Private Equity

I am the only person wondering about these private equity funds that are buying up some of the largest companies in the United States? Today it was announced that Alltel will be purchased by a private equity fund for $27 billion.

I am not saying that these purchases are necessarily bad, but they certainly seem suspect to me. I am going to have to do more research on the topic and update here periodically. I guess the biggest question that never gets answered is who is providing these huge amounts of capital. Are they foreign investors? Hedge Funds? A combination?

Thomas Watch: Andrew screws the pooch

Good ole Andrew Thomas screws up again. This time he is not ruining some 16 year old kid's life see here, no this time he is botching the prosecution of a serial killer. Those of you from Tucson (or elsewhere) may not feel as strongly about this as a Phoenician. This guy killed and raped in my neighborhood. There are two things about this that really bother me. First, if they have the right guy this will affect their ability to successfully prosecute him and put him away. Second, if they don't have the right guy, it would be really nice to know.

This just shows how having a guy who is not a professional prosecutor running the County Attorney's office is a really bad idea. We need to return to professionalism. Note to the Mayor's office, you supported Thomas for County Attorney and the activist community has not forgotten. We know you want to run for Governor...

No, I have never had a DUI...

I know that I am almost alone in my feelings about the DUI laws. For those of you new to my blog, I talk a lot about the consequences of legislation. Primarily, how legislation is never neutral, there are always winner and losers. The DUI laws seem to be a particularly good example of this. The Republic has this article about the Arizona Legislature requiring interlock devices for people convicted of a DUI.

I have several problems with this law and DUI laws in general. First, the point of DUI laws does not seem to be aimed at actually reducing the number of people driving drunk. They are overly punitive and increasing (just my opinion) convicting people who have had three drinks at a cocktail party or happy hour and not really decreasing the number of people drinking and driving. There is a cost/benefit analysis that must be applied here. As restrictions and punishment for DUIs increase and given the level of accuracy of the equipment used to convict people, we are likely seeing a greater number of innocent people convicted and a lower number of truly dangerous people who will alter their behavior. I think we probably hit the level of diminishing returns when Arizona moved from 1.0 to .08 as the legal limit.

Where is the data that the interlock systems are actually affective? Does anyone benefit other than the companies making and installing the equipment? How will a poor person convicted of a DUI deal with this(the equipment is very expensive)? If we really wanted to reduce the number of traffic deaths related to drinking, how about providing free rides to and from the bar on weekends? OR Free rides home from the bar and a free ride back to your car in the morning?

I think we as a society are overly punitive. Punishment cannot solve every problem, but seems like the tool we most like to use. Why do we have such a hard time accepting human nature?

I love the Arizona nuts

Arizona has a special brand of nut cases that I find amusing, entertaining and quaint. How did Arizona obtain this largess of truly unique and wacky people. Here is a letter from the Republic that is prime example. I never thought I would see someone argue for protecting payday loans on the basis of protecting liberty. I wonder if this guy knows that their behavior would have been illegal until recently. Interest rates and fees were tightly regulated until recently... I also love the absolute blind faith in the market. Cognitive dissonance at its best...

I love Arizona...

Elections have consequences...

Here is an article from the Republic about the surprise defeat of the Republican budget in the House. All Democrats voted against the bill and 6 Republicans. This would have been impossible last session. The extra seats we picked up in the Leg create the possibility of building coalitions with moderate Republicans. The Republicans keeping purging their moderates which leaves the rest with no good choices and little loyalty. It makes me wonder if this is the beginning of the end of the extreme Republican dominance of the legislature. The Senate is already working with the Governor.

We have to keep fighting in the leg... We have to take it over.

Payday lenders: Let's get rid of them...

I am a little behind on my blogging, but I saw this article in the Republic a few days ago. I would love to see payday lenders and their slimy practices curtailed in Arizona. I wish the state would reinstate the usury laws that used to exist almost everywhere...

I would not be willing to collect signitures for too many things, but I would for this.

HOA Redux

The Arizona leg passed a bill limiting the power of HOAs in the state. It is really interesting to see the leg do stuff like this. For anyone who has ever considered buying a home with an HOA, this should be of particular interest see here.

The bill basically strips HOAs of any real power. I am very skeptical of the power of HOAs, but this seems a little boneheaded. If you are going to strip them of their power, why not just outlaw them. It is good that they cannot take members homes anymore, but they should have some enforcement power. After all, it does suck to have a neighbor with 3-foot tall weeds and a car up on blocks in the front yard. Some people choose to live under the regulatory authority HOAs.

What do you think? Should the government regulate these areas? For instance, in Phoenix if you don't cut your grass or have a particularly junky house, you can get a blight notice. It is similar to an HOA, but much less affective, but also much less intrusive. Does government have a role in regulating this kind of behaviour?

Clean Elections: Good or bad

I think about the Clean Elections System in Arizona a lot. I know, I know, I am geeky. This article in the Republic got me to thinking... My personal opinion is that public policy, all public policy is imperfect and generates trade-offs. I think it is nearly impossible for policy to be neutral. It always creates winners and losers. The AZ Clean Elections law is no exception.

Winners: People that want to run for the legislature, but are not well connected. Both state party committees are winners because candidates raise money for them instead of candidate committees. People who want to limit money in campaigns.

Losers: Traditional candidates. Interest groups with sufficient resources to influence elections. Challengers (especially state-wide challengers).

Now this is just my view of winners and losers. I am sure there is more to add to list and some of this is arguable, but I worry about the affect of the law especially when it comes to incumbency. I maybe in the minority, but I don't believe the Governor or AG are as popular as their election margins. They are popular in my house, but I would argue that their popularity is a mixture of incumbency (and they are both really competent public servants) and lightly funded challengers. This is all really great when your party controls two out of three constitutional offices, but what happens when we don't?

Here is my fear. In 2010, we have an open governors race. There is more than an outside chance that a Republican will be elected to both the Govenor and AG offices. Imagine the terrifying possibilities for Governor (John Huppenthal, Russel Pierce, Matt Salmon, any Republican from our congressional delegation) or for AG (Andrew Thomas). I fear that we will have an extreme marginally popular Republican in office (a la George Bush) who skates by with 50.1% of the vote. Why? Because Clean Election ties the hands of the people who could pour in the money to defeat them. I think Clean Election needs to dramitically restructure their funding mechinism for state-wide office.

Having said all of that, we are much better (in my opinion) with the law than without it. It has help elect a lot of good legislators and spread power around.

Are Thayer and Huppenthal behind every stupid idea at the Leg?

This article from the EVT goes into the latest stupid and misguided idea to come from our legislature. So, back to my original question, Are Thayer and Huppenthal behind every stupid idea at the Leg? Of course not, Russell Pierce and others come up with their fair share, but there does seem to be a nexus of idiocy between Thayer and Huppenthal. My all time favorite was when Huppenthal wanted to cut state-shared revenue to cities for some stupid reason and had to withdraw his bill when he discovered that his constituents would be the hardest hit (John your constituents live in Chandler and Phoenix).

Now they have decided to cut funding for technical education because they think it constitutes an "additional tax". Even Russell Pierce is against the cut... Note to John and Thayer, if you want our state to be competitive economically we need trained workers. I know you would like the market to provide all these things, but it doesn't. Furthermore, there are people that do not want to go to college and still want to make a decent living. Given the overall cost/benefit of these kinds of programs, I am biased towards more and easier educational opportunities. People pushed to the margin of our economy have less at stake. Lets give everyone an opportunity to claim their own piece of the pie... Education is a good way to do that...

Latest right-wing attack on colleges...

Here is a letter from the Republic about the recent dust up at MCC. The full story is here. Here is the problem I see, first Republicans would want to crucify the guy if he was passing liberal links around. They would be apoplectic if Ward Connerly or Noam Chomsky sent out email to the entire staff of their college. The professor has the right to voice his beliefs just not on his work email account to everyone who works at the college. It is not a matter of academic freedom.

Has the guy ever heard of GMAIL?

Sometimes I just want to throw up my hands...

This article was on MSN yesterday and made me want to pull my hair out. It basically goes into why the war in Iraq is not all that expensive because it is a smaller portion of our GDP than previous wars. I am still amazed that this crazy thinking is tolerated. I don't understand the disconnect between the out of control federal deficit and debt and how bad it is for the future of the country. I believe the total debt is about 6 trillion. I also believe that interest is now our third largest expense (around $300 billion a year). In a vacuum, that maybe doable debt-wise, but then add the borrowing from Social Security (even in the our best balanced budget year under Clinton, we borrowed $100 billion from SS) , Medicare, a trade deficit and the Bush tax cuts. I know people think I am wearing a tin-foil hat when I say that the US maybe headed towards insolvency, but I do think that is the reality.

We are quite simply living beyond our means. What is worse is that we are not going into debt to invest in research, education, restructuring our economy to deal with outsourcing and globalization which would likely payoff over the long-term. No, we are giving rich people tax cuts, paying for a war and spending big on corporate welfare. It is the equivalent of buying round after round of drinks for your friends when you got your first credit card in college. It seems like fun at the time, but when the bill comes you are shocked and cannot even remember how you spent so much. I am not normally an alarmist, but I think the financial state of our country is the biggest issue facing us.

Why Renzi should go...

Here is an opinion piece from Robert Robb stating a really good case for why Rick Renzi should resign. Robb did not intend it to be that way. See he makes a really good presentation of all of the bad things Renzi is accused of like personally benefiting from all kinds of shady deals. At the end of the article, he makes a feeble attempt to link Terry Goddard to the whole mess. I know it is tough being a Republican these days, but really Robb are the two things even remotely equivalent? Even if Goddard did everything he is accused of by Andrew Thomas and Joe Arpaio (both prone to partisan hackery), it does not even approach Renzi because Goddard is not even accused of personally benefiting in anyway. There was a transfer of money from one office budget to the other that apparently was legitimately owed. It is also important to point out that that Goddard is accused of helping another corrupt Republican that was forced out of office.

Very different... Try again Robb... OR How about calling out Republicans when they are corrupt. For example, when Rep. William J. Jefferson was clearly shown to be corrupt, I tried to help defeat him in the primary and pressured my party leaders to relieve him of his committee assignments in the House. I also opposed Alcee Hastings for the intelligence committee and I raised doubts about Murtha and ABSCAM. We should put our country ahead of party.

Media Whore or County Attorney?

Here is an update on Andrew Thomas' ongoing effort to eliminate justice from our legal system and get as much publicity as possible. If he really cared about this issue, do you think he might have contacted the guy in charge of defense attorneys for the county before sending his letter to the media?

I think this is very telling... Thomas does not really care about any of these issues. He cares about whipping the anti-immigration base of the Republican party into a frenzy, so he can seek higher office later. It seems to me that county attorney should not be an elected position. It is too important.

Can we value what parents do without monetizing it?

There is this article from MSN today. I am sure most of you have heard this one before about the 'real' salary that a mom would make. Imagine her as a driver, cook, CEO, psychologist etc... I don't know why this bothers me so much, but it does. First, why do we feel the need to monetize everything? I don't think that makes us value moms more, I think it cheapens the whole thing. The fact is that parenting is a money losing proposition. You become a parent because other more deep seated desires. You take care of children because of love and caring.

Next, the whole logic of this is crazy. By this logic, I would have my regular job and I would be a landscaper, apprentice electrician, apprentice plumber, veterinary assistant, personal chef to my wife and CEO of my media empire (A Democrats Lament, LLC). I should be making at least two or three hundred thousand a year.

Before you write me with complaints, I get the point of the whole thing, moms are important. Well here is what I think, parents are important and we should value their work as a society, if for no other reason than self interest. Children that are not raised properly are very expensive for society(yes, I know I just monetized children). Notice I said parents because all parents are important for their kids. If our society valued children like we claim or parenting for that matter, we would have policies in place to help raise children. I also have a quaint notion of corporate responsibility. We should not have to force companies to do the right thing all of the time. Good policies make good economic sense. By the same token we should value people that decide to not have children because children are expensive to society as well... Just my two cents.

Thomas Watch: Andrew you are such a baby!

Here is the latest article from the EVT about our esteemed country attorney. I have never heard a grown man whine and cry so much and so often about not getting his way. First defence attorneys were ruining his ability to kill as many people as he wants by *gasp* insisting on putting on a proper defense for someone charged with the death penalty.

He whined about the governor not paying for the increased cost of his dumb policies because it would cost other counties, not just Maricopa a lot of money. He practically whines about everything. Does little baby Andy need a nap?

Solar Power in AZ

Since I moved to Arizona about six years ago, I have often wondered why solar power is not more prevalent. I am driven by two motives here, one it is good for the environment, but two it could be a good business. While the state is investing in biotech, which I think is good, I wish we would make an effort to corner the market on solar power research and development. Why not increase our investment to the point where we can export power (or at least eliminate coal fire power plants).

I know we are talking about a large expense, but it just seems to make sense from a quality of life perspective and investing in industry that is bound to grow in the future. I think many people are largely in denial about pollution linked to population growth. Forget global warming for a moment, the air in Phoenix is filthy and getting worse. It is time to invest in quality of life measures with a view to the future. Interestingly, a Chinese company is coming to Arizona to improve their technology, not because of our superior research facilities, but only because we have sunlight. I don't mean to overstate this, but I fear for the future of our nation as we abdicate our place as an innovator to other nations. We need to greatly increase our investment in education (college should be virtually free), affordable health care (GM pays several thousand per car in health care expenses), basic research and improved infrastructure (bandwidth should be inexpensive and plentiful). It is time to prepare for the future... Here the article from the Republic about the solar company from China.

$400 haircut and reality

I have not been posting regularly, so sorry about that... Anyway I just wanted to post a quick bit about the $400 dollar haircut and John Edwards. First, let me say I like Edwards and I am still considering voting for him in the primary (right now it is between Obama and Edwards). Secondly, let me say that this was a boneheaded move by his campaign. For those of you working on campaigns, always, always have your own op-research people comb through your disclosure.

With that out of the way, let me get to what I really want to say. People that are running for president are not like you and I... They are the "elites". When I say elites, I don't use it as a derogatory statement. I want the smartest people available to run for president. Can we quit pretending that Presidential candidates live lives that approximate even remotely to the average American. They are by definition not average and they should not be... In the interest of fairness, this goes for Rudy G. as well. So, he doesn't know what a gallon of milk costs. I don't either and buy milk every week. I hate to break it to everyone, but no one running for president has bought milk or bread at a grocery store recently. OK, now lets move on to something important. I like this take on it from Bill Maher.

State Shared Revenue and Tax incentives

As a general rule, I am against tax incentives given to businesses by cities. I think it is generally a scam where the business already has made a decision and plays cities off of each other. This article from EVT has the latest.

Like most things in the world it is not as simple as people think. Cities in Arizona have very specific needs for funding especially after they hit build out for State Shared Revenue. By build out, I mean the point where a city is no longer growing and can no longer rely on annual increases in shared revenue (Revenue is based on a city's population relative to the rest of the state). Cites must look for commercial projects to provide revenue. Bedroom communities have specific problems at build out because homes don't provide a lot of revenue, but require a lot of services. This is why a car dealership is such a great boon to cities. The dealership will not only pay property taxes (at a higher rate than a home), but will provide a ton of sales tax.

The way incentives should work is that they give a break on X dollars of the property or sales tax, they assume or project Y amount will be produced by the business (Y should be higher than X). Sometimes these deals take longer to payoff than others. This means that sometimes the city will see little revenue for say 5 years. The other positive for cities is that commercial interests are relatively stable sources of revenue because their facilities are big investments. Most cities are trying to create a stable and long-term funding base, so they can provide services to you (and not become insolvent) without raising your taxes.

Just in case you ever wonder why our cities dole out incentives...

HOA Redux

I have been off blogging for a while... I am not really sure anyone reads this anyway. Here is the latest update in the effort to regulate HOAs here. It looks like they are getting hit from the left and right.

Global Warming: Arizona Republic Style

It is amazing that we have come this far on Global Warming... Our local right-wing columnist at the Republic admits its existence here. What is funny is that he is reduced to nit-picking various facts from an Inconvenient Truth. I agree with his analysis for the most part, but not his characterization. He is critical of Gore for giving some worst case scenarios for the affects of Global Warming, but Gore does not claim inevitability. I find it interesting that we are all of the sudden worried about slight nuances in a documentary when we have things like Iraq and 1% doctrine from the Bush administration.

The 1% doctrine is Cheney's idea that if there is even a 1% chance of terrorists obtain WMDs that we should basically react as though they have them. Cheney described it as "low-probability, high-impact event". What would our reaction be if there was a 1% possibility of terrorists raising sea level by 20 feet and displacing millions of people?

I just think the juxtaposition is very interesting. I think it shows how the reaction to both issues are out of whack...

HOA: What do you think?

HOAs have always troubled me. I don't like the idea of an organization that is easy influenced and unaccountable being able to seize property. While I think they serve a purpose, I also think there should be something akin to a bill of rights for homeowners. There is this article about reigning in just one of their powers.

The issue is whether an HOA should be able to regulate parking on publicly funded streets. I think this is a no-brainer. No. If my tax dollars help pay for your street, then I should be able to park on them according to tax payer agreed rules (ie the rules of the city or county). The leg does something right, go figure...

Our Dumb Legistlature: State Shared Revenue addition

Our legislature is sooo dumb... How dumb are they you might ask? Just look at state shared revenue. SSR is a pretty obscure thing to most people. In a nutshell, SSR means that each city/county gets a portion of the income tax paid to the state. There is a formula for figuring the amount that the legislature frequently tries to change. Basically, every entity gets a certain amount based upon their population.

Why is this important? Have you ever wondered why relatively small cities such as Gilbert, Chandler (several years ago) etc have such nice roads and infrastructure? State shared revenue is a big part of the answer.

The legislature tries almost every year to break this system. Here is this year unsuccessful attempt. One of the more humerous attempts to change the system came from John Huppenthal last session. I think he tried to eliminate state shared revenue, but he forgot most of his continuents live in Phoenix and Chandler. They would have been two of the hardest hit cities.

It only takes living a short time in a place without such a rational system to realize how well it works. The results are poor cities that stay poor with no opportunity for change. In AZ, a city like Avondale can go from a tiny farming community to a well run city. I wish the leg would wake up...

Destoying South Mountain for convenience

There has been a plan for a longtime to build a freeway through South Mountain Park. These articles give some of the back ground 1, 2. This is just a shame... Am I the only one that thinks that they should not be able to build a highway through any park land?

This group is fighting it www.protectazchildren.org (website not up yet...)

There needs to be real debate about immigration

I guess I am the rarest breed of political animal, a moderate on immigration. I tend to lean toward the pro-immigration side because the anti-immigrant people tend to use demagoguery and false information to forward their cause. I don't believe the immigrants are the root of all evil like the Russel Pierces of the world. There is this article from the EVT today about a study that sheds some light on reality.

Immigration is a mixed bag, but I suspect it is largely more positive than negative in economic terms. Immigrants pay taxes, social security, medicare and they receive very little for their money. They also provide services at a greatly reduced rate. It has always seemed a little funny to me that the people most against immigration tend to live in recently constructed McMansions most likely built by immigrant labor.

Here is where I differ with some pro-immigration people: Americans would do the jobs that immigrants are doing, but they require a livable wage and safe working conditions. I admit to a little frustration about the language barrier that sometimes exists. I try to remain sanguine and I do wish I spoke Spanish well enough that it did not matter. I am annoyed when I see bill boards or signs in Spanish only. I don't mind bi-lingual.

What is my point here? We as a society need to decide what we want. We cannot have endless supplies of cheap labor and the benefits that result without paying for some increase in the cost health care and education. In other words if we enjoy the benefits, we have a social responsibility.

In economic terms, the people with the cheap services are really just shifting their burden to other people. It is important for everyone to remember that immigrants are people. It is too easy to demonize someone who has less power and is different. Resist the temptation. Also, they are from a different culture, deal with it. Is it sooo bad to hear different music or deal with slightly different social morays?

Why do the wingers hate the light rail?

I have tried to figure this out for a while, but I still cannot fathom the opposition. I know they hate government, taxes and the like, but the taxes would be paid anyway (for road construction) and the government would be just as big building roads, so why the road building bias? I am sure that they can all see the smog that hangs over the valley...

I for one am open to nearly any solution that cleans up our air or do they not believe our air is dirty? There is this article in the Republic today about opposition to light rail. Building more roads is inevitable, but studies show that more roads do not lead to less driving or less pollution. It just pushes sprawl further out.

If any of you anti-light rail people are out there, tell why you hate light rail (and I don't want to hear some anti-government rant, please see above). After that, tell me how you think we can improve the air quality in the valley.

Thomas Watch: More info on his folly

There is this article in the Republic about Thomas' death penalty obsession. There is not a lot new here, but it does go into how Maricopa county compares to other counties in death penalty cases. It also goes through some of the cases that Thomas sought the death penalty. This one stuck out:

For example, Thomas sought the death penalty against David Szymanski, who is accused of fleeing police and killing a motorist in April 2005. While Szymanski still faces a first-degree murder charge, the capital case fell apart when the defendant was acquitted of a related assault charge and Scottsdale police acknowledged that the police pursuit broke department policy.

I don't know about you, but this does not seem like a death penalty case. The guy should go to jail for a longtime for sure, but should tax payers spend $250,000 dollars to try to put him to death? Is his offense worth putting him to death? When I think of people worthy of the death penalty, I think of Jeffery Dalmer or the Baseline Rapist.

Thomas Watch: What a dufus...

Andrew Thomas is truly a dufus. This is what happens when you elect a county attorney who has not tried a felony criminal case (from the Republic). There is this article from the East Valley Tribune. The article shows the problems with using ideology rather than common sense or a desire for good government as your guiding principle in the execution of public duties.

“They’re overcharging for felonies that should be misdemeanors,” Cantor said. “Then they plea to the lead charge, but their lead charge is too stiff. This means everything goes to trial.” Michael Freeman, an attorney with Wolf & Associates, agreed. “Charges are more serious than they were two years ago for the same type of crimes,” he said. “For example, cases that should be charged as simple possession of drugs, or personal possession, are now being charged as possession for sale with a possible mandatory prison sentence.”

In November, Thomas said that for second offenses, he would only approve plea deals requiring a prison sentence. He estimated that would mean an additional 2,600 prison inmates each year, which would cost taxpayers an additional $53 million. Tempe defense attorney Craig Penrod said more felony DUI cases are going to trial that should be settled with plea deals. Penrod also said he saw prosecutors charge a man who sexually assaulted an infant the same way they charged stepsiblings who had consensual sex, because of Thomas’ “rote plea agreements.”

The problem with this mentality is that justice does not happen through automation. Human judgement has to be central to the criminal justice system. All defendants cannot be treated the same and create a just outcome. A good example is when a 19-year old is prosecuted as a sex offender for sleeping with his/her 15 year old girl/boy friend that they met in their highschool. I won't go into the right or wrongness of this, but I think most would agree that 40-year old sleeping with the same 15-year old is worse.

I would contend that they should not be prosecuted in the same way, thus judgement is important.

Thomas Watch: Even the wingers agree

Poor Andrew Thomas, even the Right-wing columnist from the Arizona Republic thinks he wrong. Imagine a Republican coming out in favor of separation of powers and individual rights. Robert Rob's column is here.

The irony is that if Thomas would be more selective about his death penalty cases, they would move through the system more quickly because there would be enough qualified defense attorneys. I am still not convinced that death is a worse punishment than life in prison.

Our dumb Legislature: A continuing series

Yesterday the Leg was trying to was trying to magically register sex offenders' online IDs in spite of the fact that it is near technological impossibility that depends on sexual predators being honest. Today they are trying to control the political thoughts of teachers and professors. The article from the Republic. The reason for the bill is pointed out below:

In an example of the type of behavior he is targeting, Verschoor said one of his granddaughters' elementary teachers required the class to write letters to a lawmaker opposing a certain bill.

I am actually familiar with this classroom situation. The teacher had the kids write the legislature in response to what the Leg called SBSPEA (pronounced SB-SP-EA HB3450), also known as the Sponge Bob Square Pants Elimination Act. Legislators feared that Sponge Bob seemed a little too gay, so they decided to eliminate all references to the character, including all TV shows, merchandise and all other references. The bill also called for a new thought cleaning machine to eliminate all thoughts of Sponge Bob from their young impressionable minds and to clean out any gay thoughts pushed on them by the evil purveyors of the Gay Agenda.
The kids were understandably upset...

Our dumb legislature: A continuing series

There was this article today about the Leg trying to monitor sex offenders online. While it is a laudable goal, it is stupid. It shows the utter ignorance of our legislators. Why not regulate the thoughts of sex offenders? They should register whenever they think about doing something illegal. If they don't register the thought and we catch them they will go to jail!

This is an exercise in futility... There are so many ways for a sex offender to get around these rules. The simple fact is that the technology does not exist to track a group of people like this online (see China). The other thing that really worries me about this is that Andrew Thomas thinks it is an appropriate balance between civil liberties and protecting the public. My knee jerk reaction is to oppose anything Thomas supports (given his extraordinarily bad judgement about almost everything).

Our dumb legislature is at it again...

This article in the Republic outlines the legislative power grab being perpetrated against the referendum system in Arizona. I cannot help but think that all of these proposals are non-starters because the referendum system is in the AZ Constitution.

Of course the system has its advantages and disadvantages, but it serves everyone equally well. When the Democrats inevitably take over the legislature, the Republicans will have the same process in place now. Also, conservative and Republicans regularly use the process to their advantage. Then there is the issue of Independent voters which make up about one third of the voters in AZ, the initiative process gives them a voice as well.

The simple fact is conservatives in the Legislature have not realized that Arizona is not that conservative. I think Arizonans are pragmatic more than anything. The legislature is not representing the people very well and they are instead voting for policies they wish the legislature would put forward.

I think the Legislature is misreading what people want and misreading the level of trust people have in them. Note to legislature, We the people of Arizona think you do a crappy job, so we are forced to pass our own laws. Furthermore, you won't get a pay raise until you do something right. Tax cuts and anti-immigrant laws not the only concern we have as a people.

District 7 -- Phoenix

I am having trouble finding out real information about this race. I want some dirt... I may have to covertly volunteer on both campaigns to see if I can get some info. Here is a article on the race. It is mainly an article about endorsements. Big whoop... I would like to know where both candidates stand and what they want to do.

Andrew Thomas wants blood on his hands: Thomas Watch

Here and here are more of the ongoing saga of Thomas trying to rush death penalty cases in Maricopa county. The more I see of Thomas' non-sense the more I feel that prosecutors should not be elected (see the Duke rape case). It just seems to invite prosecutorial misconduct (Duke) or political posturing (Thomas).

At a certain point, government should be well managed and less political. Thomas has got to go before he gets someone innocent killed or costs the county a lot of money or both. I know it is hard for families to go through a 19 year ordeal waiting for some to be put to death. Maybe things would be better for everyone involved if we did away with the death penalty. I have been a reluctant supporter of the death penalty, but there just seems to be too many problems with the system to make it viable. It is not like life in prison is a picnic...

You have public officials like Thomas who don't take their duty seriously. Thomas does more damage to the system he wants to speed up than he helps it...

Rail (not light)

There is this article in the Republic about a commuter train between Tucson and Phoenix. I like the idea of trains. I have used them in other cities and I generally like them. They have their ups and downs. I know other states have had similar discussion... We have to start thinking differently if we want to start reducing air pollution. Maybe this is one piece of the solutions...

Andrew Thomas: Worst person in Maricopa County? THOMAS WATCH

We all knew that Andrew Thomas was a wing nut when he was elected to the office of Maricopa County Attorney, but much like George Bush himself, few of thought he would be this bad. Unfortunately, County Attorney is a pretty powerful position and not one that you want occupied by someone with an ideological agenda. He has the power to ruin lives and he has shown that he has no scruples about doing just that.

This article from the New Times outlines the lengths that Thomas went to prosecute a 16-year old kid for something he obviously did not do. If you saw the 20/20 report, then you saw the smirking Thomas who was more than happy to put the kid on the sex offenders list for showing his friends Playboy. The only thing that saved him was a judge's sage advice to appeal the ruling to his parole officer (who knew they had that kind of power?).

First, you don't ruin a kids life for something so trivial. Second, if you populate the sex offenders list with non-sex offenders, it not only ruins lives, but dilutes the meaning of this list.

The worst part about Thomas is that he seems to do things in spite having all manner of facts and expert advice to the contrary.

Today, we have this article from the East Valley Tribune. Thomas is pushing for faster death penalty trials. He also recently wanted his prosecutors to stop plea bargaining for certain crimes. Of course, he did not want to find the $50 million extra dollars to pay for it.

Here we have Thomas wanting to force defense attorneys to take more death penalty cases. He basically says they are lazy and cannot understand why the prosecution and defence lawyers cannot take the same numbers of cases. Could it be that the prosecution has the police to investigate (just watch Law and Order sometime, Andrew). It is also pointed out that Thomas has never prosecuted a case himself.

I understand wanting swift justice, especially in violent cases where innocent people are hurt and killed, but civilized societies do not rush people to the electric chair without proper safe guards. I am of the "It is better to not put to death a hundred people that deserve it than to mistakenly put one innocent person to death." If the prosecution does its job properly, the outcome will be mostly right. Our system works pretty well, but when you speed things up without safe guards you not only risk putting innocent people to death, you also risk over-turning death sentences on appeal. Here is more this topic...

I have my eye on you Mr. Thomas. I will be updating my Thomas watch regularly.

What is good for the goose...

Here we have a typical Republican move from the East Valley tribune. All of the sudden, Linda Gray, one of our resident conservative wack-jobs from the State leg wants to ban out of state contributions for ballot initiatives. There are so many things wrong with this:

1. How does one define out of state? Most orgs are a mix of money from the state and other sources (see the Chamber of Commerce, Labor Unions, the DNC/RNC).
2. Duh, the First Amendment
3. What makes her think this would change any outcome?
4. Why not make all contributions come from in-state sources, including US House, Senate and all state/local offices? What makes ballot intiatives so special?

Plenty of out of state money was spent on ballot initiatives on both sides. It cuts both ways... Why is the first reaction to losing to change the rules? Here is something to think about... How about you beat the ballot initiative fair and square by raising tons of money and running a better campaign. I cannot say for sure, but I would guess that the other side of the animal cruelty initiative probably had more money.

A good example is TABOR (Tax Payer Bill of Rights). It was passed in Colorado several years ago by out of state sources. They caught the liberal side flat-footed and beat them. The policy was a disaster for the state. The liberals in Colorado have fought long and hard and have made in-roads at dismantling the intuitive. It is called Democracy (yes, I know we live in a Republic). This is how it should work...

I have had this same discussion with friends around the smoking ban. All they can say is that they have a right to smoke and that it is a violation of their rights. There is not right to smoke people! YOU HAVE TO WIN AT THE BALLOT BOX! If you can't do that, sit down and shut up.

This is a tough one!

There is this article in the Republic today about loop 101 speeding cameras. Like a lot of people, I find this solution dubious, even if it is effective. In general, our society seems to be moving towards diminished freedom to ensure safety. This is another example... Part of me believes that the effectiveness of the cameras justify their existence. I don't like people flying by me on the highway at 100mph+ speeds. I would like to see tighter enforcement of reckless driving. These cameras in vacuum would be fine, but they don't exist alone. There are part of larger movement to restrict freedom for a variety of both good and bad reasons.

There are smoking bans (which I like), bans on spanking in CA, speeding cameras, red-light cameras, federal warrantless wiretapping and on and on. The problem at the moment is that technology is moving faster than our laws and societal ethics. Our society needs to have a serious conversation about what freedoms are important enough to keep and which freedoms we are willing to water down or give up. The problem is that being free means sometimes excepting risk.

Think about motorcycle helmet laws. They make really good public policy sense, but I am against them because I think they intrude on personal freedom. I always wear a helmet when I ride, but I think others should have the option. Where is the line drawn when it comes to safety and freedom? If don't start thinking about this, we will end up with a haphazardly built system that will not properly protect freedom or provide for proper safety.

Do not call list, for politics

There is a bill pending before the state legislature to create a do not call list for political calls. There is an article explaining the ins and outs further here. The bill would maintain a list, but compliance would be voluntary. This is probably the best possible solution since it would be unconstitutional to force campaigns to not call.

The real problem here is not political calling, but irresponsible political calls. My thoughts on the matter are below:

1. Robo calls for the purpose of annoyance. The Republicans used this tactic a lot during the last cycle. They would call multiple times and make it seem as though the call was from the Democrat. If you listened long enough, you would figure out who the call really came from, but most hung up before then. This practice should be outlawed or curtailed. Perhaps the best solution is to state up front who paid for the calls and not the front-group, but who coughed up the cash.
2. Robo calls in general: Candidates, don't use robo calls. They serve no real purpose, they do not work and they cost money. Bad consultants will try to convince you that this is the best use of your money. After all, you can pay 5 cents per call and reach 10x more people than you can at 50 cents for a live call. Don't believe the hype. There are only a few studies on this topic, but they showed that the effectiveness was within the margin of error. This means that they could actually be marginally negative.
3. Short-sighted campaign consultants: This is true of live and robo calls. People running campaigns only look short-term and don't care about the long-term affect of calling people over and over trying to increase contact rates. Candidates should be very concerned about this because it gives them a bad name.

What this comes down to is that you have to have a message that sticks with voters and a good plan for contacting them. Be efficient, not annoying.

District 7 will be a barn burner

The district 7 city council race is turning out to be pretty exciting. This article in the Republic today gives a little information about the two primary candidates.

There is Michael Nowakowski and Laura Pastor. Michael is a Latino (also of polish decent) and manager of Radio Campesina. Laura Pastor is Congressman Pastor's daughter. Mr. Nowakowski received the endorsement of the Fire Fighters and Laura has the Mayor's endorsement.

Most of the people I have talked to (the ones in the know) say Nowakowski is the better candidate. In spite of Laura Pastor's seemingly good name, she has alienated a lot of activists and political people. I have not experienced any of this first hand, but this is what I hear.

If I was a candidate and had to choose between the firefighter and the Mayor, I think I would prefer the fire fighters. Having said that, the mayor has some very good political people and if his endorsement is real, it would be a major factor. The real unknown here is whether this is just an endorsement from the mayor or if there are teeth behind it.

The Mayor has his sights on something bigger and is probably hedging his bets for a future state-wide race. The senior Pastor, at least on paper, could be important in a Democratic primary.

I find these city races a lot more fun to watch than the state-wide runs, I can't wait to see this develop.

Is this the best way to deal with the Minute Men?

Kirsten Sinema, the very liberal (in a good way), legislator from District 15 has proposed this bill to try to curtail the activities of groups like the Minute Men. I have to admit that I don't always agree with her, but damn do I respect her moxy, not to mention her total disregard for getting reelected.

The bill would basically target non-law enforcement people on armed patrol. I have a little trouble with all of this... I am conflicted... On one hand, I don't care for the Minute Men. I think that for the most part they are reactionary, unhelpful and many of them are racists. However, I am not sure I am comfortable going after these sorts of groups in this fashion. It strikes me as, well, a little unamerican. I disagree with them, but support their right to act dumb. However, I am also trouble by armed idiots patrolling the border. Then, there is the issue of fanning the flames of this whole debate in an unhelpful way.

I am not sure of the right answer, but I feel pretty sure that this is not it.

The Republic's resident blowhard

There was this article in the Republic today from our resident blowhard Laurie Roberts. She is Arizona's Nancy Grace. She manages to be shrill, holier than thou and sanctimonious in nearly every piece she writes. Don't get me wrong, the travel problems of the community colleges should be fixed and they are problems.

Frankly, there is something about her that makes me disbelieve almost everything she says. Maybe it is just her tone? She is annoying...

The Republic is out of touch and dumb, like the President

I have been trying to cover local politics, but I could not let this article about SOTO from the Arizona Republic pass without comment. I almost didn't read the article after reading the headline "Bush outlines ambitious domestic agenda", knowing full well it would just make me mad. I guess I am a glutton for punishment because I read it anyway. Guess what, it made me mad...

Ambitious, really? How? It seemed like a repeat of the other SOTO speeches under Bush. Let me summarize, ahh hummm: I am a uniter not a divider (the Democrats cause all the problems, we would have bi-partisanship if Democrats would always agree with me), Blah blah fuel economy in 2178, we are winning the war (well we would be, but all of those damn Iraqis are causing problems), Tax cuts are good (I have created 7 million jobs, except it is only 3 million if you count job losses during my two terms, don't tell anyone. I wish I could create 21 million jobs like Clinton, damn him he he he), we need to cut spending (increase spending on the things I want, give another tax cut, but cut everything else), balance the budget (what's a budget?), fix health care (give a tax cut), fix entitlements (by getting rid of them).

That is about it. So, Arizona Republic where is the ambitious speech? Got any bias?

UPDATE --- This article is a better representation of reality.

Payday loan dude, you must be kidding me...

There was this letter to the editor this morning about a bill in the Arizona legislature to limit payday loans interest to 36% (yes, you read that right) and the payday loan industry is (gasp) complaining. In the letter, this fellow Jeff Albin chats up all of the benefits of having this industry around.

Now, I am not the most religious guy, but I cannot help but think there is a special place in Hell for these modern day "money changers". This topic really gets my dander up... There is a big difference between providing a service and designing a business that is meant to entrap its customers.

Before you start commenting on the intelligence of the people taking the loans and free choice, I will relay my story. I had a highly educated (Masters degree in Physics / BS Mathematics) friend who took out a title loan on his car because the company he was working for shut its doors unexpectedly and did not pay any of its workers. In spite of his awareness of their practices and reading all of the fine print, they still nearly took his car. The whole system is setup to make it difficult to pay off the principle, so they can keep their customers as indentured servants.

Our society has become less economically stable and everyone has greater risk these days (except the very rich). The time has come to heavily regulate these businesses and turn them into legitimate businesses (don't even get me started on how they prey on soldiers who have shipped out to Iraq and Afghanistan). If they cannot be reformed they should be shut down.

The unintended consequences of dumb policies...

I have often thought of how under reported and under-communicated the law of unintended consequences can be, especially on "get tough" policies. There are the policies from the drug war that have done little to curb drug use (but run up a huge enforcement and incarceration bill). The most relevant at the moment are the anti-immigrant policies being passed in AZ. There is this brilliant article by the Naked Economist about the unintended consequences stemming from policies that attempt to control behavior. consequences

The simple fact is that no matter how tough we get on immigrants and immigration, we will never be able to remove the incentive to come here for work (feeding your family is strong motivation). The unintended consequences of cutting off things like healthcare, education or forcing local police to arrest people here illegally are pretty dire.

Cutting medical care (besides being inhumane) opens our society to a large migrating group of people who could carry disease from place to place without it setting off alarm bells. If there is an outbreak of TB, you want the people going to the hospital, so it can be controlled. Taking away education just leads to frustration which will lead to greater crime and violence. Making local police immigration enforcement means that a lot of crime in immigrant communities will go unreported and will likely grow.

These ideas are counter-intuitive at times. I know they can be tough pills even for reasonably moderate people to stomach, but sometimes it is better to be rational than reactionary.

I think a lot of the anti-immigrant sentiment that exists is the result of middle class people feeling uneasy and squeezed. That anger gets projected onto the immigrants that don't really have a means of speaking up. Conveniently, immigrants become scapegoats for nearly every ill: terrorism, expensive healthcare, taxes, crime etc.

Phoenix Union Update

This letter to the editor was in Today's Republic. It lays out what I suspected and speculated about in an earlier post. How dumb is it to cut teachers out the of the discussions about curriculum?

Income Inequality

This guy is brilliant. His articles on inequality and tax cuts are right on the money. I don't understand why we don't have more of these sorts of reasoned discussions.

I cannot confirm, but...

I read this on Rum, Romanism and Rebellion about SEIU gaining recognition in Pima County. I hope it is true... It is good to see active unions in Arizona. It cannot help but to change the political environment. This would be the first county government in Arizona to unionize. Hopefully, this is just the begining. Surely, a least a couple other counties should be ripe for this sort of thing? I am looking at you Coconino...

Trotting out the old canard...

The canard about teachers unions being the root of all evil has been around for a while. The Republicans worked very hard to create it and unfortunately it has stuck. There is this ridiculous article in the Republic today. Before I get into this I would like to say a couple of things about our esteemed paper of record:

1. The Republic has some obvious bias. The first is for old style moderate Republicans (see Grant woods). I think they look back wistful to the good ole days when they were a more powerful cog in the (Republican controlled) power structure. The moderate Republican power structure is dead in Arizona (see Grant Woods). There are a variety of reasons that moderate Republicans are irrelevant. The first is that they are irrelevant pretty much everywhere. The GOP is no longer a moderate party. The clean elections system in AZ has also given a stronger voice to activists and pushed the party even further right. Last, but not least was the Republican purge of moderates from the legislature in 2004, like Slade Mead.
   
2. They still trumpet anti-union sentiment without much thought. After all, even moderate Republicans hate unions.

Now, back to the supposed fight between the Teachers Union and this supposed near perfect superintendent. First, nearly all administrators/managers hate unions because they are a check on their power. I would argue an important check on power. Workers don't form unions when everything is peachy in the workplace. They are formed when workers feel like they have no voice. Contrary to popular belief, most workers vote for unions for a voice in the workplace, not for more money. The teachers union has a very high percentage of members within that district which is a testament to the desire of the workers in a right to work state. Teachers first and foremost want to do their job, which is to educate children. The unions are all about making sure they can do that. There are of course disagreements about certain issues, that is to be expected.

I have a real problem with the implication that newly elected board members are somehow under the control of the union because of their endorsement. Contrary to popular belief, union endorsements are often meaningless. Without resources to back endorsements they are especially meaningless. SO, that being the case, show me the disclosures where the union spent large amounts of money to elect these people.

Or better yet, tell the most likely story. Mavrick superintendent comes into a school district to try to fix things and does some good things and bad. In the process, he run roughshod over the teachers in the district and unites them. The teachers then use the only recourse at their disposal (their union) to protect themselves and their ability to properly do their jobs. After the teachers start pushing back the administrator gets upset because we live in a democracy and he lost the election (and how could this happen because he is infinintely wise. How could the people not see it? Boooo hoooo). The bottom line is that good relations with your staff is part of the job. You cannot keep everyone happy, but if a majority are unhappy you are not doing your job...

Minimum Wage Part II

The rightwing seems really concerned about the developmentally disabled and the Minimum Wage increase. There was this in the Republic today from Robert Robb (sorry for the huge block quote):

The controversy over whether the severely disabled can be paid less than Arizona's new minimum wage contains several public policy lessons.First, government cannot suspend the laws of supply and demand, even in labor markets. At the margins, others will be losing jobs or losing hours of work, principally teenagers and part-time workers, although with considerably less notice and fanfare.Second, the Voter Protection Act is an excessively restrictive straitjacket. While some on the left don't want an exclusion for the severely disabled under Arizona's minimum wage law, as exists in federal law, most would probably think it reasonable. In 1998, however, voters approved an initiative saying that the Legislature cannot change what the voters approve, except by a three-fourths vote and only to further the purpose of what the voters approved. The latter is impossible to divine, so the Legislature is effectively precluded from doing what most would find reasonable in this case.Third, enforcing laws should be left to the government. The Industrial Commission has urged providers to continue to employ the severely disabled, saying that it won't take enforcement action against them at this time.That, however, hardly gets providers off the hook. The initiative allows private civil suits to enforce the law, with treble damages. So, the assurances of the Industrial Commission are basically meaningless.

It is interesting to me in a lot of ways how the Right is suddenly concerned with the less fortunate (but only the portion that helps their pet cause, see developmentally disabled, but not working poor). The question I have is do we really want to see the legislature with the power to make these sorts of changes to initiatives? I don't think so... The initiative process is a mixed bag for sure, but it serves both sides well. In my book if anything at various times annoys the Right and the Left it might not be so bad.

Also, where is the comprehensive study that shows that "governments cannot suspend the laws of supply and demand, even in labor markets"? I am not saying that supply and demand can be suspended, but the government tries to ameliorate the affects of the market all of the time(see mortgage deduction or almost any tax deduction or student loans) Where is the study that supports the assertion of large job losses among (gasp) teenagers? Show me the study where having a poverty wage as the minimum causes major societal problems. I guess I just don't get it and have not seen any data to back up their cause...

It is interesting that coupled with the complaints above about the leg. not being able to change voter passed initiatives, there is bill circulating to effectively take the initiative power out of the hands of the people. It is interesting to me how the Right can be so short-sighted (maybe the left too occasionally). If the Rs succeed in their efforts they will eventually have to live with a Democratically controlled legislature with the same power (with the six new seats in the house, we are only 3 seats away?). It seems like the same issue in the Bush administration with executive power. How will Republicans feel if Hillary Clinton has the executive authority that Bush exercises? I don't think it is healthy for either of them to have it...

CEO pay out of control

Do you ever get the feeling that we have returned to the Gilded Era? It seems that everyday there is another story of a crappy CEO getting a huge compensation package. I experienced this first hand going through a merger at a former employer. The new CEO took over a profitable, albeit conservative company and all of the sudden gets a huge compensation package. He then took the company public and proceeded to spend 3 times the company's annual income in one year to increase its market share only to see profits and market share decrease. The company then fired the CFO and hired a new "merger" minded CFO. They sold the company to another troubled company and laid off most of the employees (I was not one of them, luckily).

The problem was that even though the company was not well run, all of the executives received huge retention raises. When the merger occurred the top executives received all of their stock options and two years severance pay. The worst was the CFO who received somewhere around a million stock options for 6 months of work.

The point of all of this is that we have reached a point where executive pay is loony. I don't think it portends well for our society when most people have very little job security and have mostly stagnant wages and CEOs get huge packages not linked to performance. I don't think that most people would object to pay for performance. I think it is time to give stockholders greater control over compensation and eliminate the ability of CEOs to appoint members of corporate boards.

The bigger issue relates to how we protect the middle class and stop the flow of wealth to the top 1% who now control 40% of US wealth. I wish I could find a trend for that number...

Minimum Wage Non-Sense

I have to address the non-sense in the Republic opinion page about the Minimum Wage prop passed in AZ in 2006. This letter to the editor is a prime example of the what passes as logical thinking from the people who have sour grapes over thumpin' the minimum wage opposition received. There was also this article about the supposed awful unintended consequences.

What is most interesting to me is that the best argument of those oppose the minimum wage increase could come up with were some perceived unintended consequences. First, I think that everyone should get the minimum wage, but lets assume that this was a valid unintended consequence. I hate to burst everyone's bubbles, but a lot legislation is poorly written, considered and has considerable unintended consequences(See the Alt fuels debacle or welfare laws insisting fathers live outside the home). Even very good legislation (like the wage increase) has unintended consequences. If you weigh a small group of developmentally disabled people that are generally provided for by the government against the interests of thousands of working poor, I think the decision is a no-brainer.

If this is best you can do, it just further convinces me that the law was well thought out and the right thing to do. Having said that we should do what we can for the people adversely affected by the law...

Paying Businesses to Stay

I have a philosophical problem with governments using tax dollars to convince companies to stay or relocate. This article outlines Phoenix's offer to keep America West/US Airways at Sky Harbor. While I am in favor of keeping them here and I will concede that it is likely that the economic impact of the company is greater than the package, I just know the company is punking us. They have already made the decision as to where they will house their headquarters, but now they want to see what they can get.

I think the worst offender is building sport stadiums. I still cannot believe all the money spent to keep the Cardinals in Phoenix. They are the worst team (perhaps ever) in the NFL and we spent millions of dollars to keep them here. It seems that most of the time, we not only pay for the stadium, but they also raise ticket prices. Now, I could understand if we built a new stadium and we got 3000 $10 tickets per game for the people that paid for the stadium.

I think the only solution to this problem is to outlaw all states and municipalities from using this practice. What do you think?

Cities and Counties Hiring Lobbyists in DC

I will do my best to re-post my comments from earlier. Unfortunately, due to browser issues I have permanently lost my brilliant comments.

I ran across this article today from the Republic. It goes into the various reasons that cities and counties in AZ feel it is necessary to hire people to represent them in Washington. Foolish me, I thought we had representation in Washington. Clearly, having one the "Most effective Senators in DC" doesn't have as many advantages as originally imagined. But what about Saint John, surely he looks out for his home state? Well...he would, but he is too busy running for President (for the past 10 years). What about our highly esteemed (and senior) Congressmen you ask? We all know that Flake doesn't earmark (and I respect that mostly), but what about the rest? Clearly not enough...

In the interest of helping out, here is an idiot's guide to governing for our Congressional delegation (especially our Republican members):

1. You represent constituents, not interest groups.
2. Worry less about scoring points for your party and more about producing for your constituents.
3. Spending more time talking (to wingnut groups or on Fox news) than producing for your constituents may result in losing your next reelection (see JD Hayworth).
4. Being nationally recognized by a wingnut interest group is not necessarily good (see JD Hayworth). Keep your head down and refuse those lobbyist bribes.
5. Arizona tax payers should not have to pony up hundreds of thousands of dollars for representation in Washington. We are already paying you hundreds of thousands of dollars to represent us there and we want our moneys worth.
6. Careless about meaningless legislation (see fetal pain bill) and more about your constituents, state's and country's best interest (in case you forgot we are mired in a two poorly run wars).
7. Sometimes you should do the right thing even if it means not being reelected (I know this is particularly hard to stomach). Most constituents will respect your honest disagreement(no, that does not mean rubber stamp this weeks idiotic Bush Administration policy) .

errr... Google Bomb 2

--AZ-Sen: Jon Kyl--AZ-01: Rick Renzi--AZ-05: J.D. Hayworth--CA-04: John Doolittle--CA-11: Richard Pombo--CA-50: Brian Bilbray--CO-04: Marilyn Musgrave--CO-05: Doug Lamborn--CO-07: Rick O'Donnell--CT-04: Christopher Shays--FL-13: Vernon Buchanan--FL-16: Joe Negron--FL-22: Clay Shaw--ID-01: Bill Sali--IL-06: Peter Roskam--IL-10: Mark Kirk--IL-14: Dennis Hastert--IN-02: Chris Chocola--IN-08: John Hostettler--IA-01: Mike Whalen--KS-02: Jim Ryun--KY-03: Anne Northup--KY-04: Geoff Davis--MD-Sen: Michael Steele--MN-01: Gil Gutknecht--MN-06: Michele Bachmann--MO-Sen: Jim Talent--MT-Sen: Conrad Burns--NV-03: Jon Porter--NH-02: Charlie Bass--NJ-07: Mike Ferguson--NM-01: Heather Wilson--NY-03: Peter King--NY-20: John Sweeney--NY-26: Tom Reynolds--NY-29: Randy Kuhl--NC-08: Robin Hayes--NC-11: Charles Taylor--OH-01: Steve Chabot--OH-02: Jean Schmidt--OH-15: Deborah Pryce--OH-18: Joy Padgett--PA-04: Melissa Hart--PA-07: Curt Weldon--PA-08: Mike Fitzpatrick--PA-10: Don Sherwood--RI-Sen: Lincoln Chafee--TN-Sen: Bob Corker--VA-Sen: George Allen--VA-10: Frank Wolf--WA-Sen: Mike McGavick--WA-08: Dave Reichert

google bomb

--AZ-Sen: Jon Kyl
--AZ-01: Rick Renzi
--AZ-05: J.D. Hayworth
--CA-04: John Doolittle
--CA-11: Richard Pombo
--CA-50: Brian Bilbray
--CO-04: Marilyn Musgrave
--CO-05: Doug Lamborn
--CO-07: Rick O'Donnell
--CT-04: Christopher Shays
--FL-13: Vernon Buchanan
--FL-16: Joe Negron
--FL-22: Clay Shaw
--ID-01: Bill Sali
--IL-06: Peter Roskam
--IL-10: Mark Kirk
--IL-14: Dennis Hastert
--IN-02: Chris Chocola
--IN-08: John Hostettler
--IA-01: Mike Whalen
--KS-02: Jim Ryun
--KY-03: Anne Northup
--KY-04: Geoff Davis
--MD-Sen: Michael Steele
--MN-01: Gil Gutknecht
--MN-06: Michele Bachmann
--MO-Sen: Jim Talent
--MT-Sen: Conrad Burns
--NV-03: Jon Porter
--NH-02: Charlie Bass
--NJ-07: Mike Ferguson
--NM-01: Heather Wilson
--NY-03: Peter King
--NY-20: John Sweeney
--NY-26: Tom Reynolds
--NY-29: Randy Kuhl
--NC-08: Robin Hayes
--NC-11: Charles Taylor
--OH-01: Steve Chabot
--OH-02: Jean Schmidt
--OH-15: Deborah Pryce
--OH-18: Joy Padgett
--PA-04: Melissa Hart
--PA-07: Curt Weldon
--PA-08: Mike Fitzpatrick
--PA-10: Don Sherwood
--RI-Sen: Lincoln Chafee
--TN-Sen: Bob Corker
--VA-Sen: George Allen
--VA-10: Frank Wolf
--WA-Sen: Mike McGavick
--WA-08: Dave Reichert

Sometimes little things piss me off...

I saw this article today about President Clinton and his cosy relationship with the Bush I and II. I do not have a problem with Clinton being pals with Bush, but I have a huge problem with the repeated slandering of Clinton by a Republican consultant, the only person quoted in the article.

How can a reporter really think this is ok? Amazing...

Too little, too late Jan

One of the things that bugs me about politicians is when they wait for re-election to put forward long overdue policies to solve old problems. Good old Jan Brewer has waited two years to begin putting together election reforms that we needed four years ago. Here is an article from the Capital Times about her tepid conversion.

I know that Republicans are loath to take up election reform because current flaws in the system have benefited them, but this is an issue too important to be partisan. Election reform is not about partisan advantage, it is about upholding a fundamental principle within our republic. I can live with Republicans winning elections as long as I am confident in the outcome. There are people that will never be satisfied, but we have a long way to go before we approach perfection.

The voter should always be given the benefit of the doubt. Disenfranchisement should be avoided at all costs. Anyone that shows up at the polls should be able to vote a provisional ballot. Every vote should be counted, even if it does not affect the outcome. Periodic audits of voting procedures should be performed systemically and randomly. Comprehensive election reports should be issued after every election to create transparency. The Secretary of State should be a non-partisan office and should not be allowed to sit on candidate committees. As the chief election officer, the Secretary of State should make every effort to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. Of course, Jan Brewer has so many conflicts of interest that people react like this.

Abramoff

The Republicans in DC have obviously been corrupted by the likes of Abramoff, but how do the Dems use this Culture of Corruption to their advantage? The problem as I see it is that most people view all politicians as being corrupt. Many news reports yesterday failed to mention the Abramoff problem as being primarily Republican. A differentiation has to happen...

I believe that Democrats are more honest than Republicans, but how do we communicate this. The media is generally useless in this regard. This is more important than just political gain in the 2006 election, this is real corruption. Many of these Republican pols are dangerous to our republic. We are looking at wide spread abuse of power, bribery and chicanery. We should be very aggressive about rooting this out of our system because it is the right thing to do.

Election 2006

2006 should shape-up to be a big political year. We have the potential for a significant congressional election. In Arizona, we have Gubernatorial, US Senate, CD 8, AG and Secretary of State races. The governor's race is not looking terribly competitive at this point, the Republicans cannot get their act together. However, I would not anoint the Gov quite yet. There are 11 months between now and Election Day, an eternity in politics. She will have a tough legislative session, but things do look good.

The senate race will be targeted nationally, at least initially. Arizona was supposed to be targeted in 2004, but we saw how long that lasted. Petersen could beat Kyle, but it will take a near perfect campaign by Petersen with Kyle making some significant mistakes. Kyle's numbers do not look great. I suspect that most people do not know the name of their junior senator, let alone have familiarity with his policies.

I have not heard a lot about the AG race. If I were a Republican strategist, I would go after everything, but the Governor. In Arizona, Clean Elections makes taking out incumbents exceedingly difficult, so the Rs would have a tough time.

CD8 looks to have strong candidates on both sides. Gabby Gifford seems to be the presumptive favorite. If her fundraising is as strong as I have heard, she will be very hard to beat, but not impossible. Regardless of the primary outcome, Dems should be assured a good candidate. The Rs cannot say that...


Few people are paying attenation to the Secretary of State race. Jan Brewer has a significant primary challenger in former Phoenix mayor Rimza. I am not sure he can beat her or how that will affect the overall race. My sense is that Brewer is not a particularly good candidate and has made some dumb mistakes, like this . So far the only Dem in the race is Bruce Wheeler. He is a former legislator and Tucson City Council person. He seems like the only person in the race interested in the actual job of Secretary of State. The other candidates are clearly running for higher office. Wheeler has more of a shot than the powers that be in Maricopa give him credit; it is a typical case of no respect for Pima county pols.

Corporate America Run Amock and a Stupid Congress

This story is just another example, albiet a small one of the creeping changes that are happening in the realm of copyright, technlogy and patent law. I attribute these unhealthy changes to a Congress that is at best clueless and at worst are corporate shills, not to mention, a corporate world that sees their customers as something to be controlled.

The DMCA was the first salvo... The problem here is that these laws stifle innovation and destroy the spirit that has made America a leader in technology. If I buy an X-Box and decided to take it apart to see how it works and discover how to load my own software that is not a crime, it is tinkering.

All of this ties in with another idea that I have had for sometime, freedom is always under attack. It is not that today is any worse than any other time. We need to change the way we think of freedom. We should shift the paradigm from complacency to being vigiliant about the forces that are always ready to erode our freedoms.

Change in the blog...

Not that I think anyone is really reading this, but I am going to make a concerted effort to begin covering local issues more. What is going on in the political world of Phoenix, AZ and the rest of the South West.

Currently, there is are city election in Phoenix and Tucson on the Sept. 13th. In Phoenix, I think there will be a non-partisan primary, where a canidate must win a majority of ballots cast to avoid the runoff. In Tucson, there will be a partisan primary by ward in Sept and at-large general election in November.

Coming up in 2006, we have a gubernatorial race, AG, etc. I also hear that Congressman J.D. Hayworth has accepted a job with Fox news and will be vacating his seat. Who will fill it? Rick Romley, perhaps. That would explain his by passing the gov race.

Email me if with any rumors that you may have heard...

Voter Suppression

Voter suppression has been a long-term strategy among Republicans. It is not the reason we are losing, but it can decide close races. In Ohio, I think voter suppression gave Bush a big part of his margin. I am not ignoring the completely lack luster campaign of John Kerry, but voter suppression is insidious. READ THIS

This is not an isolated incidence... There have been numerous criminal and civil cases related to these activities. So, what is the solution? I have a couple ideas... We should push for laws outlawing voter suppression. Not whinny laws complaining about Republicans. We should push for wide-ranging voter protection legislation. It should become central to the Democratic platform. Every legally registered voter has the right to vote, period. Everyone has the right to a provisional ballot. States should be sanctioned for incorrectly purging voter rolls. The burden of proof for removal should be on the state, not the individual. Also, lets get rid of the electoral college. This is not going to happen in the short-term. We should be constantly pushing policies that are part of long-term strategy that is cohesive. We are for individual rights, right to privacy, protecting workers from unfair outsourcing, balancing the budget and catching Bin Laden. We should make the Republicans take stands against people voting and we should publicize their voter suppression strategies.

Cindy Sheehan

I am going to take a different approach on the Sheehan story than most liberal bloggers. Check out this story from the DAILY KOS today. I have a problem with the whole approach of Republicans and some Democrats towards Cindy Sheehan. She is being churned through the Republican attack machine and now Dems are leaping to her defense about whether she changed her story or changed her mind about Bush.

Here is what I have to say, it doesn't matter whether she is inconsistent or whether changed her mind. She is the grieving mother of a dead son. I am sure than she changes her mind 50 times a day about how she feels. I am sure she is beside herself with the senselessness of his death, regardless of the politics involved. I think everyone needs to backoff this poor woman and let her have her say. Everyone needs to forget about the politics and give her the sympathy and understanding she deserves. Shame on the Republicans for attacking her.

How do we communicate their corruption?

Jack Abramoff was indicted today. We have the Downing Street memo and the Republicans coin scandal in Ohio. Repubican corruption is rapant, but how do Democrats make voters see the graft and dishonesty? There are very good reasons for voters to tell Rs to take a walk in 2006, but will they? We went down this road in 2004, but voters decided to keep Bush in spite of his problems.

Once again, we must as a party be more than the anti-Republicans. Don't get me wrong, that does not mean we cannot make the Rs pay for their huge errors in judgement. We have a responsibility to make them pay! But being against the Rs will not be enough...

We must have a unified party message that means something. It has to be a message beyond protecting Social Security and Medicare. It needs to be specific, not just "Hey we are for healthcare." Many voters don't trust us because we don't stand up for our beliefs. If you want to know why many rural and blue collar voters don't like us, it is because we don't stand up for them either. Just look at CAFTA or the Bankrupcty Bill. All else being equal, people will vote values...