Robert Robb Laments the Futility of His Dumb Idea

Robert Robb's latest column in the Arizona Republic is a nice foil to this blog entry. It is time to rid ourselves of this stupid policy...

The Nanny State Fears Stick Figures

This article in the Arizona Republic goes over the persecution of a 14 year old boy for a series of drawings. I have to say that this kind of stuff drives me nuts. It strikes me as antithetical to what we are supposed to stand for. It also just defies common sense.

Let me get this straight for everyone. If you bring Tylenol to school you are not a drug user in the illegal sense of the word. You are not dangerous because you draw a gun, utter the word gun or because you utter an empty threat against the football team because they bully you.

It is a time honored tradition for nerdy kids to hate athletes. Some deal with this by dreaming of the object of their scorn as fat, balding and working a convenient store while they are graduating from Harvard. Some dream about shooting them... How many of us saw the movie Heathers while were in high school and did not smile at least a little bit when Christian Slater pulled out the gun filled with blanks and shot at two football players? How many of us hurt anyone?

Thoughts do not make you a criminal, actions do. When a student starts purchasing guns, ammunition and explosives, that is when they are a criminal, but not before. No one condones violence, but we should not protect kids from violence by placing them in a de facto police state where certain thoughts are verboten, if not illegal.

UPDATE: There was also this article.
How does the school have the authority to suspend kids who did something illegal when they were not at school? Arrest them, they did something illegal, but the school should not have authority beyond that. The police should notify the school, maybe, but nothing beyond that. It is like my friend who was fired from his job doing procurement because he got a DUI one Saturday night. Wasn't the jail time (in tent city) and the several thousand dollars in fines, not to mention his near inability to get car insurance enough punishment? You also have to take the guy's livelihood? BTW -- Another guy in his department was convicted of assaulting his ex-wife and was not fired, no company policy on beating your wife.

Fair Tax My A$$...

Some of you may have read that many people are attributing Mike Huckabee's surprise second place finish in the Iowa Straw Poll to the so-called fair tax movement. At the time, I made a mental note to look into the changes they are proposing. I just happened to run across this article in the Wall Street Journal. Boy, is it a bad idea according to BRUCE BARTLETT, the former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.

Whatever your philosophical beliefs about consumption based tax structures, this one is pretty disingenuous. It reminds me of most of the recent proposals for Social Security, Clear Skies and healthy forests. The problem for the right-wing is that they would never be able to pass these proposals honestly, so they resort to back door tactics. They cannot say we oppose Social Security and Medicare because of philosophical reasons. They pretend to protect them while plotting to fatally wound them. I know politics is not nice, but I have a real problem with their tactics. This tax proposal strikes me as more of the same.

They remind me of petulant teenagers with no sense of propriety or purpose.

UPDATE:
Here is a link with a response to the article sited above...
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=198361

I did not find the response terribly persuasive, but I posted it in the interest of fairness.

Judicial Watch Goes After the Mayor (Judicial Watch is High)

I do not know how many of you remember Judicial Watch, but they are the guys that did their best to bring down Bill Clinton over every unfounded half truth they could dig up. Now they are going after the Mayor (Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon) with a similar frivolous lawsuit.

Let me get this straight, the Mayor figured out a way to fix a problem without legislation. He did it by striking a compromise between two groups and now he is being sued for it? This is precisely the sort of thing a city mayor should do. Isn't it ironic that they filed their complaint with Sheriff Joe...

I happen to be very familiar with the area that they are complaining about, I was there yesterday to buy paint. I have been there many times over the past few years (it is the busiest Home Depot in Phoenix). Two years ago there were 40 to 50 day laborers near Thomas Road looking for work, now there are almost none. I drove by there this morning for good measure and I did not see a single day laborer.

I won't even get into the issue of whether they should be there, but it certainly seems that the lawsuit is off base. If the anti-immigration people were a little more based in the real world, they would realize that day laborers are in demand and they will not go away just because they want them to. The best solution is to provide a day labor center, but either way they are not at the Home Depot on Thomas anymore...

This is Fascinating...

This article about the Iraq war in Slate is fascinating. You don't hear much talk about this in the old corporate media centers...

Arizona's Weather and Baby Stuff Make Me Think

There was this article today about the record number 110+ degree days in Phoenix this year. I also read this interesting contrarian point of view on Global Warming today. I have also been reading Collapse which puts forth the idea that some societies choose to fail because of indifference or in some cases hubris.

The reason I bring all of this up is that I have been thinking more lately about how little we consider the impact of our lifestyle on ourselves and the environment. Now don't get me wrong, I like my air conditioning and my LCD TV as much as the next person, but I can't help but wonder about the long term cost of cheap and abundant consumer goods. I have been reading a lot lately about all of the toxic chemicals in nearly everything we use as my wife and I prepare a nursery. I found this site that analyses the toxicity of car seats, it is disturbing to say the least. Or how about the possibility of pytoestrogens in plastic that might be responsible all manner of reproductive problems including a long term drop in sperm counts.

The problem I see is that for the most part there are more questions than answers. It is nearly impossible with the information available to accurately predict the danger of many of these things. This is a topic that even the most open minded people do not want to talk about.

The simple fact is that we are running an unregulated experiment on ourselves. It is reminiscent of many of the societies cited in Collapse, who ignored the problems that conflicted with societal norms. What amount of information would lead us as a society to more closely examine the affects of our lifestyle? Will there ever be enough information or consensus to convince either side of the debate?

If temperatures continue to increase, will central and Southern Arizona be inhabitable in 50 years? 100? Will people that question the danger of Global Warming or unregulated use of chemicals ever be considered anything other than whiny alarmists? Will the alarmists ever concede that some of the things they rail against may be less dangerous (or perhaps not dangerous at all) when the facts come in? Will we ever have a rational conversation about the best way to deal with any of these issues?

NAFTA and the Teamsters

Here is an article about the Teamsters trying to stop the Bush Administration from allowing Mexican trucks full access to the United States. It seem patently unfair to allow Mexican trucking companies into the US and not forcing them to follow US law.


It is time for our leaders to stop selling out the US through International agreements. There are two ways to do free trade, the first is the race to the bottom where everyone relaxes regulations and safety to become competitive at the expense of workers. Or there is an untried model where we uniformly raise standards as a condition of trade. The first, I would argue does not work very well when it comes to protecting the environment, consumers or workers, so maybe we should take a look at the second?


Just to be clear, I don't have a problem with the Mexican truck drivers. I just would like the regulations applied evenly. The same goes for any immigrant labor... Applying things like minimum wage laws to everyone protects both immigrant laborers from exploitation and provides a level playing field to American workers to compete.

Arizona Republican Party Desperate for Money (And Hilarious)

This is just funny... I know that the Arizona Republicans are desperate for money since Randy Pullen took over. And I know the employer sanctions law pissed of the fundies, but I did not think they would stoop to tolerance of alternative life styles to raise money.

Felons Should Get Their Rights Back

Here is an article from the East Valley Tribune about felon voting rights in Arizona. I know I am somewhat of a contrarian, but why can't felons vote? I have wondered why anyone other than the mentally ill would lose their voting rights ever. I know criminals are bad people and all, but do we really see them voting in droves? Does their criminal background make them less qualified than the rest us? Given all of the spare time prisoners have, maybe they would be a more informed electorate;) Imagine politicians pandering to that voting block...

At any rate, if you commit a crime and you serve your debt to society, you should immediately regain your right to vote. Paying off their fines does seem a little poll taxish to me because it would primarily affect the poor. Mostly, I see this as a non-issue because I doubt many felons want to vote anyway, but what I do I know (not much according to my hate email lately).

Drunk Driving in Arizona

Here is an article from the Arizona Republic about drunk driving. Apparently, there has been an increase in drunk driving deaths. I am sure this will lead to the all too predictable push to again increase the penalties associated with drunk driving. Maybe we should just give people the death penalty and get it over with (just kidding).

I am very skeptical of this story for a couple of reasons. First, I am skeptical anytime a news paper or news outlet sites statistics because they usually analyze them wrong. Secondly, there is far too little information about how the statistics were compiled. Lastly, it does not seem like the statistic used is relevant. It is a bad thing if we have the most drunk driving deaths, but we are basically tied with Kansas and they have a pretty small population. I would rather see deaths per 100,000 people or deaths per automobiles owned or deaths per 1000 miles driven. This just doesn't seem relevant to public policy in any way.


Can't the Republic do better than this?

Tough Article About the District 7 Race in the New Times

This article in the Phoenix New Times takes some pretty swift shots at Laura Pastor. I don't think this bodes well for the effectiveness of her campaign. I am not sure how many people will read the article in her district, but it does expose a pretty weak campaign operation. Note to Pastor's people, return the phone calls of reporters, lest you piss them off and they write a really hard hitting story about you.

Pretty much everything rival campaigns have been saying about her landed in the article. Once these sorts of things are in print they become de facto accepted fact. I know that is not always fair, but it is true. This article will be widely circulated and quoted by opponents.

Something We All Can Agree Upon

I don't know why my blog draws so many Libertarians? I have to admit to having a little pride in that because I think they tend to be little more free thinking and interesting than the rest of the population. At any rate, here is a good blog entry from Daniel's News and Views about why spending tax dollars on stadiums is a dumb idea. I have railed against these boondoggles for years here is just one entry. I think this is one issue all my Libertarians friends and I can agree upon. Using public money to benefit a private enterprise is generally a bad idea, especially when there is little economic benefit and the business would do fine on its own.

I have never understood how these deals become so lopsided and how the public ends up walking away with almost nothing.

This Just Pisses Me Off

I wrote about lead in products and product safety a few day ago. I came across this today. When I read about stuff like this it makes me angry and wonder what is wrong with us as a society. I am not a nanny state, do anything for the children kind of guy, but come on... Monetizing IQ point? This is seriously screwed up.

The Republicans Make Me Laugh...

This article from the Arizona Republic goes into a hypothetical matchup between Janet Napolitano and John McCain and not surprisingly Janet is ahead by 11 points. I maybe be occasionally disappointed by Janet, but I have to say she is very smart, competent and a masterful politician. Apparently, the Arizona Republican Party thinks that intellectual giant John Shadegg will crush her if McCain decides not to run... Here is the money quote:

On the GOP side, U.S. Rep. John Shadegg is among a handful of potential heirs apparent to McCain's seat. McCaffrey called Shadegg "one of a number of people who are in a different league than Napolitano."

It is almost hard to stop laughing when you read something like that... IS that league little league? If Shadegg is the best they have got, they are in a lot of trouble. I hate to break it to you guys at the ARP, but Shadegg is a wienie.

Is This the Best We Can Do?

Can this really be our response the air pollution? Maricopa County needs to do more than this...

Arizona's Dumbest Law that You Probably Do Not Understand (You are not alone)

The Arizona Republic ran this story about the homerule exemption being voted on in Phoenix. I have often wondered how many people understand homerule and why the exemptions are necessary. Basically, there is formula for limiting funding in each city. The city can only spend the amount spent in the 1979-1980 fiscal year adjusted by population. Does this sound reasonable?

I am sure it does to many of you at first look... For some cities, maybe it would even work. Overall, it is a bad idea for a variety of reasons. First, this is why we have elections (and presumably term limits). If politicians overspend or overtax they should be removed from office. I am not a big advocate of term limits, but one of the positive aspects of term limits is that it limits politicians from having undue influence on spending decisions (unfortunately, it also allows them to make the same dumb mistakes as predecessors and gives the city manager a lot power).

And to my Republican friends, imagine a business operating on this model. What if Microsoft was forced to operate off of their 1980 revenue adjusted by the number of customers added since then...


So, what is the biggest problem? Arizona is growing really fast. If you only spend based on your current population, how can you prepare for future growth? If you project an area will add 50k new residents in five years, you would have to wait for them to live there before you would have the funding necessary to add roads, sewer systems, traffic lights etc. Or you would have to short change existing infrastructure to build for the future. Either way it is inefficient and short sighted.

The simple fact is that cities need the flexibility to make large expenditures for large projects. If you have a large infrastructure project you may have to spend a lot up front. Spending is not linear like this model. Development happens in more fits and starts than in a clean linear fashion. Does that mean that cities won't make dumb decisions or spend money on the wrong project, probably not, but frankly disagreements on spending are usually more the result of philosophical disagreement than stupidity.


Here is another reason why it is a bad idea. 56 cities have home rule exemption (BTW it is the largest cities and most of the population of Arizona. This spending scheme is opposed by many Republican and Democratic city officials). Officials from both parties oppose it because it limits their ability to take the right actions. They get complaints from constituents about all manner of things and they want to actually do something, but this can severely limit their ability.

Why would we make a law that limits spending and keep that law when everyone circumvents it? If a city cannot circumvent the law they end up grossly underfunded and unable to provide adequate services like, police, fire, sewer, road construction/maintenance, parks etc. Guess who gets blamed the cities politicians... Ironic isn't it.


We are not talking about some pie in the sky theory of government. This is think tank government at its worst. This law determines whether the city can fill that pothole outside your house or add those two lanes to the only major road with access to your neighborhood or pick up trash in the park your kids play in or maintain that green belt that you like to walk on. It determines whether a city can act when they see a problem on the horizon. This where the rubber meets the road so to speak and directly affects all of our lives.

UPDATE: If this is defeated, Phoenix would have to cut 1.1 Billion from the city budget.Here is a link to the suggested cuts by the Arizona Federation of Tax Payers. I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in that city...

Why Being in the Middle Might Be Good...

This article from the Arizona Republic outlines where Arizona supposedly stands in comparison to other states in business friendliness. I actually think the middle is a good place to be because it is a simple measure of costs. Costs are important to business, but obviously other things are also a high priority, like quality of life and the availability of a highly educated or skilled workforce. San Francisco is really expensive, but it has a large business community because it is a nice place to live with lots of highly qualified smart people.


I think we should concentrate on holding business costs where they are and move our primary focus to increasing the quality of life. The problem with increasing quality of life in Arizona is that the real estate development base for our economy is in many ways antithetical to quality of life. Of course, affordable housing is a quality of life issue, but so are education, air/water quality, arts, available park land etc. Developers produce a lot of pollution, eat up park land whenever possible and usually oppose increases in educational funding (which is property tax based). This is why the Governor and the City of Phoenix officials are so smart for promoting biotech and other industries. They should now promote reductions in pollution and improving education as well as affordable housing and middling taxes.

McCain and Kyl Popularity in the Pooper

I find it fascinating that everyone's approval ratings are in the crapper. Congress, the President and apparently many individual members. I am pretty sure that this unpopularity is related to Republican policies, for Democrats almost everything they do is unpopular and for Republicans it is probably immigration and out of control spending.



The East Valley Tribune has a recent poll with Arizona's Senators approval ratings here. It is too bad this was not 2006 because Kyl would be toast...

UPDATE: Read this post by Glenn Greewald on the subject.

Sheriff Joe Decides to Pick Up His Football and Go Home, Courts Say Not So Fast

I don't think this article from the Arizona Republic needs commentary. I mostly just shake my head in disbelief...

UPDATE -- Just fixed the title. Just goes to show that proof reading is important... How embarrassing.

Phoenix City Council District 7 Debate

I really tried to make it to the debate, but unfortunately I had to work (I know it is hard to believe I don't make my living from blogging...). Please email me with highlights and low lights. Someone, anyone...

Presidential Preference Primary on the Site

Are the results representative of anything with the small sample? I would like to have more people vote, but I think the results represent something (Arizona Netroots perhaps?), but I am not sure what...

Hillary Clinton 5 (13%)
Barack Obama 8 (21%)
John Edwards 5 (13%)
Bill Richardson 14 (37%)
Joe Biden 0 (0%)
Dennis Kucinich 0 (0%)
Chris Dodd 1 (2%)
Mike Gravel 2 (5%)
Undecided 2 (5%)

Is Near Universal Coverage the Short Term Answer?

Here is an article about the Massachusetts experiment with health care. I have thought for quite a few years that solutions would have to come from the states. I think they have a pretty good law in Massachusetts, but not perfect. In the end, I think this maybe how coverage happens. The Feds will provide tools to the states and maybe tax breaks to individuals and businesses. In the end, if nearly everyone is covered costs go down. Emergency rooms are very expensive...

I have never seen the numbers, but we have tons of programs now that address health care. What would happen if we rolled them all into a program to subsidize insurance coverage for everyone and then required that everyone buy it? I think one of the key pieces is portability. People should not have to rely on employers for health care. I don't know, just asking...

How does Arizona Become an Important Primary State

I would argue that Arizona is a particularly good primary state. Of course, I am arguing on the merits of demographics of the state and the fact that we will likely be a swing state and not our state's clout with the national party (I am looking at you Nevada). Arizona is a good microcosm for the country. We have a sizable Latino population, fast growing urban areas, a lot of rural areas with more conservative Dems, a large elderly population, in short our demographics reflect the US at large.

Here is an article about the Gov trying to decide when to schedule our primary. Janet is smart and I know she will do her best to make our state count.

Interesting Take on Democratic Bloggers

Larry Sabato has a pretty interesting newsletter and this week he does an examination of the Democratic Blogophere here. I think it is a pretty accurate portrayal, but that maybe because it is pretty positive. It is worth a read at any rate...

Thomas Watch: Seriously Andy Simmer Down

Clearly, our good friend Andy "I wish I were as cool as Joe Arpaio" Thomas is taking lessons from the Sheriff on media whoredom. Here is an article from the Arizona Republic about how good ole Andy wants to prosecute an NBA referee. It is not like the ref got away with something, he already facing charges in Federal Court and his career is over.

In federal court in New York, Donaghy pleaded guilty to felony counts of conspiracy to engage in wire fraud and transmitting wagering information through interstate commerce. He was released on $250,000 bond. He faces up to 25 years in prison.

Why do we need to waste valuable resources on this? It is like the big obsession with steroids in baseball, who cares... Let me make a suggestion, take the limited resources of the County Attorney's Office and use them to go after real criminals. You know murderers, rapists, gang members, burglars and car thieves. Maybe you bring a few more prosecutions of the people that are constantly tagging my neighborhood. Just a thought...

Arizona Supreme Court Gets it Wrong

I know why the Arizona Supreme Court made this decision, but I think it was the wrong one. The Arizona Constitution says that education should be "as nearly free as possible". I think when the Arizona Constitution was written they really meant this.

I personally think that tuition should be near zero. The economic benefits of free education are pretty clear to me. In Arizona, we have shortages of qualified engineers, high tech workers, nurses, doctors etc. How many people would be willing to get a degree if the costs were lower? If you have a family, it is hard to find the time for school, but if you add $60-$100 of debt to the equation, many choose to forgo the financial hardship.

Cheap education benefits the state through higher salaries (and tax revenue) and benefits business by providing more qualified applicants. I know it is hard to believe, but many companies stay in expensive areas like San Francisco and Seattle because of the large number of highly educated workers. Changing the regulatory environment or economic incentives are not the only ways to draw business to Arizona. How about high quality of life and a highly educated work force?

District 7 Candidates Debate Tonight

If you are in District 7 and have not decided who to vote for, go to the debate tonight. Here is the link.

Product Safety Would Be Nice

This is why we need responsible government regulation. The article from the Arizona Republic outlines some of the most recent problems with Chinese products. Or how about this one. How about a little lead in your kid's bib?

This is precisely why trade agreements must be given more scrutiny. Free trade is fine as long as labor, safety and quality standards are the same, but they are not...

I don't want that much. I just want to feel reasonably certain that when I buy something that it will hurt me unknowingly. I would like to know that I buy my kid a bib it is not made with lead. I don't think that is too much to ask.

Especially given this phenomenon.

Harry Mitchell's Press People are Good Part 2

Here is another aww shucks article about Harry Mitchell in the Arizona Republic. How do his press people do it? Seriously, I am asking. Do they have pictures of the Republic editorial stuff in compromising positions?

If I ever run for office, I want to hire them.

Another Reason Why Renzi Sucks (as if you needed one)

What is one of the biggest problems with the Republican Party today? It is their inability to accept the reality of the world around them and their inability to address real issues. They have this problem in many areas, but perhaps none more than when it comes to reproductive freedoms.

Rationally, one would think that if you opposed abortion, you would want to do whatever possible to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Unfortunately, the truth is quite different. Many within the Republican Party oppose access to contraception as much as they oppose abortion. Wanting to overturn Roe vs. Wade is just the beginning. The next stop is Griswold vs. Connecticut. If you don't already know, the Griswold case essentially legalized access to contraception nationwide. It is a dirty little secret on the right that after they curtail abortion rights, the next target will be contraception itself. I know it sounds far fetched and a little crazy, but look at the actions of Arizona's own Rick Renzi. Renzi voted to eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood Clinics while claiming to want to see fewer abortions performed.

Here is the problem: we do not live in fantasy land. In public policy, you make choices. You can promote contraception, which can have a lot of positive outcomes. You can spend your money on an organization that provides much needed and quality services that people both need and want (Like Planned Parenthood). Or you can pretend that abstinence only education works.

I know some of my more libertarian readers will think that we should not spend tax dollars on contraception at all, but I respectfully submit that this is another debate. Renzi and his ilk are not against federal funding for abstinence programs that do not work ($1.5 billion since 2001) . They are against spending money on a needed services because it violates the delicate sensibilities of a far-right wing faction that holds sway in their party.


It is time to send Renzi packing. This is just the latest reason...

Here is more information:

Amendment
Floor Debate
Pence statement

Help out Planned Parenthood!
http://www.saveroe.com/pence/Renzi.pdf

Abstinence only info:

since 2001, when President George W. Bush created a Faith-Based and Community Initiative, made the abstinence programs one of the initiative’s hallmarks and advanced the funding for the programs to $1.5 billion.

Link here

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/02/24/abstinence/index.html

I Cannot Believe This Video...

Did she really say that if China didn't use lead paint and poison food that prices would go up? No can't be... Video is here... Thanks to The Consumerist for finding this. Wow

Can't We Come Up With a Better Process?

Here is an article from the Arizona Republic about Maupin's attempt to get on the ballot. It seems to me that legislation needs to be enacted to create a more transparent process for this. Being to late to change the ballot should not be a valid reason in my mind. If Maupin did collect enough signatures, he should be on the ballot, period. There should be an expedited process for these sorts of things in the interest of fairness.

Perhaps the state could certify circulators, so campaigns could know who is qualified. It just seems like there has to be a better system.

Unintended Consequences Can Be Good...

Here is an article from the Arizona Republic about smoking and taxes on cigarettes. Basically, it is well known that as cigarette taxes increase smoking decreases, but counterfeiting and tax evasion also increase. I think cigarette taxes make sense when they are used primarily to address the public health issues related to smoking. I don't think that taxes on 'vice' should be used be used as an ATM for spineless politicians. Furthermore, lumping alcohol in with smoking just annoys me.

Am I a hypocrite because I don't smoke and like the occasional pint? Perhaps... The difference I see is that alcohol can have positive affects on health when consumed in moderation, smoking on the other hand is always bad. However, there is also a link between mental illness and smoking that is emerging. Is it fair to tax a defacto treatment (albeit self prescribed) for depression?

I think we have to be careful from a public policy standpoint about trying to get too much revenue from sources like cigarettes...

Campaign Rumors, Complaints and Name Calling etc.

I have apparently hit a nerve with a few people. I won't name names or print the nasty emails I have received while I was away, but I want to very clear. The purpose of my blog is to write about policy, campaigns, help Democrats win and sometimes be critical when I think we are on the wrong path.


If someone sends me information and I do not feel that they have sufficient documentation to back it up, I may still create a blog entry, but I will specify that it is a rumor and let people figure it out for themselves. Obviously, I use my judgement on these things. If something appears to be made up, I won't write about it, but if something seems plausible, I will print it with caveats. That is the way I choose to run things...


Furthermore, I have always mentioned that I would be willing to print responses from campaigns or anyone I criticize. I enjoy a good debate, but send me a good point and lets all have a discussion. PS -- Calling me an asshole is not really a debate as much as it is name calling.

Phoenicians, Get Out and Vote

Early voting is starting in the City of Phoenix, so get out there and cast your ballot...

Sorry for lack on posting, but I was on vacation

Now I am back...

Phoenix is Everybody's Whipping Boy, Is It Fair?

The Economist ripped into the City of Phoenix here. I certainly agree that crime, traffic and pollution are problems in Phoenix. They criticize the light rail which is a step to alleviate two of the three major problems. I have heard a lot of complaints and criticism of the light rail, but I have not heard any other solutions, viable or otherwise. I would really like my kids to breath clean air and I don't mean that as some sort of platitude. I would like them to grow up and not think about the level air pollution when they want to go outside.

At any rate, I think we are going through growing pains in Phoenix. I also think there is a lot great stuff going on in Phoenix. I don't agree with the assessment of the economist, but we should not ignore what they have to say.

What do you think we should do about crime, traffic and pollution in Phoenix?

Pastor Push Poll?

I am hearing rumors out of the Phoenix District 7 city council race that Laura Pastor's campaign maybe running some kind of push poll/canvass call. While I personally have always snickered at the use of push polls, they are usually considered bad form. I wonder if this is the beginning of a dirtier race?

I still have not heard from the Pastor Campaign. As always, I will do my best to be impartial and I am willing post your response (in a separate post, if you prefer). Inquiring minds still want to know what you think about payday lenders and hear the story behind the alleged push poll/canvass call...

Harry Mitchell's Press People are Good

Here is another aw shucks, Mr. Smith goes to Washington article about Harry Mitchell in the Arizona Republic. I have worked on about 20 campaigns in my career, but I have never seen such glowing stories about a congressman. Whatever his press people are making, he should increase it... Keep up the good work (but quit voting to eviscerate the Constitution and give rich people tax cuts ;)

Living in Fantasy Land

I have mentioned this problem previously, but this article illustrates better than I could explain it. The article is based on a Zogby poll that addresses the budget of the Federal Government and the next president. Specifically, it addresses how the budget will be balanced. Guess what the people want? Their programs to stay the same and no taxes increased. While I can certainly understand the sentiment, it is a real problem.

This leads me to the thing I think is most important for Democrats in the future, the debate. Right now, the debate, the conversation, is dominated by Republican themes. While reality has intruded on their theories, the debate is still one that the other party designed. The real question for the future is how do we change the nature of the debate? We may have to suffer times of unpopularity to do the right thing. We must be aggressive in defending our positions and aggressive about attacking wrong-headed Republican policies. We must lead the country.

No Oversight, No Tax Money?

I am of the opinion that if you receive tax dollars you should be subject to oversight. Here is an article from the ARIZONA DAILY STAR about charter schools who want to be exempt from "curriculum alignment''. This basically means that there are benchmarks for achievement that need to be met. The example given is

the state board mandates that third graders know how to multiply and divide by numbers up to 9.

Basically, the charter schools can achieve the requirements however they like, but there are certain standards that have to be met. It seems like an imminently reasonable idea to me, but brings up a more interesting question.

Should every organization that chooses to receive tax dollars be subject to oversight no matter what the legislature thinks. Should there be a de facto acceptance of oversight by accepting public money? If not, how would you govern a system to avoid abuse by organizations that cannot be overseen by public entities? In this case, how would you ensure that schools are actually teaching and not just keeping the money? How do we oversee Charter schools, I honestly don't know?

Worried about Education? Read This...

This is one of the most brilliant articles that I have read about education and educational outcomes. Here is the article. I have always been bothered by the people that complain that some inner city schools get more money (some actually do...) than better performing schools and how patently unfair that is... Rarely do I ever hear someone mention that it might actually cost more to bring struggling kids up to standard.

Our approach to education is really backward.

Anyway, read the article...

Thomas Watch: Andy One Note Update

Apparently, there is still at least one rational judge in Maricopa County. Rather than putting away the crappy vegan mother for thirty years, the judge thinks that her sentence should be reduced. Here is the article. Here is a quote from the judge:

"The evidence at the trial showed that you acted in good faith in your belief that you were properly raising these children," O'Toole said before delivering the sentence. "You did not act with criminal intent. However, you did act recklessly in your grossly misguided sense of how to raise and properly nurture your children."

And this:

"There's no doubt you love your children," O'Toole said. "Unfortunately, they were at the mercy of your bizarre philosophy of diet and so forth."

And what does Andy think?

County Attorney Andrew Thomas said that his office would "strongly oppose any attempt to reduce this sentence."

"Thirty years in prison is entirely appropriate for a person who almost starved to death three defenseless children," Thomas said.

I find myself surprised sometimes when something sensible happens...

Sure Rep. Jefferson Is Scummy, but the Decision is Right

Here is an article about the 9th Circuit Court's decision regarding the raid of Rep. Jefferson's office (the Congressman from Louisiana). I really wanted to see Jefferson go down because he is clearly corrupt and a Democrat. I had hoped that he would not be reelected, but it is Louisiana after all.

Having said all of that, I was a little disturbed when the FBI raided his Congressional office. It was particularly troubling from a separation of powers standpoint. It seemed more than a little dangerous that the executive branch could indict and raid any Congressional office and collect any information that it wanted. This is even more true considering the abuse of power from the Bush Administration. It is good to see that the courts still can make good decisions.

The Unsexy Part of Govenment

No one like to debate infrastructure policy or proper management at organizations like FEMA, at least not until there are problems. The Arizona Republic has this article about the Governor ordering a review of bridges in Arizona. This is the part of government that few politicians or activists get excited about, but it is one of the most important functions of government. When government is starved, things deteriorate and eventually have to be fixed. Waiting until things become critical is not good policy. Good government, in my opinion, is more about good management than nearly anything else. It is one of the things I like best about Governor Napolitano. I might disagree with her on policy occasionally, but at her core she understands what government must do right.

I applaud her for taking this opportunity to (I assume) try to extract more funds for maintaining our infrastructure from our goofy right-wing legislature. Note to legislature, I know it is more fun to argue about immigration or soldiers names being printed on t-shirts, but this is your real job.

There was also this article... This was also interesting...

Nanny State Run Amok...

This topic just makes me angry, so much so, that I find it hard to write about it. The Arizona Republic has this article about sexual harassment in elementary and middle schools. Of course our friend Andrew Thomas weighs in with his nutty puritanical two cents.

Have we really become a society that will not allow children to be children? Can we no longer react to the behavior of children in prudent manner that reflects the child's development? Why can't we accept that boys will be rambunctious at times without diagnosing them with ADHD? Are we so afraid of sexuality that we feel we must consider criminal sexual abuse charges for middle school boys "patting girls bottoms".

Kids test boundaries. They must be taught proper behavior, but this is not the way. I find this particular topic very discouraging for the future of our society. Children raised under these sorts of rules will make for very unusual citizens...

Thomas Watch: Andy One Note Strikes Again

It is pretty clear to me that many Republicans are too simplistic in their policy assessments. It is the "if you have a hammer everything looks like a nail" mentality. George Bush's answer to all economic problems? Tax cuts, of course. George Bush's answer to any foreign policy issue? Military action.

Our good friend Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas has a similar problem. His solution to every problem is severe and more severe punishment. This article outlines the obvious mistreatment and neglect of three children by their mother who is also a vegan vegetarian. Her children were badly under nourished and from the looks of her, she was as well. When I look at this woman I see one thing, mental illness. Should she lose her children? Yes. Should she be punished? Arguably, yes. Should she go to jail for 30 years? No. She should get some jail time perhaps, but more importantly she should get treatment.

Our friend Andy, of course was very pleased with his ability to bully someone and ruin another life. He was also clearly upset when the judge suggested that the clemency board might commute her sentence.

In the end, this is just bad policy and a bad use of resources. I don't know about you, but I am not sure reserving a jail bed for this woman for the next thirty years is really the best use of limited prison resources or a just punishment for that matter.

Hey Andy, how about putting away more of those gang members that are running amok in Phoenix? I would much rather put this woman away for a year and divert the cost of the other 29 years to helping her children recover or give the money to CPS to make sure that this is less likely to happen again. Of course, that is a rational reaction to the problem.

Would You or I Get This Kind of Treatment?

The Maricopa Democratic Party sent this out today:

Everyone:
According to the Lake Havasu News-Herald, the lawyer who is deciding whether to charge Republican Representative Trish Groe with extreme DUI, despite her blowing a breathalyzer test score of 0.148 (twice the legal limit) still can't bring himself to do the right thing. The La Paz County Board of Supervisors hired lawyer Dennis Wilenchik (the same attorney who is defending Sheriff Joe Arpaio against Dan Saban's defamation lawsuit) who seems to be doing everything he can to drag his feet:

“We are still looking into the matter,” Wilenchik said. “I am diligently investigating into legal and factual matters that are important to all concerned and will do what we have to in order to do the right thing for the public and Ms. (Groe).”The comments made by the local readers are of a community screaming for justice. But how can there be justice when the deck is so clearly stacked in the Republican lawmaker's favor? So much for the Republican claim of respect for the law.
So even with lab reports that verify Groe's blood-alcohol level, this former Republican lobbyist continues to charge La Paz county tax payers $225/hour for his time and $175/hour for his support staff's time while he makes up his mind. He's already collect over $500,000 in fees defending Joe Arpaio, so what's a few more thousand amongst friends? So now we know there are at least two reasons for this to be drug out: soaking the taxpayers and skirting the law.
Follow the link and read the story. You'll be sickened and outraged.
http://www.havasunews.com/articles/2007/07/23/news/news03.txt

I wonder if you or I would get this kind of treatment. That is potentially pretty bad...

Independents Rising... The Democrats Did Pretty Well Too

This article from the East Valley Tribune goes over the rising trend of independent registration in Arizona. Once you get beyond the spin by both parties, I think they are all right. There are more independents because there is dissatisfaction with both parties. There are also a lot of Republicans that cannot bring themselves to register as Democrats, but don't identify with their party any longer. Also, Arizona has a very high percentage of new residents. When people move here they lose many of the ties that might have led them to register with one party or the other. This trend is not new however...

I am glad to the see the Democrats outpacing the Republicans in registration.

Mayor Phil "Lieberman" Gordon Dodges Bullet

The Arizona Republic has this article about Jarrett Maupin being kept off the ballot for insufficient signatures. I don't think Maupin has a realistic chance to defeat the Mayor, but he could cause embarrassment. There are a lot of Democrats who would vote for anyone but the mayor. The Mayor and his people want to rack up a huge victory in the Phoenix as a stepping stone to the governor's office. So, essentially Maupin is more a political problem than a threat.

Having said that, let me say to anyone that has a problem with the Mayor's people playing hardball with the signatures, tough and welcome to politics. As the saying goes, "Politics ain't beanbag."

No one would have a problem disqualifying a stupid ballot initiative or a Republican candidate in this manner. This is about having an organization that can collect enough signatures to keep it free of challenge. I have run signature collecting operations for various races and it is a lot of work to check every signature collector and signature, but it is what you do. I do not have sympathy for people that cannot follow the rules.

The simple fact is the Mayor has good campaign people. We need more like them in the Democratic Party, even if I don't like him as a candidate.

Thomas Watch: Is This a Good Idea or Not?

SO, our good friend Andrew Thomas, County Attorney for Maricopa County is at it again. The Arizona Capitol Times has this article about creating a court to try just death penalty cases. My natural inclination is to be against it because Andy is for it, but after a little thought I couldn't decide.

My one caveat is that Maricopa County should have to foot the bill completely. Other counties should not be forced to pony up for our county attorney's overzealous bloodlust.

Maybe defendants will have a better chance at a fair trial in a court designed for death penalty cases. Regardless, it made me think how uneven justice is in Arizona, if you get the death penalty in Maricopa for something that would get jail time in any other county.

Should county attorneys be elected? Is it a good idea to have a politician prosecuting people accused of crimes? I can see pros and cons with either system, but good ole Andy is the poster boy for appointing prosecutors rather than electing them.

Phil Gordon: Most Annoying Campaign Site Ever

I am making a point of checking out candidate sites. Today I decided to take a look at Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon's campaign site and I have to say (and I swear I am not biased because I think he is a sellout), it is the one of worst sites I have seen. It is difficult to use and confusing.

I see where they were trying to go. There are a lot of cool features like signing up for txt messages from the campaign. The problem is ill-conceived flash overkill. There are too many bells and whistles and not enough information.

I could not find a single page on what he intends to do in his second term. What a big crappy mess...

Checkout the mess http://www.philgordon.org/

Clean Elections Screws Up and Must Do Better

The East Valley Tribune has an article about the Arizona Clean Elections Commission under reporting their spending by $2 million. Before anyone gets any crazy ideas, they made a spreadsheet error. The individual items were correct, but the totals were wrong. Given that it was likely a stupid error, it is still unacceptable.

Clean Elections has many powerful enemies and as a result must be extremely careful. It is amazing to me that they do not have an auditor to ensure their numbers balance. This is unacceptable, they must do better...