizes younger people who have not yet lived a complete life and will be unlikely to do so without aid . . . individual human lives, rather than individual experiences [are] the units over which any distributive principle should operate . . . complete lives also supports modifying the youngest-first principle by prioritizing adolescents and young adults over infants . . . When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.

The Complete Lives System discriminates against older people . . . Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years. Treating 65-year-olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they had more life-years is not.”

This is the twisted thinking of Hitler’s final solution, which led to the Holocaust. This is the tortured thinking behind President Obama’s Federal Coordinating Council, whose mission is to ration health care.

President Obama and Senator Ted Kennedy have repeatedly said the American people deserve the same health insurance that Federal employees have, the same health insurance that Senator Kennedy has. Both have betrayed the American people by opting for a sun-standard “public option.” We now know that Congress is exempt from the “public option” in the House bill. We now know that President Obama is intent on rationing health care through the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. We now know that President Obama has removed $500 billion from Medicare’s budget to help pay for the “public option.” We now know that people over 65 will be targeted for heath care rationing because their lives are considered of lesser value.

Liberal fascism is alive and well in Washington, D.C. We now have one party rule, absent any checks or balances. Obama is the Fuhrer: universal health care is not his goal. As an authoritarian and Statist, power and control are what Obama craves.

End Notoes:

[1] Ezekiel J. Emanuel, “Where Civic Republicanism and Deliberative Democracy Meet,” Hastings Center Report, November-December 1996, p.12.
[2] Principles of distributive justice are normative principles designed to guide the allocation of the benefits and burdens of economic activity. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
[3] Govind Persad, Alan Wertheimer, Ezekiel J. Emanual, “Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions,” www.thelancet.com, Vol 373, January 31, 2009, pp.423-431.

Gifford's Voting Record Will Hurt Her in the Next Election

2009-07-15T16:02:00.000-07:00

Gabrielle Giffords voted for approval of the $787 billion stimulus bill without reading it beforehand. The consequence of this omission is Giffords could not have known that the stimulus bill was back-loaded for 2010 and beyond. Very little of the $787 billion is being spent in 2009.

Giffords also voted for the so-called “cap and trade” bill, also without reading it or the related amendment. In her letter to constituents, Giffords proudly claimed that the bill will actually reduce the average household utility bill by seven percent.

Energy rates are projected to increase by 90%. Even President Obama admits that energy prices will “skyrocket.” On average, the cost for electricity for my residence is about $200 per month for electricity. Under ACES, the acronym for the “cap and trade” bill, my monthly rate will increase to $380. Gifford claimed that rates will decrease by 7% by 2020. Although the rate will be much higher than $380 per month in 2020, let’s use $380 as our example. A 7% decrease in 2020 translates to a monthly rate of $353.40 or a 77% increase over today’s rate. I don’t know what kind of math Gifford used but it does not add up. There is no 7% decrease, only a 77% increase. Experts agree that rates for electricity, gas, and natural gas will almost double across the board. ACES is a massive tax increase on the American people and Giffords has participated in one of the largest hoaxes in this nation’s history.

In the July 16th edition of Arizona Capitol Times, Giffords was interviewed. In the interview she claimed that 50 million people did not have access to health care and another 20 million are underinsured. The numbers are estimates not facts. Further Giffords claim that 50 million people do not have access to health care is palpably false. What these people do not have is health care insurance but they do have access to health care.

In Giffords most recent email to her constituents, she wrote:

I always appreciate hearing from constituents, like you, who are informed and interested in the important issues affecting Arizona and the nation. My job as your representative is to help you connect with federal agencies, access services and get your questions answered thoroughly. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if you require assistance.

Giffords failed to mention that her most important responsibility is to represent her constituents. So far, it appears that she has been doing Nancy Pelosi’s business rather than the people’s business: not a good platform to run on in the next election.

A New Declaration of Independence

2009-07-04T15:18:00.000-07:00

[I have read the Declaration of Independence on many occasions, the most recent being this July 4th. While reading the Declaration, I wondered what the Declaration would look and sound like if written today. What follows is what could be written in reaction to current events].

When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness - -That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men , deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence indeed will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience has shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. – Such has been the patient sufferance of the American People; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their current system of Government. The history of the current President of the United States is a history of repeated usurpations, injuries and criminal acts, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over the American People. To prove this let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has illegally used Government tax revenue to nationalize the banking, mortgage and automotive industries instead of allowing these industries to reorganize under existing bankruptcy laws.

He has used Government TARP tax revenue for purposes other than those approved by Congress and without any accountability.

He has, again without any accountability, quadrupled our national debt in less than six months.

He has reduced funding for America’s missile defense system at the same time North Korea has increased missile testing, thereby endangering America’s security.

He has, against the advice of his current and prior CIA directors, released sensitive information on intelligence gathering, thereby providing aid to America’s enemies.

He has, outside of existing Constitutional authority, terminated private sector managers and placed government employees on the boards of private sector companies.

He has, without Constitutional authority, stolen the wealth of bond holders and redistributed such wealth to corrupt labor unions.

He has, in his overseas travels, in Europe, in Egypt (to the Arab world), to Central and South America, at the G20 Summit of World Leaders, and in Turkey, repeatedly apologized for America’s greatness and exceptionalism when no apology was required.

He has appointed numerous “czars” having great discretion over industries and compensation levels, “czars” who are not subject to the “advice and consent” of the Senate and not accountable to the American people.

He has apologized for America’s response to a terrorist attack that killed 3,000 innocent Americans in New York City, when no apology was necessary.

He apologized for America having established Guantanamo when having Guantanamo was necessary and proper, and an apology was not required.

He has politicized the Census by moving the department directly into the White House and ordering a criminal community activist organization, under investigation in several States for voter fraud and other crimes, to administer the Census of 2010.

He appointed as Attorney General an individual who orchestrated the forced removal and expulsion from America to Cuba a nine year whose mother died trying to bring him to a life of freedom in the United States; and an individual who was instrumental in providing, to an international criminal, a presidential pardon.

He has endangered America’s future through his proliferate spending and questionable programs.

He has proposed nationalizing America’s health care system by creating a public health plan to undercut existing private sector plans, which is not authorized by Constitutional power, yet he has exempted Congress and federal employees from this plan.

He has directed, as part of his collectivized central planning, the government seized automobile industry to build vehicles that consumers do not want to buy, and he wasted tax payer revenues in a “buy the clunker” program, none of which is authorized by the Constitution.

He has, without declaration of war by Congress, sent additional troops to fight in Afghanistan, thereby weakening America’s security.

He has, for the first time in presidential history, bowed before a Saudi king, thereby implying American subservience to a foreign power.

He has, through the use of a criminal community activist organization, attained the Presidency, and he continues to use this organized criminal cartel to his own ends.

He has illegally used tax payer funds to pay other countries to take captured terrorist detainees from Guantanamo Bay.

He appointed to the position of Homeland Security Secretary an individual who classified American veterans as potential domestic enemies of America.

He has, during his official travels, insulted the Queen of England, the British Prime Minister, and the French President, while, praising the likes of Marxist Daniel Ortega, kissing the likes of Hugo Chavez, and endorsed Socialist Evo Morales of Bolivia.

He has excited domestic terrorism by using a criminal community activist organization to attack and intimidate employees and families of businesses that he had nationalized.

He has encouraged a one-party Congress to pass a bill of attainder against innocent American citizens.

He repeatedly has ignored the minority party and used his one –party rule in Congress, absent checks and balances, to pass questionable and reckless legislation.

He has promoted and approved that largest tax increases in American history.

He has blamed America for failing to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world, although Europe voluntarily ceded that role to the United States after World War II.

In every stage of these oppressions, misstatements and lies, the American people, primarily through WEB Blogs, have petitioned for redress of our grievances. Our repeated petitions have been summarily dismissed with the dismissive presidential comment: “I won.” A President, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the President of a free People.

Nor have we been wanting in attentions from our American brethren. We have warned them on numerous occasions of the dangers of legislative overreaching and incremental socialism. We have reminded them of America’s history, of American exceptionalism and greatness. Even the main-stream-media is enthralled with the looming specter of Statism that the President and his party are implementing. All have been deaf to the voice of justice and reason. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, independent freedom loving Americans, appealing to Gold Almighty, solemnly publish and declare, That we Americans, by natural law, are free and independent, that we are absolved from all allegiance to a government ruled by a Tyrant, and that all political connection between the Tyrant’s corrupt government and ourselves is totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent Americans, we shall institute whatever Government we deem proper, deriving its powers from the consent of the governed. And for the support of this Declaration, with firm reliance on the protection of Devine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our Sacred Honor.

Government Health Care: A Threat to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

2009-06-28T13:03:00.000-07:00

The key to passing universal health care legislation is not determining and controlling costs going forward (for regardless of cost, the radical left will lowball cost estimates – remember Medicare?), it is whether the Congressional radical left can gather sufficient votes for a “public health plan” option.

The radical left argue that a “public option” will provide people with a choice of a public health plan. Why, asks Robert Reich (“Why we need a public health-care plan,” WSJ, A15, 6/24/09: “. . . without a public option, the other parties that comprise America’s non-system of health care private insurers, doctors, hospitals drug companies and medical supplies – have little or no incentive to supply high-quality care at a lower cost than they do now.” Mr. Reich is, at best, disingenuous in his argument.

America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) notes that there are more than 1300 health plans competing for business in this country. These health care plans have plenty of competition and incentive to supply high quality care at a lower cost. The addition of a “public option,” subsidized by the government adds zero value to the equation. However, a “public option,” not bound by the notion of profit and loss, can and will undercut private health care premiums. A “public option,” not bound by the same onerous federal rules and regulations, will tilt the playing field in favor of the government. Further, a “public option” would have draconically devastating effects on research and development for new medical technology.

As Karl Rove noted in his column (WSJ, A13, 6/25/09): “To argue, as Mr. Obama does, that a government-run health care plan can control costs better than a market-based system is a mistake. This argument is belied by Medicare’s experience. A study published by the Pacific Research Institute finds that since 1970, Medicare costs have risen 34% a year faster than the rest of health care.” And President Obama and the Congressional radical left want to model the “public option” on Medicare?

Robert Reich admits to the inequality of efficiency and effectiveness of the so-called public option: “ A public option would squeeze their [private health plans] profits and force them to undertake major reforms. That’s the whole point.” Yes, that is the point: to force private health plans out of the market. That’s Reich’s definition of “major reforms.”
The government cannot be the rule-maker, referee and player. There is a blatant conflict of interest exposed . . . not that the radical left would care.

Critics of the so-called “public option” believe it to be a back door to a single payor system. Proponents of the “public option” say no, it is a choice. No one is going to be forced to choose a “public option.” The proponents are being disingenuous. Having the “public option” undercut the private health care plans (because government makes the rules, subsidizes the losses, thereby altering the playing field in its favor), will cause private health plans to abandon the market. No one is “forced” to choose the “public option.” It is the only “option” available. Competition disappears when there is a “public option” precisely because is drives private plans from the market.

AHIP cited the hidden danger of a “public option” based on a Medicare model: a Milliman study showed an average family of four pays $1,700 a year in higher premiums because the government’s Medicare and Medicaid programs underpay doctors and hospitals. The cost shift would grow to draconian proportions under a “public option,” creating an egregious hidden tax increase on consumers and ultimately destroying the private health care industry as we know it today. This goes to the very heart of Ronald Reagan’s conclusion: government is not the solution; government is the problem.

Government will make the rules. Will the rules be fair and impartial? Of course not. Both Obama and Ted Kennedy promised the very same federal health plan that Congress has. Why, then, is Congress exempted from participating in the public option? OOOPS! It appears the ‘public option” will be a lesser plan, possibly one modeled on Medicare, and unmitigated disaster.

Government will mandate benefit designs that drive premiums higher for private plans. Government will provide benefits at a lower price because it can print money and it can subsidize losses. Sooner rather than later, lower government premiums will cause subscribers and their families to shift to the lower premium. Once the “public option” has driven private plans from the market, government will increases premiums to cover real costs and the public will be locked-in.

Government will be the referee on the playing field as well as a player. Can it referee itself without conflict of interest? Of course not. This exposes the radical left as the egregiously dishonest sponsors of a corrupt “public option.” Being dishonest means nothing to the radical left. Their primary interest is power and control. And the ends justify the means.

Government will dictate reimbursement levels for providers. Historically, government has slashed reimbursement levels for Medicare and Medicaid. This is why physicians, especially, either do not accept Medicare and Medicaid patients or limit them to a minute percentage of their practices. The ‘public option” will do the same, probably using Medicare rates as a starting point. If the ‘public option” cannot entice enough physicians to participate, the government will interpret the weak participation as a cost control success while the poor patient will see it as nothing less than rating of health care.

The end game is the government establishing a single payor system, slashing reimbursements in the name of cost control, and ultimately, credentialing (and licensing?) physicians and requiring their “participation” in the “public option” whether the physicians like it or not. This is Obama’s Marxist health care utopia.

While those Americans relegated to the “public option” endure long waiting periods, rationed health care, and lack of access to quality health care, the President, Congress and federal employees are exempted from the sub-standard medicine of the “public option.”
Why? Because the elite political/bureaucratic class want and enjoy their superior health care.

Besides, it is no longer a government of, for and by the people. The radical left has taken over. It is now one party rule without Constitutional checks and balances. The ends justify the means.

Is Governor Brewer Losing It?

2009-06-20T09:35:00.000-07:00

Governor Jan Brewer must be losing it. The paranoia is evident: the Senate President and House Speaker are trying to trick her! Political trickery? You think?!

The Arizona Constitution plainly provides for the Legislature to present completed bills to the Governor but does not provide for a time requirement. When the Governor receives the budget package from the Legislature, she can either approve it or veto it. Even if the Legislature gave her the budget today these are the same choices she has.

Brewer’s argument that the legislature is usurping the power of the executive branch and violating the Constitution of Arizona rings hollow. In fact, Governor Brewer may be viewed as usurping legislative power by imposing a time limit for bill submission that is not included in the Arizona Constitution. She is attempting to impose her own time limit on the Legislature, which can be interpreted as a violation of separation of powers

Governor Brewer should be working with the legislative leaders not holding press conferences to rant and chant in a manner beneath a Governor of the State. Filing a lawsuit against the Legislature on questionable non-constitutional issues when the Constitution is very clear seems simply goofy. What does she accomplish?

Governor Brewer has demonstrated a total lack of leadership during this budget process. She is acting like a Democrat demanding increased sales taxes. Tough times require tough leadership, inspirational leadership, and Brewer lacks the capacity for either. It is clear she is not the Governor Arizona needs.

The Republican Party needs to position a strong leader at the next primary race for Governor. Arizona needs a tough, inspirational leader who knows how to collaborate with others in order to get the job done.

Governor Brewer, through her own actions, has demonstrated she is not capable of being the leader Arizona needs.

School Choice is a Civil Right

2009-06-17T09:11:00.000-07:00

School choice is a basic civil right . . . access to quality education is a basic civil right . . . unless you are beholding to teacher unions and left wing ideologues..

Governor Ted Strickland, D-Ohio, is waging an aggressive attack on school vouchers and charter schools. Senator Richard Durbin, D-Illinois, at the behest of teacher unions, sponsored a bill to eliminate the successful voucher program in Washington, D.C. President Obama signed the bill.

The real issue is why are Obama, Durbin, et. al., willing to send their own children to private schools but oppose any effort to extend the same choice and opportunity to black parents and their children? This is nothing less than blatant racism, which is not the first time whites have discriminated against blacks and not the first time blacks have discriminated against blacks; but it may be the first time a President who happens to be black discriminated against low income black parents and their children.

Opponents of the program argue that vouchers and charter schools jeopardize the long-standing ideal of offering every child access to high quality public schooling. This is precisely the problem: we are not providing high quality public schooling despite plowing billions of dollars into public schools. Hence, the need for alternatives.

Opponents also complain that vouchers take money away from public schools, leaving remaining students without enough resources to meet their needs. But shouldn’t money go to the better schools where it will have greater impact instead of to ineffective public schools that have received billions of dollars over the last few decades and still continue to fail our children?

Opponents also complain of tax dollars going to religious schools. However, the Supreme Court found, in 2002, the program in Cleveland to be “entirely neutral with respect to religion” since it allowed all schools to participate, religious or non-religious (Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 2002).

For decades, school districts have received billions of dollars into public schools yet math and reading scores have not increased. Class sizes have been reduced but improvement still remains illusive. The primary obstacle to overcome improvement in public schools is the public school teachers’ unions and the Democratic Party the teachers’ unions support.

Black parents, all parents, want to see through children receive a higher level of quality education than they received. Yet, the concept of quality neighborhood schools is failing children and parents. The answer is to let the parents choose the school for their children. Quality education is much more than a passport to the future, as Malcom X once described education; quality education is the future.

Opponents of school choice and voucher programs have taken the position that eradicating poverty is more important than education. Since Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society, this country has poured billions into eradicating poverty with little to show for it.

The best antidote to poverty was to make welfare recipients go to work. This occurred when Bill Clinton signed a Republican bill driven by Newt Gingrich. President Obama’s programs have reversed that law and another lost generation of Blacks and Hispanics will be created.

School choice and vouchers are the solution. And it is the very ideal of committing to a quality education that takes us away from dismal public schools to school choice, vouchers and charter schools. When public schools have to compete for students, public schools improve. The best way to improve opportunity for parents and their children is school choice.

Health Care Review

2009-06-15T14:43:00.000-07:00

The arguments and counter-arguments surrounding universal health care are becoming shrill and polarized. Proponents and opponents are not listening to each other. The terms of the arguments change to fit the circumstances of the argument. This situation calls for a better understanding of the push for universal health care.

What is universal health care?

As the descriptor implies, access to health care is universal, i.e., everyone has health care coverage. In reality, as full employment equates to 94%-96% employment, probably 4-6% of the people will not have coverage for any number of reasons.

Is universal health care socialized medicine?

If universal health care is delivered by multi-payors in the private sector it is not socialized medicine. However, a fine line separates socialized medicine from free market health care.

The government essentially controls health care in the Veterans’ Administration by employing doctors, nurses, administrators and facilities.

The government controls the dollars in Medicare and Medicaid, outsources quality control to third parties, and controls cost not by advancing “best practices” but by slashing reimbursements. Payments to physicians and hospitals are so low in Medicare and (even worse in) Medicaid that many providers either refuse to participate or restrict the number of Medicare and Medicaid patients they will see. Medicare and Medicaid can be described as socialized medicine because the government, as a single payor, controls the dollars.

The classic single payor system the Democrats support is socialized medicine at its worst. The current argument in Washington is whether to have a single payor system or rely on a multi-payor market driven system favored by Republicans. Again, we have to watch the language. In a multi-payor system, Democrats want a “public option” to ostensibly increase competition. This argument is a canard and will be covered next.

Why would a “public option” not work?

A non-profit “public option” is government-backed. Consequently, this public health plan is not required to make a profit or “break even.” The argument that the “public option” will increase competition is patently false. According the Washington-based America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), there are over 1,300 health plans insuring more than 200 million people. Adding a government sponsored “public option” will not increase competition. It will, though, allow the government to offer cheaper health plans (because the government does not have to make a profit or even break-even). It is a Trojan horse allowing the government to establish a single payor health plan through the proverbial back door.

What is the end result of implementing a single payor plan?

First, health care is estimated (by the government) to cost $8,100 per capita annually. Private health care spends 53% of medical cost and the government spends 47% of the cost. At $8,100 per person, the aggregate cost of health care is estimated at $2.430 trillion annually. There are a little over 306 million people in the United States. Private health care plans cover 200 million people. Of the 106 million remaining, about 46 million are uninsured, leaving about 60 million covered by some government program (Medicare, Medicaid, S-Chip, Military, etc.).

Private health care’s share of the medical cost is about $1.287 trillion or $6,440 per capita. Government’s share of the medical cost is about $1.142 trillion or $10,775 per capita. This is not surprising. The government cannot with any form of efficiency run its own departments. For example, the Postal Service is facing a current fiscal year deficit of $6 billion. Private health care plans are 1.7 times more efficient that the government in providing health care.

The flip-side of implementing a single payor plan is the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs in the private sector. Plus the government will have to enroll 200 million people without anyone losing coverage. Plus, the single payor plan will have to contract with providers (physicians, physician groups, facilities), which takes time. The providers will have to agree to reimbursement levels, unless the government nationalizes providers.

Why the rush to change the system?

Health care services in the United States currently cost about $2,430 trillion or $8,100 per capita annually, and consume about 15% of GDP. Health and Human Services projects that by 2017, costs will increase to $4.300 trillion and comprise 19.5% of GDP.

President Obama repeatedly stated that unless we control health care costs we will have another crises (these Democrats sure love crises). The only way Obama can control health care costs is by controlling health care. He has attempted to outsource Veteran Administration patients to private health plans but backed off as the hue and cry of veterans groups prepared for battle.

Private health plans control health care costs through contracting, quality control programs and emphasis on best practices. The government controls costs by slashing reimbursements, thus pushing providers away from government programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

In effect, the government, through a single payor system or “public option”, will destroy health care for 200 million people in order to provide health care for 46 million uninsured. Obama states his health care plan will cost $1 trillion yet the numbers show current cost is $2.430 trillion.

It will cost $381 billion annually to cover the uninsured through Medicaid. While a good chunk of money, it is far less that levying a tax on the American taxpayer to pay for $2.430 trillion in a single payor system.

How much will a single payor health cost?

Cost depends on what health benefits are included in any health plan. Since a government benefit design has not been produced, discussion of cost is premature. Neither President Obama nor Congress has a clue about future costs because they have not provided any thought (at least publicly) about benefit designs. So the answer at this point is no one really knows.

If we take care of the uninsured, why fix what is not broke?

While the present health care system is still the best in the world, we do have serious problems to confront. We have too many medical errors, poor access to care (especially in rural areas), failure to practice scientific based medicine, lack of a preventative approach to health care, and a lack of focus on best practices.

Looking at different areas of the United States, we can see clear differences in the rates of physician procedures even though the populations are similar. Why? Why does one area of the country have statistically higher rates of certain types of operations than other areas? This is why people call it the art and practice of medicine. We have a long way to go in understanding medical practices.

What can I expect if there is a single payor health system implemented in America?

We can look at the experience of those countries who do have single payor systems and we can look at our own Veterans’ Administration where I receive service. From my experience, it took me five months to obtain an appointment for an epidural at the pain clinic. During that time I was in pain and my lifestyle was altered dramatically.

Wherever single payor national health care has been implemented, the governments control cost through rationing services (just as in my VA example above). Rationing causes elongated waiting times that force patients to endure pain and, at times, put their lives at peril.

In Lives at Risk, the authors (John C. Goodman, Gerald L. Musgrave, and Devon M. Herrick) described the horrors of nationalized single payor systems:

In England, at any given time, government statistics show more than one million people waiting to be admitted to hospitals.

In Canada, more than 876,000 people, at any given time, are waiting for treatment of all types.

In Norway, on any given day, over 270,000 people are waiting for various medical treatments, including hospital admission.

Canadian patients wait an average of 8.3 weeks in 2003 from the time they were referred to a specialist until the actual consultation, and an additional 9.5 weeks before treatment or surgery.

In New Zealand, for elderly patients, the waiting time for hip or knee replacement is 300 and 400 days, respectively, and many wait much longer.

An investigation by a British paper, the Observer, found that delays in Britain for colon cancer treatment were so long that 20 percent of the cases considered curable at time of diagnosis were incurable by the time of treatment.

The promise of a single payor system or national health care run by the government is that the government will make health care available on the basis of need (from each according to his ability, to each according to his need) rather than on ability to pay. The government promises to meet all health care needs, that rich and poor will have equal access, and that more serious needs will prevail over less serious needs.

Unfortunately, it never works that way.

An Open Letter to Governor Jan Brewer

2009-05-29T12:07:00.000-07:00

Dear Governor Brewer:

Raising taxes on the people of Arizona during a recession is wrong. When expense exceeds revenue, savvy executives cut expense. There are no “sacred cows” in this recession. Raising taxes for three years translates to a permanent tax increase because, as we both know, taxes are rarely reduced. And if a tax is reduced in one area, another tax is increased to offset the reduction.

I am in favor of reforming existing voter mandated spending laws. The legislature should have the responsibility for creating and passing appropriations bills, and be held accountable by the people through our elections process.

I see that the Democrats have a budget proposal that would cause an increase in taxes for consumers and homeowners. The Democratic proposal removes exemptions from the sales tax. This egregiously regressive proposal will hit the poor and the retired on fixed incomes. As at the national level, Arizona Democrats never saw a tax they didn’t like.

As member of Arizona’s largest Republican club, I cannot speak for the club but I can speak for myself. I will not support any elected representative who advocates for tax increases.

The correct policy is to reduce spending. The correct approach to reducing spending is to protect essential services to the extent possible but observe that all departments will take a hit. I went through a similar downsizing in the private sector in 1986. The company reduced staffing by 50%. Those of us who remained worked longer due to the reduction in force. However, the company survived. Arizona government, too, will survive.

Having worked in both the private and public sectors, I know that budget cuts are possible, even draconian budget cuts. These are tough times calling for tough leadership.

RD Brinkley
Tucson, AZ

The Duplicity of Barack Obama

2009-05-24T10:59:00.000-07:00

“The problem of what to do with Guantanamo detainees was not caused by my decision to close the facility; the problem exists because of the decision to open Guantanamo in the first place,” opined President Obama in one more misdirection, one more lie.

But for Obama’s irrational decision to close Guantanamo, his whining defense would not have occurred. If Guantanamo is a “mess” it is because President Obama made it his mess. Already, Obama has reversed his decision to eliminate military tribunals. Why? Because Obama’s announced decision to eliminate military tribunals was not well thought out. Now, for the first time in his inexperienced life,Obama has to live in a real world. And Obama is ill-prepared.

“Now let me be clear: we are indeed at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates [thank God we got that out of the way]. We do need to update our institutions to deal with this threat. But we must do so with an abiding confidence in the rule of law and due process; in checks and balances and accountability . . .,” announced President Obama, who presides over one party rule and the absolute criminality, corruption and absence of checks and balances that always accompany one party rule.

President Obama is the most divisive President in this country’s history. Obama claims that the Bush administration “went off course” yet it is Obama who claimed he would bring home all American troops from Iraq then, as President, followed the Bush policy of leaving 50,000 troops in Iraq.

It is Obama who claimed there would be no lobbyists in his administration then, as President, immediately hired over twenty lobbyists as exemptions to his own policy.

It is Obama who said he did not want to nationalize American companies then, as President, nationalized General Motors and Chrysler and AIG and . . . the mortage and banking industry, and the financial industry.

It is Obama who declared war on companies that outsourced jobs overseas then, as President, authorized General Motors to outsource jobs to China by importing GM vehicles made in China.

It is Obama who campaigned on “responsible fiscal policies,” stating that the rising American debt was a hidden domestic enemy, then, as President, he quadrupled the national debt in his first three months in office.

It is Obama who claimed that enhanced interrogation techniques “serve as a recruitment tool for terrorists, and increase the will of our enemies to fight us . . .” What drivel! Nine-eleven occurred before Guantanamo was ever used as a prison for terrorists Guantanamo is not the incentive for terrorists. The incentive for terrorists is our way of life, our American values and, sadly, a Chief Appeaser: Obama has proclaimed his membership in the “blame America first” crowd. Obama has lied to the American people and they know it.

In releasing the interrogation memos Obama provided the enemy with an American manual on interrogation techniques. As Vice President Cheney stated, “ . . .the public was given less than half the truth. The released memos were carefully redacted to leave out references to what our government learned through the methods in question. Other memos, laying out specific terrorist plots that were averted, apparently were not even considered for release. For reasons the administration has yet to explain, they believe the public has a right to know the method of the questions, but not the content of the answers.” Obama has betrayed the American people and they know it.

Obama’s treachery extends to the use of enhanced interrogation techniques. The use of enhanced interrogation techniques is illegal by law (2005) and by executive order (2009), yet Obama reserves the right to order the use of interrogation techniques. Obama’s claim to high morale ground is baseless in light of his dishonesty.

America has not been attacked in seven years. Bush-Cheney fulfilled their primary duty to the American people, who are grateful for this achievement.

I am not hopeful for Obama as he aids and abets our enemy through partisan political disclosures of classified information yet refuses to fully disclose interrogation results to the American people.

I am not hopeful for Obama as he defensively whines that he inherited a mess in Guantanamo when he really created the mess.

I am not hopeful for Obama when he whines that he inherited a trillion dollar deficit (he didn’t inherit it, he helped create it as Senator) when he quadrupled that deficit in three months.

I am not hopeful for Obama when he tries to place blame on others and refuses to take responsibility and accountability for his own missteps. Obama cannot keep blaming Bush for Obama’s mistakes: this is Obama’s presidency and it is his watch.

And the American people know it.

Tucson Raises Taxes During Recession

2009-04-23T09:41:00.001-07:00

Tucson’s new City Manager, Mike Letcher, submitted a budget to the City Council containing $17 million in new taxes. This tax increase occurred during a recession when ordinary people are losing their jobs and their homes.

Letcher’s budget proposal included slapping renters with a two percent monthly tax on their rental payments and landlords will be forced to pay a new business license fee. New taxes have been levied on gyms, health spas, and tanning salons. These tax levies are in addition to increased taxes on Tucson Electric Power, Southwest Gas, and Tucson Water.

The City Council will have to approve these tax increases but who doubts that this disfunctional City Council will not? Back in the 1970s (in an other state), going through a severe drought and water conservation requested by the Water Department and enforced by City Councils, water revenue decreased. Of course revenue decreased: consumption was reduced through politically mandated conservation.

The politicians, panicked at the thought of lost revenue, increased water rates. Do you think these rates went down after the drought was over? Not at all; this was another tax windfall for the politicians.

City Manager Letcher has just screwed the citizens of Tucson. Instead of employing a reduction in force like the private sector does during a recession, Letcher proposed increasing taxes. Letcher was quoted in the Arizona Star as saying, “Paramedics and police and parks – these things cost money.” Except, the Star continues, police, fire and parks budgets were reduced by an aggregate $11 million.

So, after this recession is over, does anyone think that these tax increases will be reversed? Corrupt politicians never reduce taxes. And this is the primary reason Tucson will never be a great city. Thank God I live outside the city limits.

New Tone in Washington?

2009-04-21T14:33:00.000-07:00

President Obama wants his Cabinet Secretaries to reduce their budgets by $100 million from a $3.5 trillion budget. The $100 million is .00002857 or .0003% of the $3.5 trillion.
This is three ten thousandths of one percent!

To put this exercise into perspective, assume you have annual income on $50,000. Using the same factor (.00002857 x $50,000), your annual savings is $1.43. President Obama is certainly “setting the tone” in Washington.

The people (1) do not have confidence that Obama knows what he is doing, (2) believe that the bailouts were wrong, and (3) Obama is spending far too much without guarantee of successful results. This was the message sent by the Tea Parties on April 15th.

An associated Press article listed some identified “savings” by Department. The Agriculture Department intends to stop improper farm program payments for a savings of $16 million; consolidating offices for a “savings” of $62 million over 15 years; substitute internet meetings for face-to-face meetings; all from a $60 billion discretionary budget. The one year budget cuts amount to $21 million, a factor of .00035 or .04% (rounded).

The Department of Education proposes saving $8.7 million by re-allocating computer equipment and $713,000 by eliminating a position in Paris and closing an office. First question: what is the Department of Education doing with an office and employee in Paris? The Department proposes “saving” $9.4 million from a discretionary budget of $127.3 billion, a factor of .0000738 or .007%. This is seven thousandths of one percent.

The Homeland Security Department proposes “saving” $52 million by buying office supplies in bulk; buying multipurpose equipment for a “savings” of $2 million a year for five years; consolidating computer software license purchases for a "savings” of $47 million; $3 million miscellaneous “savings” in transportation and electricity; and, a “savings” of $3 million by ending consulting contracts. $107 million in “savings” from a discretionary budget of $42.9 billion produces a factor of .0024942 or .3% (rounded).

The Justice Department proposes “saving” $1.34 million annually, over five years, from a discretionary budget of $29.5 billion, producing a factor of .0000454 or .005% (rounded).

The State Department proposes “saving” $1 million by converting immigrant visa processing to electronic correspondence; consolidating posts at embassies for a “savings” of $5 million annually; and, some miscellaneous unidentified and unquantifiable “savings.” This is $6 million in identified “savings” from a discretionary budget $47.8 billion, or a factor of .0001255 or .013%

The so-called budget cuts are for show only. They are not substantial. They are, in fact, very meager, embarrassingly meager. Especially when compared to the President adding trillions of dollars to our national debt. If President Obama wants to be viewed as serious, he can start by determining why the first $350 billion of bailout cannot be accounted for.
If President Obama wants to be viewed as responsible, he can establish controls on how and why stimulus money can be spent. Until then, the American people will view President Obama with distrust.

Parody: Department of Homeland Security

2009-04-18T09:28:00.000-07:00

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Office of Intelligence, Analysis and Satire

ASSESSMENT

The Department of Homeland Security apologizes to those of you who are left wing extremists for leaving you out of our April 7, 2009, assessment of rightwing extremism. This assessment is our attempt to kiss and make-up for our unintended omission.

(U//FOUO) Leftwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Marxist-socialist Efforts to Radicalize and Takeover the United States Government.

16 April 2009

(U) Prepared by the Extremism Radicalization Resurgence and Operational Recruitment (ERROR), Shadow Homeland Environmental Extremist Analysis Threat (SHEEAT). Coordinated with retired FBI agents who are part of the vast rightwing conspiracy.

(U) Scope

This product is one of a series of intelligence assessments published by ERROR to facilitate a greater understanding of the phenomenon of violent radicalization in the United States. This information is provided to federal, state, local, and tribal counterterrorism and law enforcement officials so they may effectively identify leftwing extremism. Federal efforts to influence domestic public opinion must be conducted in a covert and opaque manner, clearly obfuscating the sponsorship of the United States Government.

(U) Key Findings

The DHS/Bureau of Intelligence, Analysis and Satire (BIAS) has specific information that domestic leftwing extremists have taken over the United States Government. The National Socialist Democratic Party not only controls the Presidency and both Houses of Congress but also the Main Stream Media (MSM). The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for leftwing radicalization and recruitment.

(U//LES) Threats from Marxist-socialist politicians and violent nutty community activists during 2009 have been daringly brazen in their ability to nationalize the banking and financial industries, mortgage industries, auto industries and, potentially, the life insurance industry.

(U//LES) The consequences of a prolonged economic downturn create a crisis that leftwing extremists will use to increase taxes and spend on leftwing programs. The aim of the leftwing extremists is to transform the United States from the world’s leading Democracy to a European socialist nation most favored by Senator John F. Kerry, who wants to establish August as a national vacation month.

(U//LES) Leftwing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first African American president and are using the threat of racism charges to ram through Marxist-socialist programs in Congress. It should be noted that just under 100 Representatives who are registered Democrats are also registered with the Democrats for a Socialist America (DSA).

(U//LES) The MSM are largely and willingly manipulated by the White House. News is managed to show Marxist-socialists in a friendly light. For example, the President is the Messiah; he is the one we have been waiting for. In contrast, April 15th Tea Parties made page ten of the local newspaper.

(U//LES) In response to AIG executives receiving retention bonuses, the House of Representatives passed a Bill of Attainder to tax these bonuses at 90%. More important is the fact that the Constitution expressly forbids Bills of Attainder. Of shocking importance is the fact that the House of Representatives directly and illegally attacked a group of innocent Americans who rightfully deserved these bonuses by contract and by law. Senator Chris Dodd initially refused to acknowledge that he crafted the language that was passed authorizing the bonuses. The next day he admitted culpability, but explained he was forced to do so by someone in the Treasury Department. To this day, Dodd participates in the cover-up.

(U//LES) Following Statist dictatorship practices, the leftwing extremists are doing everything they can to cancel the second amendment. Every dictator in history took weapons away from the people so they could not protect themselves. The leftwing extremists, confounded by the Supreme Court’s affirmation that the Second Amendment meant that individuals had the right to bear arms, will attempt to, incrementally, restrict the ability of Americans to have semi-automatic weapons. This means that criminals will have these weapons and innocent Americans will be at a disadvantage: this is a basic concept of leftwing fairness.

(U) Current Economic and Political Climate

(U//FOUO) The Justice Department’s Civilian Operation Wing and Reconnoiter Division (COWARD) assesses that a number of economic and political factors are enabling leftwing extremists. First, the MSM and the primary nutty community activist organization have forged an agreement on managing the news and intimidating anyone who disagrees with their Marxist-socialist agenda. Second, the minority party was so bad during President Bush’s second term that the National Socialist Democratic Party was able to take both Houses of Congress. Immediately, the National Socialist Democratic Party took advantage of the credit and financial crisis its members created. The leftwing extremists leave no doubts as to their treachery against the American People.

(U) Exploiting Economic Downturn

(U//FOUO) The Civilian Re-Analysis Program (CRAP) believes leftwing extremists on the Internet and in the MSM continue to focus on taking advantage of the current economic downturn. Class warfare and hatred are the primary tools of division exploited by the National Socialist Democratic Party. Billions of taxpayer dollars have been spent in gaining dictatorial control of private business. For example, President Obama fired the CEO of General Motors and also removed selected Board members. Where in the Constitution does it allow the President to fire a private sector CEO?

(U//LES) The German “Enabling Act” allowed Hitler to silence free speech in the news media. The same National Socialist Democratic Party administration that precipated the financial meltdown also supports the adoption of the so-called Fairness Doctrine, which is an attempt to suppress conservative talk radio. The bill is aimed at only AM conservative talk radio. Notably missing in the bill are the so-called mainstream news media. This is not a mistake. The National Socialist Democrat Party not only fiercely wants to eliminate the ideas promoted by conservatives but also promote in all media only those ideas supporting and promoting Democrat beliefs. The first stage of National Socialism, or fascism, is the merger of state and corporate power and the National Socialist Democratic Party now has a head start.

(U//LES) The leftwing administration promotes an income taxcut for 95% of Americans who make less that $250,000 annually. However, the leftwing administration does not promote the fact that the so-called “cap and trade program” will more than double any income tax savings in the form of increased energy costs: any income tax savings will be negated by energy costs. At the same time, this leftwing administration is making the United States more dependent on foreign oil.

(U) Affiliated Organizations

(U//FOUO) COWARD and CRAP cannot agree on the number of affiliated organizations but they agree to the following organizations as closely integrated to the current leftwing administration.

(U//LES) ACORN is the largest leftwing radical organization in the United States. Its employees have been found guilty of voter fraud. It is currently under investigation in a number of states for voter fraud. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lost the presidential primary due to ACORN bussing scads of ringers to the IOWA and other state caucuses.

(U//LES) Democrats for a Socialist America (DSA) describes itself as the principal United States affiliate of the Socialist Internationale. The DSA believes that to achieve a more just society many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed. How this squares with the oath our Congress takes to protect and defend the United States is still a question.

(U//LES) The Democracy Alliance is a self-described "liberal organization" whose long-term objective is to raise $200 million to develop a funding clearinghouse for progressive groups. Democracy Alliance is supported by George Soros and Peter Lewis, both leftwing billionaires whose goal is a socialist America.

(U//LES) Media Matters is a leftwing media monitor funded in large part by George Soros. Media Matters is known for producing misinformation, to include taking conservative comments out of context to twist or spin the meaning. Essentially, it is a psychological propaganda machine.

(U//LES) Open Society Institute (OSI) is the most prominent of the numerous foundations belonging to the international billionaire financier George Soros, its founder and Chairman. Among the hundreds of organizations receiving funds from OSI are ACORN, MoveOn.org, NARAL Pro-Choice America, and the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS).

(U) Disgruntled Military Veterans

(U//FOUO) BIAS assesses that leftwing extremists are frightened of returning veterans because these veterans know what fighting for liberty and against tyranny means. Most leftwing extremists have not served in the military because they believe themselves above the military.

(U//LES) Upon returning from Afghanistan and Iraq, some veterans have run for political office and won. This trend frightens the leftwing extremists, who have organized the MSM into propaganda attacks against these veterans. Something very similar occurred to “Joe the plumber” during the last election.

(U//LES) Representative John Murtha, PA, has accused members of our military of committing murder. In fact, there may be a lawsuit pending against Murtha by a brave Marine who was slandered and defamed by Murtha.

(U) Outlook

(U//FOUO) BIAS assesses that the American People are not fooled by the actions and words of leftwing extremists. Realization is developing that our current financial downturn was directly caused by members of the National Socialist Democratic Party. The American People are reacting against the tax increases, massive bailouts, and socialist takeover of companies in many ways. On April 15th, thousands of Americans rallied at Tea Parties across the country. The MSM, apprehensive, did not provide comprehensive coverage.

The American People are beginning to stir. The impact of higher taxes, massive bailouts, general theft of our children’s wealth, and the unethical and criminal behavior of leftwing extremists in Congress documented at AmericanCommentaries.com has renewed Americans’ love and need for liberty over tyranny. The leftwing extremists know that they only have a small window of time in order to establish a United States based on Marxist-socialist principles.
The leftwing extremists shall fail. Liberty will triumph over tyranny.

(U) Reporting Notice

(U) DHS encourages recipients of this document to report information concerning activity to DHS and the FBI. The DHS National Operations Center (NOC) and the FBI’s National Operations Center (NOC-NOC) can be reached by telephone at
202-282-9685 [redacted] or by email at NOC.Fusion@dhs.gov [redacted]. For information concerning the private sector and critical infrastructure, contact the National Infrastructure Coordinating Center (NICC), a sub-element of the NOC (not NOC-NOC).The NICC can be reached by telephone at 202-282-9201 [redacted] or by email at NICC@dhs.gov [redacted]. The FBI regional phone numbers can be found online at http://www.fbi.gov/contact/fo/fo.htm [redacted].
When available, each report submitted should include the date, time, location, type of activity, number of people and type of equipment used for the activity, the name of the submitting company or organization redacted, and a designated point of contact redacted.

An Irresponsible Government Run Amok 2

2009-04-04T14:39:00.000-07:00

In “An Irresponsible Government Run Amok,” 3/20/09, I started the article with, “The façade of mock anger on display among embarrassed Democrats, who not only caused the mortgage credit meltdown leading to our current financial debacle but also wrote the bail-out bill specifically allowing the pay-out of retention bonuses, is priceless . . . In the end, AIG paid the so-called bonuses according to contract and law. Congressional Democrats vied for an Oscar for “best outrage before the public,” and the House again passed a bill in great haste to tax bonuses at 90%. All of this to distract the American public from their incompetence in building and managing the bail-out program.”

Today, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac admitted that they plan to pay more than $210 million in retention bonuses through next year. Approximately 7,600 employees are to be recipients. Usually, retention bonuses go to highly skilled employees whose separation from the company would place a hardship on the company. To have 7,600 employees in this category is a bit over the top. Further, four top executives are to be paid at least $1 million each.

One can barely hear the façade of mock anger and false range echoing in the halls of Congress.

I winder why? Does hypocrisy come to mind?

Tyranny Personified: Barack Obama

2009-04-01T05:20:00.000-07:00

Where in the United States Constitution does it permit the President or Congress:

To fire the Chief Executive Officer of a major American corporation?
To force the sale of an American corporation to a foreign corporation?
To force the Board of Directors of a private corporation to resign from the Board?
To own 80% of a private American corporation?
To attack an innocent group of American employees with a Bill of Attainder?
To order ACORN to harass innocent Americans in their homes?
To disregard the Constitutional limitations on power?
To endanger the United States through reckless spending and doubling of the deficit in four years?

I am witnessing the destruction of our Constitution and our way of life. Where is the United States Supreme Court? Why is the Court not reacting?

But if the Court does not react and further laws are violated and innocent people attacked by our own government, then it may be time to conclude that if one side can violate the law with impunity so can the other side.

For as Thomas Jefferson commented, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.” Is this where we now stand?

An Irresponsible Government Run Amok

2009-03-20T12:30:00.000-07:00

The façade of mock anger on display among embarrassed Democrats, who not only caused the mortgage credit meltdown leading to our current financial debacle but also wrote the bail-out bill specifically allowing the pay-out of retention bonuses, is priceless.

Senator Christopher Dodd denied any involvement in inserting specific language in the bail-out bill before admitting his complicity in inserting the language at Treasury Department’s request. Yet, know one know who specifically made the request.

In the end, AIG paid the so-called bonuses according to contract and law. Congressional Democrats vied for an Oscar for “best outrage before the public,” and the House again passed a bill in great haste to tax bonuses at 90%. All of this to distract the American public from their incompetence in building and managing the bail-out program.

And just as she voted for the 100 page bail-out bill without reading it, Representative Gabrielle Giffords voted for confiscatory and possibly illegal bill.

The bill targets a very select group of people who work at companies that received at least $5 billion from the government’s rescue program and make over $250,000 annually. The bill, if passed by the Senate, establishes a 90% surcharge and is retroactive to December 31, 2008.

If the scope of the bill attempts to look back, i.e., attach past bonuses, the bill may be classified as a bill of attainder or ex post facto law, both of which the Constitution expressly prohibits. The Supreme Court devised a three part test to determine when a legislative act violates the Bill of Attainder Clause: (1) the legislation specifies the affected persons, (2) includes punishment, and (3) lacks a judicial trial. The role of Congress is to legislate; the role of courts includes punishment. The confiscatory 90% tax is punishment.

There is a moral aspect to this Congressional action. One hundred percent of Democrats and half the Republicans have declared war on a segment of the American people. These people did not commit any crimes. Pursuant to federal law and individual contract, they were paid retention bonuses.

Congress may not like the fact that bonuses were paid but Congress intentionally inserted language into the bail-out bill specifically allowing these bonuses. Now Congress is attacking these American citizens. Congress has become America’s Reichstag.

Congress is attempting to distract attention from its own incompetence to that of the paid bonuses. Bonus recipients now are receiving death threats. Bonus recipients are essentially being extorted, under threat of bodily harm, to return the bonuses to AIG: all because an inept Congress could not properly write a bill.

Enough! It is time for Chris Dodd and Barney Frank to resign, along with Treasury Secretary Geithner. Today’s Congress, under Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, is nothing less than an organized criminal cartel.

Barack Obama is all over the country instead of in Washington. He is spending too much time on health care, creating a trade war with Mexico, not securing our borders, his global warming agenda, and not spending enough time on the economy. Not one of his programs has started working yet he parties in the White House at tax payer expense.

What American needs in a President is a leader, not a late night celebrity.

Looking at Arizona K-12

2009-03-17T09:08:00.000-07:00

Last month, Randall Amster, self-styled peace educator and activist, wrote an article in the Huffington Post, a left wing blog, citing: “The way things are going, the state [Arizona] could slide from 49th to 50th in its educational outlays, leaving it at the bottom of the class in a critically-important category.” Amster did not put context to his remark by revealing the “educational outlay” is not only one of many metrics but also there is more than one metric measuring educational outlay.

This canard about inadequate funding is a mantra of the liberal bloc of the political spectrum. However, continuous State increases in spending do not correlate to improvement in student performance.[1] Increased federal funding on education does not correlate with improvement in student achievement.[2] Low graduation rates are common in well funded city school districts. For example, Backgrounder shows per-student expenditures and graduation rates for the principal school district in the 50 largest cities. Comparing the just top ten school districts to Mesa , Tucson and Phoenix reveals the lack of correlation:

Table 1[3]

Rank…City…Population…Principal School District…Per-Pupil Expenditures…HS Grad Rate
1…Boston, MA…590,763…Boston…$16,879…57%
2…New York, NY…8,214,426…$15,455…45%
3…Washington, DC…581,530…District of Columbia…$15,411…58%
4…Indianapolis, IN…785,597…Indianapolis…$14,428…31%
5…Minneapolis, MN…372,833…Minneapolis…$14,355…44%
6…Atlanta, GA…486,411…Atlanta City…$14,011…46%
7…Detroit, MI…871,121…Detroit City…$13,529…25%
8…Portland, OR…537,081…Portland…13,522…54%
9…Philadelphia, PA…1,448,394…Philadelphia City…$13,498…50%
10..Milwaukee, WI…573,358…Milwaukee…$12,789…46%
26..Phoenix, AZ…1,512,986…Phoenix Union…9,578…58%
45..Tucson, AZ…518,956…Tucson Unified…$7,941…72%
50..Mesa, AZ…447,541…Mesa Unified…$6,558…77%

Total revenues[4] for Arizona schools in the 2007-2008 FY were $9,967,624,269. For FY 1999-2000 total revenues were $5,458,387,435. FY 2007-2008 revenues are an increase of 82.6% in over FY 1999-2000. Yet, student enrollment[5] growth was only 43% from 1999-2000 FY to the 2007-2008 FY. Revenues grew almost twice as fast as student growth!

There is a school of thought that comparisons between states is a valid measure. However, these comparisons of per student funding fail to weigh cost of living and equivalent salaries into the comparison. Using Tucson as a base, Table 2 illustrates what the cost of living differences and equivalent salaries are for the indicated cities:

Table 2

City…Cost of Living Compared to Tucson…Equivalent Salary
Tucson, AZ ………………………………….$50,000
Boston, MA…+37%...$60,500
New York City, NY…+71%...$63,500
Indianapolis, IN…-6%...$52,800
Minneapolis, MN…+3%...$57,250
Atlanta, GA…+10%...$53,650
Detroit, MI…+3%...$58,500
Portland, OR…11%...$56,300
Philadelphia, PA…+16%...$56,950
Milwaukee, WI…-3%...$55,500
Phoenix, AZ…+2%...$52,800
Mesa, AZ…+1%...$53,050
Comparing per pupil funding across the United States is neither a useful exercise nor a valid comparison for precisely the reasons shown above. Further, Washington, D.C., spends approximately $24,600 per pupil per year yet has the one of the worst school systems in the country, with a graduation rate of only 58%. Detroit ranked seventh in per-pupil spending (see Table 1) yet it graduates only 25% of its students.

Saying we are under-funding our schools compared to other States and cities is neither true nor an effective argument. It tends to focus emotions, not reason, on the wrong issue and a lot of energy is wasted in the process. Just throwing more money at the school system is not a solution.

Michelle Rhee[6], Schools Chancellor in Washington, D.C., wants to reward good teachers who improve student achievement with higher pay and fire teachers who consistently fail to meet performance standards. The teacher’s union is fighting her. Effective teachers can make all the difference between an achieving student and a failed student.

It is interesting to note that Washington D.C. has a federal school voucher program that allowed 1,700 poor children, mostly black to attend private schools. The cost? Only $7,500 per student. It provided access to good private schools. It provided an opportunity the child would otherwise not have had. A few days ago a picture of two of these children was shown in local papers. Senator Dick Durbin, Illinois, had inserted language into the budget bill to cancel the program in a year. Why? Because of political payback to the teacher’s union. The bill passed.

Why was the union against the voucher? The union cannot stand well-run private schools and prefer to see the low-income black children suffer in bad public schools. And the District of Columbia’s schools are horrible. Why pay $24,600 per pupil for a bad public school when $7,500 can pay for a good private school? The real issue is why are Obama, Durbin, et. al., willing to send their own children to private schools but oppose any effort to extend the same choice and opportunity to poor black children? Silently, without fanfare, President Obama signed the bill.

Fortunately, Tucson has both good private and public schools. Looking at the Tucson and Mesa metrics, these school districts must be doing something different and right because they have a relatively high graduation rate as shown in Table 1. We need to determine what it is that we are doing right and capitalize on these strengths.

[1] Dan Lips, Shanea J. Watkins, Ph.D., and John Fleming, Backgrounder, “Does Spending More on Education Improve Academic Achievement,” Washington, D.C.: The Heritage Foundation, p.6.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid., p.7.
[4] Annual Report of the Arizona Superintendent of Instruction, FY 2007-2008, p.6
[5] Ibid., p. 12 and Annual Report of the Arizona Superintendent of Instruction, FY 1999-2000.
[6] Wall Street Journal, “Obama’s Education Opening,” Editorial, March 14-15, 2009, p. A8.

Congressional Culture of Corruption Continues 14: The Need for an Independent Ethics Panel

2009-03-01T11:51:00.000-08:00

The United States House of Representatives voted to kill HR 189, a resolution “Raising a question of the privileges of the House.” The resolution called for the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (Ethics committee) to investigate the relationship between earmark requests already made by House members and the source and timing of past campaign contributions, i.e., an investigation into the linkage between a House member’s receipt of political contributions and that House member’s sponsorship of earmarks that benefit the political contributor. The bill was tabled on a 226 to 182 vote.

Why am I not surprised that the dishonest practice of earmarks continues in the proverbial back rooms of Congress? The corruption of the Democrat led House not only continues but also thrives. The smell of corruption permeates Congress. By tabling this bill, unethical and criminal behavior is encouraged. Why does Charles Rangel still preside over the Ways and Means Committee when he has had several charges of illegal and unethical behavior lodged against him? Because he knows the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is a joke.

Neither the House nor the Senate Democrat leadership wants to investigate the wrong-doings of its members. The less said the better for its members. Let the corruption continue. Representatives Pastor and Grijalva voted against better government by killing the bill.

There is only one answer: establish an Independent Ethics Panel in both Houses. This panel can neither be made up of current or past members of Congress nor can the current Congress be involved in its creation and staffing. The Panel cannot consist of Washington insiders or lawyers (this is an ethics panel dealing in right and wrong, not a legal proceeding subject to the chicanery of lawyers). The American People need to clean-out the corrupt politicians and hold them accountable for their egregious behavior.

The Arizona Daily Star Follows the Tucson Citizen Death Spiral

2009-02-28T11:38:00.000-08:00

The Arizona Star shall quickly follow the Tucson Citizen's death spiral. Two weeks ago I canceled the daily subscription of the Star, retaining Sunday delivery only. My reason for canceling Monday - Friday deliveries was simply the quality of the newspaper: terrible writing, lackluster coverage, politically biased stories.

Yesterday, the Star calls to offer me Monday through Sunday delivery at the same price I pay for Sunday delivery only. I told the Star representative the Star would lose money. They called giving me the Monday through Saturday delivery at the Sunday only delivery rate a "promotion." Now I am to receive 52 weeks of daily delivery for essentially the price of Sunday delivery.

This type of promotion, giving a year's subscription for free is insane but I think I have the answer. The Arizona Daily Star's executives' bonuses are based on circulation numbers not the bottom line. It doesn't matter how much money they lose as long as circulation numbers are maintained.

And some of us wonder why newspapers are rapidly disappearing.?

War on American Soil 2

2009-02-18T11:15:00.000-08:00

“In terms of worst-case scenarios for the Joint Force and indeed the world, two large and important states bear consideration for a rapid and sudden collapse: Pakistan and Mexico . . . The Mexican possibility may seem less likely, but the government, its politicians, police, and judicial infrastructure are all under sustained assault and pressure by criminal gangs and drug cartels . . . Any descent by Mexico into chaos would demand an American response based on the serious implications for homeland security alone.”

In 2006, over 2,350 people in Mexico died as a result of drug cartel violence; in 2007, 2,500 died in drug cartel violence; in 2008, over 5,700 people died in organized criminal violence. Deaths from drug cartel related violence more than doubled in 2008 over 2007. Unless Mexico can gain control over its violent drug cartels, it will continue its death spiral ever more quickly.

Mexican police officials have applied for asylum in the United States. Members of the Mexican military sent into Mexican states to replace the police have been found with their heads severed. In terms of terrorism, the drug cartels are acting in the same manner as Al Qaeda.

What if Mexico experiences a “sudden and rapid collapse?” Mexico is already a threat to the United States due to drug cartel violence, drug distribution and illegal immigration within our country. If Mexico collapses, the United States could experience a massive inflow of refugees. This first surge of refugees will be greater that the combined Katrina populations of Louisiana and Mississippi. The United States will have to accept this surge of refugees on humanitarian grounds.

There are approximately twelve million people living along both sides of the border, with an estimated nine million on the Mexican side. The first surge of refugees will come from this group of nine million. Assuming a conservative 50%, or 4.5 million people, is in the initial surge, what has Homeland Security, at the Federal and State levels, done to prepare for this eventuality?

Are the Border States prepared to establish refugee camps with the appropriate level of security not to mention food, bathrooms, tents, etc? Where will the camps be located? With the influx of refugees violence will follow. How do you tell a refugee from a member of the drug cartel?

Meanwhile, the war on drug cartels will become an American responsibility. Our military will be sent to the border in all Border States. The United States cannot just “defend” itself. It must go on the offensive to win.

This war will be messy. Mexicans, based on the history between our countries, generally will be against the United States entering Mexico. In order to win this war the United States will have to invade Mexico, clear out the drug cartels, restore order and the Mexican government.

Basic budget principles

2009-01-17T13:39:00.000-08:00

Governor Napolitano has released her budget proposals to eliminate this year’s deficit and FY 2010’s projected deficit. It appears she has forgotten Budget 101 principles.

Principle number one: If you’re in a hole, stop digging. Napolitano’s recommendation to borrow $1.3 billion to pay FY 2009 and 2010 operational expenses and payoff the loan over fifteen to twenty years is irresponsible. Funding current operational expenses with a long-term loan is analogous to digging a deeper hole.

Principle number two: Do not raise taxes or fees in a severe recession. Napolitano’s recommendation to bring back the state equalization rate property tax and increase fees for services (already funded by tax revenues) is an egregious error in judgment.

Principle number three: If budgeted tax revenue is insufficient to support all programs and activities, eliminate less important programs and activities. Napolitano’s plan to continue current level deficit spending in an attempt to keep “investing” in programs and activities is senseless in our current economy.

Principle four: Budgets should be based on sound information. Napolitano’s hope that the State will receive $100 million from the Federal Government is unsound. There is no rational basis for this assumption.

Principle five: Everyone feels the pain – there are no “sacred cows.” Schools and universities must share in the pain.

Governor Napolitano’s recommendations should be disregarded. Her mind was elsewhere.

Newspapers' death spiral

2009-01-04T14:57:00.000-08:00

What is the purpose of a newspaper (or any news media, for that matter)? “To give the news impartially, without fear or favor, regardless of party, sect or interests involved” [Adolph S. Ochs, Publisher of the New York Times, 1896-1935: Journalistic Fraud, Bob Kohn, 2003, p.27]. Then, why are newspapers across the board losing circulation?

The real issue: the loss of credibility due to repeated instances of bias and outright dishonesty in reporting. Bob Kohn described in elegant detail the discrediting of the New York Times. The same detail could be written of every news organization within the so-called Main Stream Media: “With its [MSM] own bad behaviors, media has played directly into these criticisms, fabrication, conflict of interest, dubious ethical behaviors, and an eagerness to trade the solitary challenges of reporting for the delights and rewards of bloviating on television have undoubtedly helped undercut journalism’s reputation in the eyes of its reading public” [-30-The Collapse of the Great American Newspaper, Charles M. Madigan, p.7].

Of the top twenty newspapers, only USA Today and the Wall Street Journal increased circulation. The New York Times company stock lost 3.9 percent. The Los Angeles Times lost 5.1 percent. As circulation continues its death spiral, stock values are also sinking. “In January [2007], the Times company stock was trading at $23, down more than 50 percent from its 2002 peak” [Madigan, p. 25]. Today, share price is $7.53. Overall, U.S. newspaper circulation continues to slide in a death spiral [http://cayankee.blogs.com/cayankee/2008/04/newspaper-circu.html].

In the eyes of ordinary citizens, the MSM are seen as ethically challenged. While some members of MSM think ordinary citizens are shifting to online for their news, then the obvious answer is to capture these citizens online. The rise of blogs offers myriad sources other than MSM websites. Blogs made their name by investigating and disclosing unethical behavior by members of MSM. Unfortunately, the MSM brings to the web its tarnished reputation.

On far too many occasions, members of the MSM fabricated sources and stories. On far too many occasions these fabrications have been politically motivated. When I hear or read a story that includes the term “unnamed source” or “anonymous sources” or similar descriptors, I assume the author of the story fabricated either the source or the story or both. Why? Because it has happened too often.

The American Society of Newspaper Editors, in 1923, adopted the following code of journalistic ethics: “Sound practice makes clear distinction between news reports and expressions of opinion. News reports should be free from opinion or bias of any kind.” [Ibid.]. Until newspapers like the Arizona Republic and Tucson Arizona Star hold their reporters and writers accountable for reporting the news objectively and impartially, the death spiral will continue.

Flushing out another gas pain

2009-01-03T10:04:00.001-08:00

In the 1970s, the Bay Area in California experienced a water shortage due to continuing drought conditions. Politicians at all levels urged people to conserve water. In response, people stopped watering their lawns. Some people even changed their bathroom habits by flushing their toilets on every other visit. As a result, water usage dropped dramatically. As water usage dropped, tax revenue to water departments also dropped dramatically. In response, the same politicians urging water conservation increased water rates to maintain tax revenue at pre-water shortage levels. After the drought was declared officially over, water rates remained at the higher levels. “Every man,” once again, was screwed by his political representatives.

The same scenario is occurring with gasoline. Prices surged for gasoline in 2008. Politicians at all levels urged citizens to drive less, drive more fuel efficient cars, and use public transportation. In response, drivers reduced their driving. In March 2008, drivers in the United States actually reduced their aggregate driving miles by 11 billion miles compared to March 2007. Fewer miles translate to fewer gallons of gas used: gas tax revenue plummeted by $3 billion in fiscal year 2008. As a result, the same politicians that urged gasoline conservation now are suggesting a significant increase in gas taxes with the rationale that less gas taxes means less road repair is done. Of course, this tax increase, if enacted, will not be rescinded.

The National Commission on Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing is urging a 54% increase in gas taxes and a 49% to 61% increase in diesel taxes. The Commission’s recommendations, to be submitted in late January 2009, also will include a recommendation tying the fuel tax rate to inflation. Other recommendations may include urging states to raise their fuel taxes, more toll roads, and differential fees for rush hour driving. All of this in the face of the lowest gas and diesel prices drivers have seen in a couple of years.

The Commission also will recommend that a new tax structure be developed that would tax drivers based on how much driving they did. In order to make this radical scheme work, the Commission is toying with the idea of placing a GPS like system on every car and truck in the United States. While this may tell the Government how many miles each vehicle is driven in a year, it also provides the basis of tracking individual citizens whenever they drive. What is the next step, placing a tracking bracelet on everyone’s ankle?

Raising taxes cannot be the political fall-back solution for every drop in tax revenue. Surely, not all programs are critical. I suggest that some programs are even “pork-connected.”

There is a simpler answer. If the current level of tax revenue cannot support all the programs, eliminate some of the programs: reduce spending.

UA punts on budget cuts

2008-11-09T08:12:00.000-08:00

State sponsored universities are much like State governments: each has constituencies that are sensitive to increases in tuition levels or income taxes.

The general rule is not to increase taxes in a down economy. Even President-elect Barack Obama has admitted he will have to delay some of his cherished tax hikes due to a pending recession.

The Legislature asked the University of Arizona to cut $20 million now with further cuts possible. Instead, President Shelton showed how out of touch with reality he his by proposing a draconian increase in tuition and fees. According to the Arizona Daily Star (11/7/08), the University of Arizona President Robert Shelton has proposed to increase tuition and fees by 13%.

It appears Arizona Assurance, a program allowing a students whose family earns $42,400 or less annually, to graduate from the University debt free. Students whose families make more than $42,400 annually must take on onerous loans to pay for increased tuition and fees must incur a debt to be repaid over many years.

What Shelton is really proposing is his form of income redistribution: half the students’ families pay full rates while tuition increases are redistributed to those students’ families who have not earned it. Once again, those that are successful are punished for their success.

As Karl Marx said, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

War on American Soil

2008-09-18T11:11:00.000-07:00

Earlier this year, the Chief of Police of a small town was murdered after only one day on the job. After the attack, the town’s twenty officer contingent resigned out of fear.

The highest ranking law enforcement officer in the country was murdered in his own home. The week prior, a director of organized criminal investigations was shot in the head, murdered by two men.

On August 13, 2008, paramilitary terrorists invaded a drug rehab, dragged several patients outside and murdered them.

Since President’s election in December 2006, more than 5,000 people have been killed drug wars.

Welcome to Mexico!

Violence within Mexico, historically a dysfunctional country, has escalated for years. Now this violence is crossing our border into the United States. Kidnapping for ransom is common. Our border patrol personnel are targets of snipers sitting in Mexico, knowing our people cannot cross the boarder to track them down. Mexican people are terrified. Many have moved their families to the United States for safety but the drug lords are also moving here. Earlier this year, the Department of Homeland Security revealed that three Mexican police chiefs were seeking asylum in the United States.

Mexican drug cartels now control drug distribution channels in the United States. The drug cartels have actually created partnership deals with local gangs. The fear is that Mexican drug cartel violence will also move north of the border. Our local police officers could be targeted by the cartels. Senseless, vicious murders and beheadings (a trademark of the cartels) will be common occurrences.

What happens when the drug cartels start murdering innocent Americans in the United States? What happens when Americans are kidnapped in the United States, then taken to Mexico for ransom? If Mexico cannot eradicate the cartels, the cartel violence will spread along the U.S. Border States.

We will then have a war on U.S. soil against the drug cartels. But what kind of war? Will the U.S. authorities consider the drug cartels a criminal matter or a narco-terrorist issue requiring military response? As the cartels move fluidly back and forth across the border, U.S. authority stops at the border.

What are U.S. authorities doing now to prepare for the coming invasion of violence in our Border States?

Marxist Democrats Control the Party

2008-09-18T10:33:00.000-07:00

Lynn Forestor de Rothschild, a Hillary Clinton supporter, fundraiser, and member of the Democratic National Committee’s Platform Committee, has thrown her support to John McCain. Lynn Forestor de Rothschild provided her reason for switching allegiance, stating, “I believe that Barack Obama, with MoveOn.org and Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean, has taken the Democratic Party – and they will continue to – too far left. I’m not comfortable there.”

The Marxist Democrats who now control the Democratic Party have already pushed the likes of Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller out of the party. Lynn Forestor de Rothschild continues to be a Democrat for now. These departures are significant as moderate Democrats are admitting what many of us have known for years: the Democratic Party has moved to the extreme left.

Who are the Marxist Democrats? Those that believe in income redistribution, like Barack Obama. Those that refuse to allow America her energy independence, like Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, John Dingall, George Zoros, and MoveOn.org. There is not enough room here to list all the Marxists in the Party.

While the Democrat party claims its heritage with Thomas Jefferson's Democratic - Republican Party, the connection is now tenuous at best. Thomas Jefferson's classical liberal believed strongly in limited government and states' rights versus the Federalist notion of a strong central government.Today’s Republican Party represents limited government, greater individual freedom, and lower taxes.

The Democrat Party, today, led by Marxist Democrats, is the proponent of a strong centralized government, high taxes, income redistribution, big government programs, nationalizing critical industries, and weakening the Constitution through judicial activism.

Update 9/19/08 – A leading Hispanic supporter of Hillary Clinton, Miguel Lausell, announced he is crossing party lines to support John McCain. Lausell had been a major supporter of Bill Clinton and a senior political advisor for Hillary Clinton.

Miguel Lausell commented that Senator Obama “doesn’t really regard the Hispanic community as important.” Lausell further commented that, “I find McCain to be a sound person and a man with a track record. I know where he is coming from.”

It appears the Hillary Clinton supporters are taking a very close look at Senator Obama and do not like what they see. Continued cross-over by Hillary’s supporters may prove to be crucial to Obama’s downfall.

The ethanol game

2008-09-11T14:45:00.000-07:00

In 2004, before the ethanol crisis materialized, corn sold a $2.00 per bushel. In 2005, our Congress imposed a renewable fuel standard (RFS) mandating the gasoline industry to blend ethanol into our fuel supply. In 2007, Congress doubled the mandate, requiring upward of nine billion gallons of ethanol be blended into our gas supply in 2008.

The mandated use of “food for fuel” has caused food prices to escalate, hurting the poorer of us the most. This year, corn prices approach $8.00 per bushel, or a 300% increase since 2004. As a result, more land is devoted to corn with less land devoted to other crops, e.g., wheat. Food prices are sky-rocketing: cattle fed with corn; corn based products such as tortillas. Small companies based on corn are disappearing.

The World Bank analysis stated that bio-fuels have forced global food prices up by 75%, which contradicts the U.S. Government’s claims that bio-fuels contribute less than 3% to food price increases. Food price increases have placed 100 million more people below the poverty line, according to the World Bank, just as many liberals and socialists are demanding that America feed the World’s poor.

Ethanol supporters in Congress, primarily Democrats (Don’t Drill Here, Don’t Drill More, Pay More) are imposing a nationalistic program that is destroying segments of America’s economy. Establishing a stranglehold on America’s energy sector reflects what the Mussolinis, Hitlers, and Stalins of the world have done to control the masses and make people more dependent on the government for survival. Already, the liberal-socialist faction of the Democrat Party has been able to create a two-class America: the 50% of Americans who pay income taxes versus the 50% of Americans who do not and are dependent on government largesse to live.

Already, countries around the world are beginning to ask serious questions about the bio-fuel industry and its impact on food prices. Ethanol was expanded as a renewable resource to off-set damage from so-called global warming. However, global warming, now called climate change, has been discredited by respected scientists and former global warming enthusiasts.

At the lead of serious scientists, Dr. Roy Spencer has published a required read for anyone interested in the facts of climate change (Climate Confusion – How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians, and Misguided Policies That Hurt the Poor). Even former advocates of global warming like David Evans admits that since 1999 through 2007, the evidence shows that carbon plays only a minor role and it is not the cause of global warming.

Arthur Herman, noted historian, observed that, “It has been a tough year for the high priests of global warming in the US. First, NASA had to correct its earlier claim that the hottest year on record in the contiguous US had been 1998, which seemed to prove that global warming was on the march. It was actually 1934. Then it turned out the world’s oceans have been growing steadily cooler, not hotter, since 2003. Meanwhile, the winter of 2007 was the coldest in the US in decades.

Roland Clift, Professor of Environmental Technology at Surrey University, believes the use of biofuels is likely to increase greenhouse emissions. Further, he stated, “Biodiesel is a complete scam because in the tropics the growing demand is causing forests to be burnt to make way for palm oil and similar crops.” This deforestation is already occurring in Brazil, where rainforests are being destroyed to make way for sugar cane, the basis for Brazil’s primary biofuel.

It appears that bio-fuels such as ethanol, while lining the pockets of people like Al Gore with his carbon off-set scam, may be worse for our earth than oil.

Prop 105: The gauntlet has been thrown!

2008-09-11T14:17:00.000-07:00

On one side we have the tax and spend pro-big government liberals and progressives who are against Prop 105: government officials, public employee unions, Arizona School Boards Association, Arizona Education Association, Professional Firefighters of Arizona, Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association, and pro-big government tax and spend politicians, all of whom call the opposition “Un-American,” according to the Arizona Daily Star.

On the other side we have Jason LeVeche, sponsor of the initiative, plus primarily individuals and organizations who believe in limited government, less taxation, and greater accountability of our governments and tax dollars.

The accusation of “un-American” by the anti-Prop 105 group is shameful. Since when is it un-American to exercise one’s political rights? Only when one is a tax and spend pro-big government supporter gorging at the public tax trough? Okay, that wasn’t fair. But neither is the accusation of being un-American.

What does Proposition 105 actually change? Instead of allowing tax and revenue measures to be passed by simple majority, the Proposition requires a majority of “qualified electors” registered to vote in Arizona. This proposition establishes a higher level of voter scrutiny on proposed tax and revenue measures, which is a good for all of us.

The hysteria surrounding Proposition 105 reminds me of other Propositions in many States where property taxes were severely limited, protecting homeowners from being taxed out of their homes. The pro-big government tax and spend types started screaming that “the sky is falling,” that critical police and fire services could be cut, layoffs will occur, ad nausea. No one recommends cutting the fat in non-safety services. Of course, it never happens that way.

The cries of outrage by the pro-big government liberals and progressives have already started:

According to the Arizona Star article, Mayor Walkup stated, “This cuts the will out of the people. It doesn’t work . . .” But Mayor Walkup fails to provide any evidence in support of his position.

Ramon Valdez, County Supervisor, stated, “It’s a full assault on the act of voting. Once it’s in the constitution, neither the courts nor the legislature can do anything to change this.” Valdez seems to forget that if the voters approve Proposition 105 and raise the bar of approval on tax and revenue measures to require a majority of registered voters to pass such measures, it cannot, by definition, be an assault on voting. It can be seen as adding greater scrutiny to government spending, which Valdez may chafe under.

In a July 1, 2008, Tucson Citizen article, columnist Anne Denogean wrote, “Majority Rules is an uber conservative measure for people who abhor government spending and taxation, no matter how necessary the cause or how beneficial to society.” Written by a pro-big government tax and spender who has never seen a bad tax bill and doesn’t mind spending your money. A fair statement? No. And neither is hers.

In January, the deficit was $1.2 billion, the Governor failed to address the deficit in her State of the State Address, and State politicians continued reckless spending. Today, Arizona has a $ 2 billion deficit. The Governor and the legislature have a sacred trust to all citizens to provide good stewardship. The Governor, the legislature and both parties have failed in their public trust! There can be no surprise that Proposition 105 is gaining support.

The anti-Proposition 105 crowd always points out that under Proposition 105 many tax and revenue measures passed previously would not now pass; that voters could just stay home (a proactive choice), thus providing an absentee “no” vote; that these stay at home voters constitute a controlling minority.

True, but we have this situation today. The controlling minority is the special interest, who, working with and through selected members of the legislature, hides appropriations in omnibus bills. Oh yes, it’s called earmarking at the federal level.

One benefit of passing Proposition 105 is both parties will have an interest in cleaning up our voter registration rosters: remove the dead, the non-existent, and the illegal voters. Another benefit is placing politicians, corrupt or otherwise, under greater transparency and accountability. Third, voters will have greater scrutiny over tax increases and spending programs.

In the interest of government transparency and accountability, and in order to keep our politicians honest, Arizona needs Proposition 105.

Federal Media Shield

2008-09-06T10:58:00.000-07:00

The Senate is considering the Free Flow of Information Act of 2007 (aka Federal Media Shield bill), which exempts any reporter from revealing confidential sources of information.

Advocates of the bill assert that a reporter’s assurance of confidentiality to a source is, sometimes, the only way to gain access to critical information. Legally forcing the reporter to reveal the source allegedly extinguishes the free flow of information between a reporter and his source and, ultimately, the flow of information to the public. Opponents of the bill say creation of a legal privilege can bar access to information relevant to law enforcement, national security, etc.

What is the purpose of a newspaper (or any news media, for that matter)? “To give the news impartially, without fear or favor, regardless of party, sect or interests involved” [Adolph S. Ochs, Publisher of the New York Times, 1896-1935: Journalistic Fraud, Bob Kohn, 2003, p.27].

The arguments of the advocates and opponents of the bill are canards. The real issue: the loss of credibility due to repeated instances of bias and outright dishonesty in reporting. Bob Kohn described in elegant detail the discrediting of the New York Times. The same detail could be written of every news organization within the so-called Main Stream Media: “With its [MSM] own bad behaviors, media has played directly into these criticisms, fabrication, conflict of interest, dubious ethical behaviors, and an eagerness to trade the solitary challenges of reporting for the delights and rewards of bloviating on television have undoubtedly helped undercut journalism’s reputation in the eyes of its reading public” [-30-The Collapse of the Great American Newspaper, Charles M. Madigan, p.7].

U.S. newspaper circulation fell 3.6 percent in the last six months [http://cayankee.blogs.com/cayankee/2008/04/newspaper-circu.html]. Of the top twenty newspapers, only USA Today and the Wall Street Journal increased circulation. The New York Times company stock lost 3.9 percent. The Los Angeles Times lost 5.1 percent. As circulation continues its death spiral, stock values are also sinking. “In January [2007], the Times company stock was trading at $23, down more than 50 percent from its 2002 peak” [Madigan, p. 25]. Today, share price is $13.70.

On August 19, 2004, Guardian Newspapers reported that the Dallas Morning News had to return $23 million to advertisers after disclosure that its circulation figures were inflated. Similar reports emerged from the Chicago SunTimes, Newsday and the Spanish language paper Hoy [ http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/8-19-2004-58114.asp ].

In the eyes of ordinary citizens, the MSM are seen as ethically challenged. While some members of MSM think ordinary citizens are shifting to online for their news, then the obvious answer is to capture these citizens online. The rise of blogs offers myriad sources other than MSM websites. Blogs made their name by investigating and disclosing unethical behavior by members of MSM. Unfortunately, the MSM brings to the web its tarnished reputation of bias and dishonesty.

Lawyers represent their clients: attorney-client privilege is right and appropriate. Clergy represent members of their particular faith. Religious privilege is right and appropriate. Members of the MSM do not represent the American people. Members of the MSM represent their employers, e.g., New York Times, Dallas Morning News, Washington Post, CBS News, et. al. It is right and appropriate that members of the MSM be held to the same standards applied to ordinary citizens. What right does a member of the MSM have to a ‘free pass?” Supporters of the bill state that the “shield” protects the flow of information to the public. Enactment of the bill protects only the journalist and provides “shield” that protects fabricated sources and stories.

On far too many occasions, members of the MSM fabricated sources and stories. On far too many occasions these fabrications have been politically motivated. When I hear or read a story that includes the term “unnamed source” or “anonymous sources” or similar descriptors, I assume the author of the story fabricated either the source or the story or both. Why? Because it has happened too often.

I want a free and honest news media. However, freedom cannot exist without regulation or order; else, we have what we see today: an out of control MSM that is biased, dishonest, partisan and elitist, holding to no standard of ethical behavior. Requiring members of the news media to reveal sources is the right thing to do. At least we will know the source was not fabricated.

The American Society of Newspaper Editors, in 1923, adopted the following code of journalistic ethics: “Sound practice makes clear distinction between news reports and expressions of opinion. News reports should be free from opinion or bias of any kind.” [Ibid.].

Until we hold the news media accountable and until the news media holds its members accountable, the term journalistic ethics will always be a contradiction. The Free Flow of Information Act of 2007, if enacted, can only reinforce the distrust and suspicion of the MSM by a growing segment of the population.