Mitchell Trying to Get Reelected

Harry Mitchell is in a tough district and is clearly trying to get reelected. The East Vally Tribune has an article about the bill the recently elected Democratic Congressman from Arizona has proposed.

I think in someways it is a good proposal. I have wondered for a while why the estate tax is not graduated. There are two problem that I see, one the proposal is DOA and two, we need the money. I know it is not popular to talk about, but the Federal Government is headed towards bankruptcy. Our third largest expenditure is the interest on the federal debt around $300 Billion a year. The Bush administration has made this problem much worse with their tax-cut and spend policies. In the end, we may not like tax increases and probable cuts in services, but they are better than insolvency.

The United States public debt, commonly called the national debt, gross federal debt or U.S. government debt, is the amount of money owed by the United States federal government to creditors who hold U.S. Debt Instruments. As of the end of 2006, the total U.S. federal public debt was $4.9 trillion. This does not include the money owed by states, corporations, or individuals, nor does it include the money owed to Social Security beneficiaries in the future. If intragovernment debt obligations are included, the debt figure rises to $8.7 trillion. If unfunded future obligations are added (i.e. Medicare and Social Security) this figure rises dramatically to a total of $59.1 Trillion [1].
In 2005 the public debt was 64.7% of GDP. According to the CIA's World Factbook, this meant that the U.S. public debt was the 35th largest in the world by percentage of GDP.[2] [3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

This is the issue that keeps me up at night...

The Starve the Government Crowd Strikes Again

I wrote about this ballot initiative last week. Here is what really bugs me about trying to freeze property taxes (beyond the mess it has made in California), Arizona is a pretty nice place to live. I have lived in many other states and cities and Arizona despite all of the complaints is pretty well run and efficient. I know it is hard to believe... Sure, Arizona has its problems, but we have ok government services in the cities and we have relatively low taxes. The problem here is the anti-tax crowd really wants no taxes and seems to be rather delusional about the affect. I rather naively prefer an honest debate. Here is the problem, perhaps one of the bigger problems with our system, taxes are divorced from services.

It is a problem when someone proposes a tax cut for property taxes and many voters do not know where the money goes? All they know, is that they are financially squeezed and need some relief. I think a lot more people would be ok with their tax bill (state and local, not federal) or at least make more informed decisions, if they actually had a better idea of what their money buys. I leave out Federal because frankly the Federal Government is a financial mess. I blame both parties for that and hope that some of that will change under a Democratic President and Congress.

Should all ballot initiatives proposing tax cuts be require to have more information about their impact? If a tax is earmarked for certain activities, should that earmark be listed, so voters can more easily make an informed decision? In the end, I think most voters will vote for more services and lower taxes at the same time because the cost of services and taxes required to pay for them are not connected...

Spiffing up the place

I made some significant look and feel changes. I am not sure I like it better yet... I do like to poll and the lefty blogs feed. I have been meaning to do some of these things for a while.

Let me know what you think.

Robert Robb Sure Complains A Lot...

I know I pick on Robb a lot, but I just can't help myself. The truth is that he is more reasonable than most of the columnists at the Arizona Republic. Making fun of most their columnists is not worth the time... Here is his latest column.

In his latest column, he basically complains about the government being, well the government. The simple fact is, for those of you that don't know, the government does a lot of boring stuff. Most of what he outlines is the stuff that government actually does right. They regulate various professions and study problems. Well, we wouldn't want the government to study things :). I get his point, but come-on let's call this what it is, you are a Republican that doesn't like government. You see what you want to see...

I hate to break it too all of you conservatives out there, but big business acts in a very similar way. Work at a fortune 500 company for a few years and see how much time you spend in special committee meetings, conference calls studying problems and endlessly discussing things. It is the reality of large organizations...

One of the things that I find particularly galling is how most people understand so little about the things they desperately oppose. You should read Max Weber and his thoughts on bureaucracy. The simple fact is that government does some things well (and it changes from organization to organization) and not others. It is no different than any other organization in that is goes through cycles of increased efficiency and decreased efficiency. It goes through cycles of innovation and reform and has times of stagnation.

One of the biggest problems in government is the lack of understanding on the part of public officials. I read this book years ago that has case studies of this exact problem (I wish I could remember the name). Basically, you have a professional class that actually runs the government, but every 18 months or so, they have to deal with a political appointee who generally has very little experience and no institutional memory. It makes it particularly difficult to run things efficiently. The result all too often is a repeat of many of the same mistakes. Imagine if your boss changed every 18 months, was very young, inexperienced and felt that they had all answers.

I know I am generalizing, but this is true for many departments at all levels of government.

I Never Thought I would Agree with Wiers, but...

This is another chapter in the Flores saga over English learners funding. What is interesting here is that the judge is trying to hold Jim Wiers and Tim Bee in contempt for not complying with a court order. While I think we should fully fund under the Flores law suit, I am not sure I agree with the judge. I am uncomfortable with the judiciary finding an individual legislator in contempt. I would like to read the actual order to see the judge's reasoning.

Note to the goof balls that run our legislature, there is an easy way out... Fund the english language learning program. It is funny how people against immigration site not learning english as one of their primary concerns, but don't want to fund the program that would most quickly teach kids english.

Dropout Rate, Dropping...

This article in the Arizona Republic outlines the decrease in the dropout rate in AZ. My only question is why did it drop? I am always skeptical of these articles that don't specify the methods for the study or even try to hypothesize why this is happening. Here is to hoping they are right...

What ever happened to increasing the dropout age to 18? Does anyone know?

Here is more

Using Pictures on the Blog...

Does anyone have information on a legal way to post pictures related to stories? I would like to spruce things up a bit by including video and pictures occasionally. Any ideas?

Independent Judiciary Must Be Defended

The Arizona Republic has this article about Arizona's own Sandra Day O'Connor's address to the National Governors association. Our system of government is under assault by the current incarnation of the Republican Party. The President basically ignores the other two branches and at the state level the Judiciary is under constant assault.

I think defending our form of government should become a plank of the Democratic Party platform. What is more American than our form of government? The Constitution is important, separation of powers is important and freedom is important. The best way to fight terrorism is not by destroying our form of government or by trading freedom for a false sense of security, it is to give would be terrorists our middle finger and telling them that no matter what they do, it will not change the way we choose to live.

Large portions of the Republican base were built on hatred for the judiciary, starting with Roe v. Wade. Unfortunately, that wing of the party does not care to protect our system from their ideology. They very simple want to get their way by any means. Our party must stand up for our way life and our form of constitutional government.

UPDATE: There is also this story about O'Connor. We definitely need more civics education....

The Debate: Who is Best for Arizona?

If you did not watch the debate, you should. It was easily the best presidential debate I have ever seen. I am a political junkie, but even I have trouble listening to their ridiculous over rehearsed answers. Don't get me wrong, there are still plenty of over rehearsed answers, but the format is really good. The debate comes on again today on CNN.

Here is my take, I think most of the candidates did incredibly well. I am undecided. I had previously been trying to decide between Obama and Edwards. After the debate, I am having a more difficult time. I am now more open to Hilary, Dodd and Richardson. My decision has gotten harder, but I don't mind. I really like our candidates. I even found Gravel rather entertaining in a Ross Perot sort of way...

So, who is best Arizona? Who is best for the country? Please leave comments...

Just them Vote Eddie Part 2: Union Innovation

There was this editorial on Wed in our ever biased Arizona Republic. What I think is interesting about this is how unions are always criticized for living in the past and being dinosaurs, but when they think of an innovative way to try to convince an employer to allow employees to vote, they are still criticized.

Do not let anyone confuse the issue... This is about voting pure and simple. Bashas doesn't not want to take the chance of letting their employees vote on having a union. It is a tactic used by many employers these days because the NLRB is toothless.

Robb, Please Tell the Whole Story...

Our good friend Robert Robb at the Arizona Republic latest column is about the economic impact of immigrants and undocumented workers. The reason I bring this up is not as much about immigration as it is the incorrect use of statistics. I have a problem with cherry picking data and brushing aside flaws to make an argument.

He makes a rather simplistic assessment full assertions to strengthen his argument, but makes no effort to backup anything with facts. He says:

I understand that the Udall study will be revised to increase the calculated tax contribution from illegal immigrants, but an argument can be made that the current figure is already overstated. It includes not only taxes paid directly by illegal residents but also the taxes paid by others supposedly as a result of their economic activities.

Additionally, education expenses are substantially understated.

Ok, great point, but where is the factual basis?

My other big problem beyond the assertions, is that the review is simplistic. The economics are much more complex than inputs and outputs for government services. In the end, immigrant labor amounts to a subsidy to those who benefit. Housing construction is less expensive, fruits and vegetables are cheaper to produce and so on. You cannot measure the impact of immigration without assessing its true economic impact.

What we are doing is transferring money from government coffers (greater use of government services by immigrants) and from the workers (in the form of depressed wages) to the profit margins of the companies (who use immigrant labor) and into the pockets of everyone who benefits from lower prices. What is bad about the system is that the benefits are unevenly distributed as are the costs. The system is great if you are building a new house or own a landscaping company, but really crappy if you are an unskilled laborer. I am not making a value judgement about immigration or immigrants just trying to state the reality.

As to the overall impact of immigrant labor, I think it is safe to say that we would survive without it. I would probably survive a gun shot to the shoulder or leg, but I prefer to not experience it. Furthermore, it is always easy to dismiss the pain involved with a policy that does not really affect you. How would you transition business dependant on the labor? What about landlords renting to the people you would deport? Would you deport someone with a child that is a US citizen? How about a husband and wife where one is a citizen and the other is not? What if you have a mixed marriage with a citizen and non-citizen with children who are citizens and the non-citizen is the primary bread winner for the family?

Can we get to point where we agree that immigration is not black and white, but many shades of grey?

The Rich Pay too Little in Taxes, Deficits Do Not Matter etc.

So, Bush and Romney's economic advisor thinks that:

...requiring the rich to pay more just because they are rich is little more
than officially sanctioned theft.

He did not say that, but quoted someone else saying it. It is clear to me he wanted to say it. In a time when the disparity between rich and poor is widening, middle class incomes are stagnant and globalization is breathing down our necks, it makes me quite angry to hear someone complain about increasing the top tax rate from 31 to 35%. The simple fact is this, as this inequality increases our society becomes less secure, more violent and worse for everyone.

I understand the inclination to say this is mine, I earned it and keep your hand off. I get it, but this is a larger societal issue. People have to feel that they have a reasonable chance at success and that cannot happen if you cannot get ahead. That cannot happen if people don't have a reasonable chance of buying a home, sending their kids to college and having health insurance. That cannot happen with most of our wealth concentrated among a few people.

We have crises looming over Medicare, deficits, social security and trade imbalance. None of these problems will be easily overcome.

Like it or not for the good of our society the rich must pay more in taxes.

Are Honeybees One of Many Canaries in the Coal Mine?

Slate has this article about honey bees. It makes me wonder what will wake people up. We are already starting to have seafood shortages. Honey bees are dying off. How many lakes and streams in the US have water that is safe to swim in or eat fish from? Or how about this article about the problem with a common chemical in plastics and connections to obesity?

I remember speaking to a bio chemist about 10 years ago on a plane about chemicals in the environment and their dangers. It was a frightening conversation... Basically, we are running a random uncontrolled experiment and we have no idea about the outcome. Are we going to burst into flames one day, probably not, but we will see lots strange things happening that we don't understand. We won't be able to solve many of these problems because of our lack of understanding. I don't want to be alarmist, but I do think we need a new paradigm for considering risks in our environment and pollution.

How do we setup a system where industry will cooperate in finding real answers to the potential dangers of their products? It also makes me wonder if our convenience culture is sustainable over the long term. There was also this interesting and I would argue related article in the Arizona Republic about swimming pools. I used to work in the pool industry and won't swim in a pool now. How will we continue to fill pools if our drought continues? How safe is the chemical brew that people swim in?

I just don't see this as a partisan issue anymore. In the end, we have to find a rational way to deal with the environmental issues that will face us in the future. We have to find ways to avoid being overly punitive while still protecting ourselves. Overall, I think it is a tough sell, but one that is necessary.

The Republican Coalition is Falling Apart: Part 2

Last week, I wrote a post about the Republican Party's troubles because of immigration. I had a couple of people (one that posted) write me with quizzical responses. Here is another example of the R's coalition breakdown in Arizona. Now we have Russel Pierce considering a challenge to Jeff Flake. It is not like Flake is some sort of liberal. He is a hard-core conservative Republican. Also, think back to the CD 8 race last year with Randy Graf and Gabby Giffords. The civil war is on...

Immigration is an unsolvable problem for the Republicans. Either way they are likely to lose. The simple fact is that parties go through periodic restructuring of their underlying coalitions. The Democratic Party saw this happen starting in 1980 and ending 1994 with loss of many working class white voters and the South. I would argue that Republicans are moving through this kind of transition. They have lost most the North East and the Mountain West is trending away from them. It will be impossible to build a coalition with hard-core anti-immigration activists, Wall Street Journal Republicans and Hispanics. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Earmarks: Saint McCain and Flake need to wakeup

I have some respect for Jeff Flake and his crusade against earmarks and government waste. First and foremost, I believe in fiscal prudence by the government. I think we should be required to have a balanced budget every year. The problem I have with Flake and McCain's stand is that their constituents pay taxes to the Federal Government and it the job of every Congressman and Senator to bring some of that money home in the form of reasonable projects (I think we all know reasonable when we see it).

There is a big difference between a bridge to no where and securing additional transportation funding for a growing state like Arizona. The East Valley Tribune has this article. The money quote is from our good friend Harry Mitchell:

Historically, Arizona has not received a fair share of federal funding on several fronts, including money for highway and wastewater infrastructure, Mitchell said. In some instances, some federal funding formulas are based on U.S. Census Bureau counts that are decades old and don’t reflect Arizona’s population growth. As a result, Arizonans pay more into federal tax accounts than they receive in benefits.“Think about this: Arizona has been a donor state,” said Mitchell, whose 5th Congressional District includes Tempe, Scottsdale, Ahwatukee Foothills, Fountain Hills and part of Mesa.“In terms of highway funds, we get 92 cents back on every dollar,” he continued. “That’s not right. Now, you can call it an earmark or not. But I think the very fact that there are projects that are going to be funded, the money is there, that the residents of Arizona have as much right to get some of their tax dollars back as residents of any other state.”

Redistricting Schools: Good? Bad?

So, there is an effort afoot in the Maricopa to merge school districts. The idea is to create more efficient and cost effective districts, essentially to get more money in classrooms and pay teachers more. Please don't take my explanation as an endorsement, I am not sure where I stand. The Arizona Republic has this article in today's paper. When I first read about this it sounded like a good idea at least in theory. After reading the article today, I am not so sure... Teachers oppose it and parents from both poor and wealthier districts oppose it. It specifically talks about the Madison district, which is excellent and some of the poorer districts (Balz, Wilson, etc). Their reasoning seems quite sound. That is enough to give me pause.

Plus, why is the head of a financial company leading this effort? What expertise could he possible have when it comes to education? Can anyone out there shed more light on all of this? Do we really want greater efficiency at the cost of disrupting districts that are currently excelling?

The Republican Coalition is Falling Apart

The Arizona Republic has a great article about how business interests (that almost always support Republicans) are creating political action committees to go after the very Republicans who passed the employer sanctions law. It is certainly a good thing for us...

You reap what you sow...

Robert Robb has an interesting column in the Arizona Republic today about some particularly bad Supreme Court and Appeals Court decisions. To me, Robb seems like a fairly reasonable guy and I certainly agree with his assessment, but he is partly responsible for the very things he is criticizing. He is not a neocon whack job, but he is a good Republican who has supported the President every step of the way. Here is the difference between myself and Mr. Robb, I love my country more than my party and I would not support appointing judges willing to gut our constitutional rights. To me it would not matter how politically advantageous it would be for my side.

Fundamentally, we have to be about something as a country. I have always felt that freedom was central to that something. I am not talking about bumper sticker notions of freedom. Like we support the troops because they are fighting for freedom. No, I am talking about supporting the constitutional rights of someone you loath. I would fight just as hard to ensure that Pat Robertson's free speech rights were protected as my own.

That is the problem with support for the current administration, it transcends party. The Bush Administration is radical and has view of our country that is truly different. The have undermined many of our most valued institutions (the military, the constitution, separation of powers, accountability, separation of Church and State and on and on).

It is too bad that the Republican Party is no longer the party of Mr. Robb or Barry Goldwater for that matter... It is time for Republicans who believe in the key pieces of our Constitional Republic to say enough is enough. It is time to isolate and marginalize this President to the point where he can do no more harm.

Come on Guys, Really, You Didn't Read the Bill?

I wrote about this stupid bill that passed the Arizona Legislature a while back. I understand the sentiment behind not allowing soldiers names to be used without their families' permission. The simple fact is that legislators at their best are supposed to protect our freedoms even when it might be unpopular. I don't expect the soldier's family to be rational when they just lost a loved one, but legislators should take a longer view.


A bill aimed at trying to silence one guy making t-shirts should make anyone pause. Clearly no matter how the bill was put together, it was a violation of the First Amendment. The simple fact is that you all voted for it because you were afraid not to. I get that, it is political reality, but don't give me the babe in the woods act about not knowing what is in the bill. You cannot have it both ways (I am talking to you Prezelski and Sinema in particular), I would expect you to know better. BTW -- I know you guys don't read the bills, but really, admitting it in the newspaper? Really disappointing...

Wade Leaving State Chair Position: Good For All the Right Reasons

I know a lot of the activist community was upset by Waid's stint as party chair, but I have to say that for the most part I wasn't one of them. This article from the Arizona Republic goes into the details of why he is leaving.

Here is how I see things, the State Party is in good shape. We picked up a handful of leg seats, reelected the Governor, AG and picked up two Congressional seats. While Wade cannot claim credit for all of that, I feel certain that without a well run party none of it would have happened (especially at the Leg.).

In the end, he leaves the party in good shape and we get a top-notch consulting firm. Tom Ziemba and David Wade are both very good political people and the state is lacking a really strong Democratic Consulting firm. So, I think this is good for everyone...

Moore and Gupta: Welcome to Mainstream Journalism

There has been a lot of hullabaloo in the blogosphere about CNN's Gupta criticizing Michael Moore's Sicko. The video is here. I don't really see what everyone one is upset about. Yes, it was mildly unfair and had a factual mistake, but lets face it, on the whole this story was probably above average in fairness and accuracy. That doesn't speak very well for the state of journalism, but this was no hit piece. This was just your garden variety slightly snarky, smug, mostly factual report... They couldn't say that Sicko was factual, what kind of story would that be? ;)

Where is Nancy Reagan when you need her?

You have to be kidding, Just Say No, Kids... Seriously, is this the best Arizona can do?

Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid...

The local (probably helped by National) anti-tax groups in Arizona have filed this initiative to limit property taxes. So, what is the problem? After all, nobody likes paying property taxes. There are a couple of problems: 1. It did not help California keep property taxes under control. Instead of costs being evenly distributed, they are now heaped on new home owners. When my wife sold her house in California she was paying $1100 a quarter. I am not kidding... Her taxes were outrageous. The fact is that newly developed areas are limited in their property taxing authority, so they add other assessments and fees to make up for it. The net result is that when you buy a new house you get lots of fees that older home owners avoid. It is like rent control, great if your rent is controlled, but really sucky if it is not. 2. The California educational system was severely hurt by their property tax changes. 3. This is why we have elections. Why should someone tell me or my community the level of services that can be provided. Our system is already self-regulating. If taxes get out of control, we can defeat the people responsible and roll back assessments. Some municipalities want more services than others. They will have higher taxes than other communities.

Also, Arizona has really low property taxes. I have relatives in Florida that were amazed and jealous when I told them what I pay in property taxes. Furthermore, if you read the article above, we already have several laws or constitutional amendments dealing with this issue. The fact is that this a solution seeking a problem, not the other way around.

I wish I knew what was being done to defeat this... What a bad idea.

Pope Declares One True Church, Can You Guess Which One?

I have to preface this by saying that I was born and baptised Catholic. In fact, I was supposed to be a priest (and those of you out there that know me, know that I find that funny too). I am now a fairly ardent (albeit still open minded) atheist. At any rate, the older I get the more I just find this kind of stuff amusing.

The AP article is here. So, the Pope has declared the Church that he is head of the one true church? Imagine the controversy if he would have declared the Southern Baptist Convention the one true church.

David Cross has a great bit about how the connections between religion and D & D can be quite striking at times. Sorry all you religious people out there, but I don't know how you take this stuff seriously. UPDATE: Here is the David Cross link.

But what do I know? I am just a sarcastic lapsed Catholic.

The Senator from Louisiana visits a Hooker. Who could have guessed?

So, apparently David Vitter (R) Louisiana has been seeking the company of high dollar hookers in DC. It is unfortunate that Louisiana is one the few states that will probably just let it slide. I was really hoping for Joe Lieberman or John Kyl... Oh, well one can dream. The article is here

UFCW and Bashas: Eddie just let them vote

If I shopped at Bashas I would stop... (Sorry I don't have a Bashas nearby). This article from the Republic goes into some of what is going on. Basically, UFCW is trying to organize Bashas, Food City and AJ's and Bashas (the parent company) is being anti-union.

UFCW has decided to use other tactics to try to embarrass Bashas and apply pressure. Unfortunately, this is what union organizing has come to because the National Labor Relations board is a joke. At this point, there is almost no protection for workers wanting to organize. I know it seems simplistic, but why can't the workers at Bashas have an up or down vote on the Union without a lot of interference?

Bashas claims that workers don't want the union, so put your money where your mouth is, let them vote.

John McCain, Dead-ender?

Here is more evidence that Saint John may be going down. I must say that I have spent a lot of time looking at John McCain's campaign and wondering what the Hell they are thinking, apparently I am not the only one...

UPDATE --> This account is also intesting...

Lead, Crime and Rudy G

This article from the Washington Post goes into the links between lead poisoning and crime. What is so fascinating about it, besides bringing reality to some of Rudy Guiliani's claims about reducing crime in New York, is how the Guiliani people were so quick to dismiss what seems to be strong scientific work. I know they are in the midst of a political campaign and without Rudy's mythology on crime and 9/11 he has very little cache, but this is precisely the kind of information that policy makers should use to make policy decisions.

For instance, if we know that adolescents with a history of lead poisoning are much more likely to commit violent crime and older criminals that were exposed to lead are more likely to be recidivist criminals it should inform our policies towards those people. Maybe a history of serious lead poisoning should be considered in parole?

It just goes to show that being tough alone is not enough to fix crime problems, human behavior is much more complex. It also goes to show that toxins in our environment can have unforeseen affects that we should spend more time trying to pin point.

Too Obvious to Deny

While I was reading this article from the East Valley Tribune on the new employer sanctions law, two things came to mind. One, part of the sanctions law passed by the Arizona Legislature should have included a provision to punish employers who mistreat undocumented workers. I think one of the unintended consequence of this law will be to force workers further underground and lead to abuse of workers by unscrupulous employers.

The other idea is where my mixed feeling on immigration come in. Cheap labor is wrecking parts of the economy for a certain class of people in the US. The anger over immigration comes from a lot of sources, many of them unjustified. However, many of us on liberal side of the spectrum forget the affect immigration has on workers that are not college educated or highly skilled. This is a real problem...

There are many potential solutions: Provide easier access to education and skilled training programs, apply the minimum wage to undocumented workers, etc. The point is that if we want cheap labor, we must find ways to take care of our displaced fellow citizens. At the same time, we cannot tolerate racist, demonizing or inhumane treatment of immigrant laborers.

Oh, and one last thing, I am really sick of hearing that immigrants are doing the work that Americans do not want to do. I think this quote says it all...

The law could have a chilling effect on the state’s entire economy, warned Elliott Pollack, one of the state’s top economists. The law will certainly make it harder for the agricultural and hospitality industries that depend on illegal immigrants to fill jobs. This will force businesses to pay more for employees living here legally, he said. And that extra cost will be passed on to consumers.

Would that really be so bad?

Employer Sanctions and Law of Unintended Consequences

Here is an interesting article that gives details about the funding of the new employer sanctions law passed by the Arizona Legislature. I will give you one guess about whether our legislature properly funded the bill. Of course not... I know that many of you out there are against the legislation and I am frankly not sure myself, but here is the problem. Uneven enforcement of this type of law is worse than no enforcement especially in the hands of our good friend Andrew "I am nut" Thomas.

Here is the problem as I see it. Many businesses rightly or wrongly rely on immigrant labor. They are not likely to change their business practices without fear of a likely enforcement action. Imagine you own a business that relies on inexpensive labor to be competitive, you face a choice: comply with the law and see your business become less competitive or ignore the law and gamble on the lack of enforcement.

The lack of funding also sets the scene for selective enforcement. Imagine you live in a place where the Sheriff and the County Attorney care more about publicity than actual law enforcement. Add a County Attorney that wants to run for higher office. Mix in a couple of million dollars for enforcement of a law that affects 10% of our workforce and what is a likely outcome? A few unfortunate people (probably running small businesses) will feel the brunt of the law, will be marched out in front of the cameras (while the biggest offenders in the Wall Street Journal wing of the Republican Party laugh at the poor suckers without connections) and in the end, the law will not change behavior in any significant way.

It just goes to show that most Arizona Republicans are all flash and no substance...

The beginning of the end for Saint McCain?

Let the meltdown begin... Just goes to show how narrow the Republican Party has become and how long a memory activists can have... I have to say that McCain's strategy has seemed untenable to me for a while.

Phil Gordon: Arizona's Joe Lieberman

I have written about his before, but what is Phil Gordon thinking? This is the latest article outlining his questionable behavior. I think this quote sums up what is wrong with Phil:

"Mayor Gordon is an opportunist," said Dan O'Neil, state coordinator for Progressive Democrats of America. "He should change his ways, or join the other party."

Sadly, I think Phil just wants to be elected and will do anything to make sure it happens. Well, Joe, ah I mean Phil, there will be hard times when you run for Governor... Just remember that we told you so.

This is why Republican Government Theory Doesn't work...

I consider Gilbert, Arizona my special hobby. I don't know why I find it so fascinating, but I do. Gilbert could go several different ways: the Mesa model, the Chandler model or something else. The Mesa model is as little government as possible and a lot of right-wing think tank experimentation. It also includes a healthy dose all taxes are bad and people will always vote against them. BTW, Mesa is in very bad financial straights as a result of its policies and it is probably the ugliest valley suburb (they don't like zoning either).

Then there is Chandler, far from perfect, but well run. Chandler keeps their taxes relatively low, but not that much different from the rest of the valley. The one thing that separates Chandler from Mesa (they are both heavily Republican and right-wing) is that the City Council and Mayor are realistic about what cities need to provide for quality of life and for having a sustainable tax base. BTW, many political people in the East Valley refer to Chandler as the "People Republic of Chandler" because of their supposedly liberal policies, like having a property tax.

That leads me back to Gilbert. They are having a problem with the huge amount of trash being generated by their bulk pickup system. I think this is a good example of the problems with the governing theory that currently dominates the Republican Party.

How does a Republican solve the following problem without breaking orthodoxy: Too much trash costs the city too much money for pickup, storage and the long-term viability of landfills. Raising taxes to pay for the additional needs? We know the answer to that... All taxes are bad. OK, how about instituting more recycling and restricting what can be thrown out? We all know that is a bunch of whiny tree hugger non-sense. How about a user fee? User fees are just a fancy way of saying tax. That pretty much leaves you with cutting programs (either the trash pickup or some other cuts).

I hope that did not come across as overly simplistic, but I think you can see where this is going... Reality trumps theory often.

Presidential Primary Calendar, maybe a different scenerio?

So, everyone is grousing about the new primary setup . I have read the complaints in so many places that I cannot count them all. The operating theory is that we will have a few early primaries, then the big one and everything will be over after that... Really? I can see a distinctly different scenario as a possibility.

I have worked on enough campaigns to know how they are thinking right now. It is not rocket science to think that the top-tier and second-tier will start sifting through polling and look at their fundraising numbers and start choosing targets. I am not sure that Clinton or Obama with their vast sums of money can compete in a nation-wide primary.

Here is the possibility that I see. Imagine Edwards continues his current path and goes after Iowa, Nevada and South Carolina (wins 2 or 3). Obama goes after 5 or 6 states (wins say 4). Hillary competes everywhere and comes in second a lot (she still gets delegates in second) and leads the delegate count. I would not be surprised if Richardson won a couple... This could break out many ways, but over in a day is not the only one.

Conventional wisdom is politics is a funny thing, it is always right, well until it isn't...

Hedge Funds, why you should know more about them...

I know, I know, your eyes glaze over and you want to fall asleep when someone even mentions for the phrase hedge fund. I am sure you have heard it and most of you have no idea what they are and why they exist. While I am no expert, I will do my best to explain what they do and why they are important. Basically, hedge funds are largely unregulated investment vehicles used by large investors (investment banks, the super rich and such).

The good part is that they can make huge amounts of money, but they can also be very risky. Here is the problem, there is an incentive for many of these institutions to invest in hedge funds because of their very large returns. This increases risk in four ways: 1. Many of these investments are not well understood even by the investors. There is a huge amount of risk to our financial system by mainstream institutions being too heavily invested (think 1920's stock market crash). 2. The vast amounts of money and secretive nature make them more conducive to market manipulation. 3. They are basically unregulated. 4. There is pressure from institution to institution to be competitive. If one bank sees a 20% return a year over 5 years by using a risky hedge fund, it becomes increasingly difficult for other institutions to continue to invest more conservatively.

The other problem is that they are running out of large investors to invest in their funds and are starting to look at upper middle class people to fuel continued growth. This presents huge problems...

Here is the key, don't think of hedge funds like a mutual fund. They can literally invest in anything, which means they can invest in things like subprime mortgages (AZ Republic). Look at the example of Conseco Insurance which went bankrupt because of risky subprime lending(although this is not hedge fund related per se, it shows the danger of these schemes). Of course, who can forget when Orange County California went bankrupt because of derivitives investing, which is used in a lot of hedge funds. How about the case of Metallgesellschaft AG of Germany and Barings PLC of England both losing over a billion dollars in the derivatives market in a very short time. At Barings, the trader hid the loses for fear of losing his job... derivatives can be highly profitable, but extremely risky. Derivatives can be almost anything and are frequently so complex that you need a math professor to explain them (seriously...).

This quote from the AZ Republic article sums another area of risk:

"Wall Street firms and money center banks financed the leveraging up of hedge funds that purchased the exotic and illiquid fixed-income securities produced by the very same Wall Street firms and money center banks," he said in a note to
clients.Given the already apparent fallout in the subprime mortgage market, lending standards have shot up and the market for such investments has deteriorated. But that won't erase what already is out there, which is ugly and could get worse.

At the heart of this is a difference of opinion between the belief that market is inherently rational or whether society has an interest in protecting the public from some of the irrational behaviour that crops up from time to time that could disproportionally hurt unsuspecting members of the public. There is also the issue of bailouts paid with tax dollars that would be sought after a meltdown.

There are a few things here that I think are germane: 1. The market can be irrational in the short-term which can cause a lot of pain to the general public. We should do a cost/benefit when considering regulation of markets with a bias towards the public interest. 2. Industry cannot seek to kill regulation and expect bailouts when they lose a bet. 3. There is a national security aspect to this that is not being addressed. Many of these hedge funds are being heavily funded by people like the Saudis and the Chinese are entering the private equity market. Investment is good, but we should do our best to control risks to our economy.

That is it for my borefest of an entry...

Arizona is not last, WOO HOO!?!?!

I have a running joke about how every state I have lived in (4, so far) has been last in education (some at the same time). I am normally very skeptical of rankings for a variety of reasons:

1. News organization seem to be willfully ignorant of how statistics and data work.
2. Studies are at times willfully misleading.
3. People misconstrue or take studies out of context
4. News organizations only seem to cover the state ranking when we are near the top or near the bottom.

Having said all of that, these rankings for health care by state seem to be pretty good. Arizona is near the middle which is what I would expect... I still cannot believe that Arizona is last in anything (everybody knows the Alabama and Mississippi are last in everything, but literacy, life expectancy and church attendance, btw I am from the South so I reserve the right to make fun of my beloved home. Seriously, I kid Alabama and Mississippi, but I love Tuscaloosa and Gulf Port).

At any rate, if you are sick Hawaii seems like the place to be (it is probably the place to be no matter what).

Flores and why the Right are a bunch of hypocrites

The Arizona Republic has this article about the Flores case. I am not going to rail against the stupidity of the legislators over this case, although it is rail worthy. What struck me as I read this was how the right ignores reality and pushes toward hypocrisy.

For example, on teenage pregnancy they don't want sex education (where they actually teach about sex), they insist on abstinence only education (fantasy land). On abortion, for the most part the right-wing doesn't actually want to take actions that would decrease the number of abortions (like supporting children and single mothers or providing adequate birth control). Instead they just want abortions to stop (fantasy land). We are clearly losing the war in Iraq, but instead of admitting mistakes and adjusting (not now, 2 years ago), they just think they can will victory through some combination of getting tough, taking the gloves off, sending more troops or praying to Jesus (fantasy land). I could go on...

I know this idea of the right being divorced from reality is not new, but how do we as a community combat it (or explain it and understand it)? The petulance of our legislators is just another case of this divorce from reality. They want English to be the official language. They insist that immigrants are not doing enough to learn English, so what do they? Shut down adult language education and under fund programs for kids trying to learn English (don't even get me started on deporting 12 million people). They always say they want to run government like a business, but no business would operate this way and survive...

Trying to Save our 'Flagging' Educational System

This article in the Arizona Republic addresses the law passed by the legislature requiring all classrooms 7th grade and up to display the American flag, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. So what is wrong with that you ask? Nothing really... The irony is that it was passed as an unfunded mandate. Arizona spends less per pupil than every state except Utah and now we have to spend money buying flags and documents for every classroom.

If this is so important, the state should pay for it. One other problem I have is rather than just displaying them, why not require civics classes every year through college graduation? I think it is that important...

Imagine a world where nearly every kid in high school could explain the intricacies of the electoral college or why the Fourth Amendment is important or even better what the courts have decided is the true meaning of the Second Amendment (btw there is no constitutional right to bear arms unless you are a well regulated militia). That is practically paradise ;)

Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics

There are many times that I wish I had more free time for research. This article from the Arizona Republic goes into a dubious on its face analysis of wage figures in and out of the Federal Government (they did not see it as dubious btw). Basically, the article compares salaries in the private sector (the entire private sector) against wages through the Feds. Surprisingly, with the help of the Heritage Foundation (wink, wink) they found that government employees make vastly more money than private sector workers.

On its face, this is wrong in sooo many ways. First, comparing the entire economy of an area to Federal employees is dubious at best because many lower level government jobs have been outsourced. There are very few janitors (or landscapers or dishwashers or cashiers...) working for the Federal Government. That is obviously not true for the private sector. Second, the article cherry picks areas around the country with highly skilled workers in professions like engineering and compares them to the whole economy.

More than half the workers in Martin County, Ind., for example, are employed at a Navy base that specializes in developing high-tech weaponry. The average $67,478 federal salary there is more than twice the average private-sector pay for that county.

Well I can't imagine why that would be?!?!?! I can't image a bunch of engineers and scientists making 67 k a year, that is unprecedented. So, should we pay them much less than that? Don't we need high-tech weaponry in places like, ahh I don't know, Iraq?

Well I have a counter example, I did an analysis of the salaries of a group of people belonging to the Business Roundtable. Interestingly, my analysis found that the average salary of their membership was 400 times the average salary of American citizen. Using that data to extrapolate out, all employees of private business must make vastly more than people in the private sector ;).

Interestingly, in the area where they claim to do job title to job title comparisons (which is extremely difficult to do BTW), they give hardly any information. Certainly not enough information to see how they calculated the salary information.

Here is my favorite quote:

Overall, high government salaries can be a drag on the economy if they attract rank-and-file workers who may be productive elsewhere, said Sherk of the Heritage Foundation."Wages are the way you allocate labor to what needs to get done," Sherk said. "But when government comes in and offers higher wages, then you mess up those economic signals. You direct workers to those occupations, to where their skills are less needed."

The idea that government does not need good people is ridiculous on its face. I want good and highly paid engineers working for the Army Corp of Engineers. I want qualified Project Managers and planners working for FEMA. Regardless of what these right-wing morons think, we need a government that works. Government is necessary for the long-term stability and well being of our nation. We are now competing in a world economy where government, labor and business communities are working hand in glove to make their countries more competitive. We cannot starve our government institutions and expect that we will continue to thrive with only 1/3 of the equation left.

There are lies, damn lies and statistics... And then there is analysis done by the Heritage Foundation.... How does kind of blatant propaganda make it into the newspaper?

Changing Clean Elections

This article in the Arizona Republic outlines some of the changes to the Clean Election law. I don't know about you, but I don't trust the legislature when it comes to making changes to the Clean Elections law. It is no secret that Republicans have wanted to kill the law since voters approved it.

However, (and this is all the information offered) it is supposed to increase the amount of money for state-wide candidates and increase the contribution limit. Without more information it is hard to determine whether this was done right, but both things were probably necessary.

Immigration or slavery?

This article from the Arizona Republic has an interesting bit about some nice white Canadians who might be asked to leave when their visas run out. The immigration issue is particularly hard to talk about and I usually like to avoid it.

I am torn about the issue. On one hand, I live in a neighborhood that is about 50% Hispanic and some are clearly undocumented. As far as I can tell, the ratio of jerk to nice is about like anywhere else.

The problem I have is that we should have a rational policy outlining both what we want and what is realistically possible. I don't think it is healthy for large scale immigration to happen quickly. It causes far too much stress on communities. How do we manage that and still treat the people coming here like human beings who deserve respect?

The really interesting thing in the article for me is the provision in the new immigration bill that makes immigration merit based. I think this is generally a good idea... We should steal the best and brightest from around the world whenever possible, but does that mean that the rest of the immigration will slow down? I don't see how.

Perhaps the scariest thing (this is where my title comes from) is how businesses want immigrants tied to them. I have seen this in action with H1B visas. It is not a good system. I worked with two employees on H1B visas at a previous job. They are what I would call high-end slaves. They are paid below market and made to work longer hours because they do not have options since their employer helped to establish their immigration status.

I cannot imagine how bad it will be for people picking fruit, working construction or processing chickens. The H1B workers are generally doing clerical or technical work. They have a low risk of injury even when they are exploited, but manual labor workers are put in real danger. There is also the problem of no paid time off for people working in kitchens or working with food of any kind. A lot of people get sick because of the poor line cook at Applebee's that doesn't get a sick day...

Tying workers to businesses is a bad idea... How about letting legal workers operate in the labor market like everyone else? Oh, I forgot that would mean businesses could not suppress wages artificially and leave plenty of cash for huge executive compensation packages.

A reader posted this link on H1B visas. This is fascinating and scary stuff. Everyone should take a look...

Republic Resident Robb Misguided toward Reid

I apologize for the alliteration, but I couldn't resist. So our resident dying breed moderate Republican, Robert Robb (Arizona Republic) wants to blame Reid for the failure of the immigration bill here. It is an interesting theory and by interesting I mean wrong and kind of stupid. Maybe (I don't want to go out on a limb here), it is the fact the Republicans are apoplectic about immigration in general? Maybe it is the fact Mr. Robb, that your party is filled with extremists that long ago stopped being rational actors intent on improving their country. Maybe, Reid would not have to pull the bill if a couple more Republican votes could be wrangled, but we all know the chances of that... Your party would rather operate in the world of myth: evolution is just a theory, global warming doesn't exist, deficits don't matter, we are winning the war in Iraq and we will just deport 12 million people because they are "law breakers". Your party's simplistic view of the world is the problem. Instead of attacking Harry Reid for trying to do the right thing and carry your President's water on the issue (because Republicans could not pass it during nearly six years of one party rule), maybe Mr. Robb you should look inward. The Republican Party is broken and to use the parlance of your party, bad for America. This was not always the case, but certainly is now...

Maybe there should be a law?

I found this amusing (I am clearly easily amused..) So, Jan Brewer's son was fooled into signing a petition for a ballot initiative under false pretenses. If the SoS's son cannot be educated about these things, maybe, just maybe there is a bigger problem or flaw in our system. Note to Jan, I know you are not the most adept public official, but this is what legislation (pronounced legis-lay-shun) was designed for... I know it is hard to believe but there are a group of people who can make these special rules that make it so people are punished when fraudulently collecting signatures.

Jan, we know you are trying your best over at that big office... Hang in there your term is almost over and you won't be elected Governor, so the confusion will soon end.

Just kidding...I kid the our Secretary of State, I am sure she is a fine woman (and not litigious).

Sorry for the Paris reference..

I apologize in advance for referring to Paris Hilton in anyway, but this article brought to mind some interesting thoughts.

I am outraged that she would get out of jail so quickly, but that is not my point. The thing that is interesting to me is how people are surprised that she would get out early. Why are they surprised? Are they surprised because of her celebrity and wealth or is there a disconnect between the people we elect and policies that they advocate and how the policies affect the criminal justice system. I suspect that most people assume she is getting special treatment and maybe she is, but from what I have read it is not unusual for people to only be incarcerated for 10 to 15 % of their sentence. California's system is overcrowded and she is not a signficant danger to anyone except maybe paparazzi.

What I am getting at, is that there is a big disconnect between ideology and reality. Everybody wants to be tough on crime (except criminals, I suspect), but what does that really mean from a policy perspective. There is a constant tension between mandatory minimum sentences, tougher sentencing guidelines, increases in the number of non-violent drug offenders in jail and finite funding for prisons.

Here is the problem, we cannot put everyone in jail because we cannot afford it. I am frustrated that voters and politicians don't think through the consequences of specific policy prescriptions. I used to think politicians knew better and were avoiding complexity for soundbites and getting relected, but increasingly I think that most politicians are ignorant of the true affects of their policies.

How many people know what percentage of our taxes dollars go to prison building? How does spending on prisons compare to educational spending? Would people rather keep a non-violent drug offender in jail or have more money per student for education (or a bigger tax cut for you supply siders out there).

As I always talk about, policies have consequences and there are always winners and losers. How do we install in the electorate the concept that many problems are intractable, like fighting terrorism or a war on drugs or poverty? We still must address these problems, but they cannot be solved, only managed. How do we bring realism to our policies? Is it even possible? Wow, this is a long way from Paris... Have a fun time in jail BTW...

Crime rate up, but I already knew that...

This article in the Arizona Republic presents both sides of the crime statistics debate. While it is good to see a newspaper that gives a balanced view of statistics, it has been my experience in the last year that crime in Phoenix is up. For me, (and yes this is anecdotal) the increase in crime is palatable.

My neighborhood and most of central Phoenix have seen major increases in small property crime and graffiti. I think these are the early signs of the increased gang activity mentioned in the article. Last week, I saw several instances of graffiti in the Arcadia and the Biltmore areas, both pretty swanky areas. My middle income neighborhood has seen a major increase in graffiti and small property crime. This has been a battle for several years. The graffiti goes up and city tries to paint over it. Unfortunately, the city seems to be falling behind. For the most part in previous years, Phoenix was able to get rid of graffiti in 48 hours. I am now seeing the same graffiti for weeks.

This is the kind of butter and butter issue that government needs to address and quickly. Studies have shown for sometime that one way to combat violent crime and property crime is to avoid blight. Well, this is a reelection year for the Phoenix Mayor and City Council, what is your plan? How do we address this issue before it gets worse?

UPDATE: Arizona/Cali power scheme dead

The Corporation Commission smartly put the kibosh on California's plan to siphon Arizona power. Here is the article from the Arizona Republic.

Arizona sticks its head in a hole in its green and lush lawn

Like most Arizonians, I was not born here. I moved here because of my love for the desert. I have always been amazed at the disconnect between the environment in which we live and the use of resources like water. This article in the Arizona Republic outlines some of why Maricopa and Pima counties differ on water consumption.

I was astonished when I moved to Arizona and found no water use restrictions. I have lived in various cities in the South East and without exception they all had water use restriction of some sort. Keep in mind that most of these cities get a lot of rainfall and are green and lush places.

I know it will anger many of my smug friends from Tucson who think Maricopa County is the root of all evil, but I am not sure Pima County is much better.

Why is any developer able to use grass for landscaping? It would be difficult to eliminate the existing grass, but why can't we eliminate it in new developments? Why do people move here and expect something that the natural environment will not support?

My neighbors were angry when I had the grass removed from my yard. They felt that it detracted from the looks and value of their homes. The only way to make them angrier was when I reminded them that we live in a desert...

The disconnect seems to be so large that I am at a loss as to what should be done...

Update: Arizona apparently not California's bitch

Here is an update from the Arizona Republic about Arizona shipping power to California. Apparently, I am not the only person who thinks this is a bad idea. Most of the the AZ Corporation Commission appears to be against it. Chris Mays had the money quote:

Commissioner Kris Mayes said in her filing that the project would benefit California utility customers at the expense of their Arizona counterparts while harming the environment, particularly the Kofa National Wildlife Refuge, while possibly hampering Arizona's ability to meet its own energy needs.

"California wants to drop a giant extension cord in Arizona and draw out our power," Mayes said. "Arizona's energy future is at issue in this case."

It was pointed out to me yesterday by a reader that it was the utility, not AZ Corporation Commission that wants the change. Thanks for the correction...

It is not dead yet, but here are some pre-kudos for the Corporation Commission. Make us proud, tell California to produce its own power...

Let me get this straight...

Apparently, Arizona is California's bitch... There was this article in the Republic about how Corporation Commission wants to build power transmission lines to California.

So, you might ask yourself what is the benefit to Arizona? As far as I can tell, there is zero upside for us. Our power costs could increase because increased demand for our power in California. They want to build part of the system through a protected wildlife area (bad).

I also cannot help but think about the pollution created in Arizona for power shipped to California. It would create some jobs and that is nice, but does anyone really believe that they want to do this to create jobs? I don't...

More DUI arrests vs. Freedom

This is a continuation of my ongoing rant about the DUI laws. There was this article about increasing the number of DUI checkpoints during the holidays. While catching people drinking and driving is a laudable goal, I still think the Supreme Court got it wrong when they allowed DUI checkpoints. What happened to a "reasonable expectation of privacy" and protection from unreasonable searches under the Fourth Amendment.

I guess I will have to part ways with the Supremes on this. I prefer freedom and constitutional rights to stopping crime through measure such as these. Civil liberties are too important to be overturned to stop a few drunk drivers.

How about we just pull over the people that are swerving a lot ;) OK, I know it is not that easy or funny for people affected by this.

Ever wonder why Maricopa County Hospital Sucks?

I have followed this for a while and cannot figure out why there is not more coverage in the press. Although the story is technical, it is very interesting none the less. Oh, I guess I should explain what I am talking about...

There was this blurb in the AZ Republic about the leg taking funds from Maricopa County hospital, but it does not make much sense without more context.

You can never escape past mistakes. Down at the Legislature, the independent Maricopa County health system is fighting the state over federal funds county hospitals earn but the state keeps. It started years ago when the state needed money. Counties acquiesced, but it's a bad deal. The federal program is meant to reimburse county hospitals for treating the poor, not to pad state coffers.

(written by Richard de Uriarte)

I apologize for taking the whole blurb, but it is necessary here. What is this all about you might ask? The Federal government pays money to public hospitals based on a complex formula to support indigent care and to keep the hospitals that provide it afloat. The funds are called Disproportionate Share Hospital Payments or DSH (pronounced dish)Payments. Basically, they determine how many indigent cases a hospital takes and then they pay the State of Arizona the money to offset the costs. The funds are supposed to be forwarded to the County Hospital, but our legislature keeps them... So, how much money are we talking about? If I remember correctly it was about $32 million in 2004. Now keep in mind that Maricopa County Hospital is basically falling down. There is talk about abandoning the building completely because it is in such a bad state.

The long and short of it is that the legislature is short-changing not just health care for the poor, but also the trauma center and burn unit (which are quite good and important for people in car accidents and the like). I know there is stiff competition for the honor of worst action by our legislature, but this is up there...

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...)