« November 2006 | Main | January 2007 »
I would like to welcome the Alliance For School Choice as the first of what I hope will be many espresso pundit advertisers. Click to enlarge the ad at the left and be sure to visit their website by clicking the link above the ad. If you are interested in posting an ad on espresso pundit, just send me an email.
Is there something about this lede that bothers you?
Money seized from two men who sold bogus body "enhancement" pills is now going to be used to build a much-needed Department of Public Safety crime lab.
Golly, when I was growing up, every Saturday morning I learned about conjunctions and how a bill becomes law. My recollection is fuzzy, but I don't think the three branches of Government were the Governor, the Attorney General and DPS.
The Public Safety Crime lab has been part of a political football game between Governor Napolitano and the Legislature for some time now. The Legislature included authorization for the crime lab in a bill that also included immigration related items and the Governor vetoed it.
The Governor then requested funding for the crime lab in her budget and the Legislature ignored it. Now the Governor is standing in front of the crime lab and announcing that she and the the Attorney General are using money they seized from two guys who sold "enhancement" pills to build the crime lab. Didn't any of the reporters at least bother to ask how she's planning to do that?
Don't get me wrong, there are indeed some funds that are not subject to appropriation. The Tribune's Mark Flatten wrote a great series of stories in the early 1990s about abuses in gathering and spending RICO funds. Those funds could be seized by law enforcement and spent without going through the appropriations process. But selling "enhancement pills" doesn't sound like RICO funds. It sounds like the Consumer Fraud fund--and the Consumer Fraud Fund is subject to Legislative Appropriation.
Here's a troubling quote from the Attorney General. The proceeds of a case usually pay for the investigation first, but in this case the investigation was completed quickly and at low cost, Goddard said. OK, let's say that's true. The proceeds usually pay for the investigation first, but does that mean that if the investigation is cheap the AG and the Governor get to spend the money on whatever they want? Not if the fund is subject to Appropriation.
Why don't we have answers to these questions? Because the folks in the press corps didn't think to ask them. Maybe they should have spent more time watching Schoolhouse Rock.
You will recall that the Governor signed an executive order in 2004 giving exclusive authority over state-issued student loans to two of her biggest supporters who also happen to be the President and immediate past President of the Firefighter's Union.
The Tribune and the New Times were working on the story independently. Here's the original Tribune story.
Now Phoenix New Times has managed to track the money and it seems like some of the initial accounting may have been on shaky ground.
The IRS requires a nonprofit to list its five highest-paid employees, if they earn more than $50,000 annually, and its five highest-paid contractors, if they cross that same threshold. The idea, according to IRS regulations, is to make sure that no one person or company is enriching themselves at the company's expense — and if they are, that it's at least disclosed to the public.
AHELA's initial tax return, filed in June, indicated that it hadn't paid any company more than $50,000 in 2005.
As its amended tax form now makes clear, that isn't true. A Scottsdale company, Cology Inc., was paid $207,000 for marketing. The Greenberg Traurig legal firm was paid $150,000. And RBC Capital Markets, a division of brokerage house RBC Dain, Rauscher, was paid $712,338.
Both Cology and RBC have close ties to the loan authority. AHELA's executive director, Shelly Murphy, worked at Cology just before AHELA hired that company to do marketing. And, as New Times first reported last month, it was an officer at RBC, Chris Hamel, who had the idea of starting the nonprofit in the first place.
Earlier this week, I speculated that the Republic could be up for sale soon. Gannett owns both Channel 12 and the Republic and my understanding is that the ownership rules would need to be relaxed in order for that relationship to be maintained--an unlikely prospect with a Democratic Congress.
Since then, I've reported on two events that have rocked Gannett. First, Standard and Poor's cited increasing weakness in the entire newspaper sector and downgraded Gannett's debt. Then the entire industry was rocked by the sale of the Minneapolis Star Tribune for half of the price that McClatchy paid for it a mere eight years ago.
Gannett acquired the Republic about eight years ago. Arizona is the fastest growing state in the nation, yet the Republic's circulation has continued to decline. No one knows how much Gannett has lost on the Republic, but it's likely to be in the hundreds of millions.
Since I'm speculating, I might as well go further out on this limb and suggest a possible buyer. Dan Quayle.
Many folks don't realize Dan Quayle's connection to Arizona and to the Arizona Republic. Eugene Pulliam, the newspaper magnate who founded Central Newspapers Inc. and owned the Arizona Republic together with a dozen newspapers, was Dan Quayle's grandfather.
Dan Quayle's family moved to Arizona in 1955 so that Quayle's father James could run the Republic. Dan attended Kiva elementary school...which is where my kids attend now.
Under Pulliam's ownership, the Arizona Republic was robust and Conservative. Today it's...well...not.
So what's Dan Quayle doing now? He's buying companies, cutting costs and making a profit.
Here's how Business Week describes Quayle's career.
...in his second incarnation -- as a globetrotting business leader working with some of the sharpest investors around -- James Danforth Quayle, 58, has proved his friends right. He has carved out a winning role as chairman of global investments for Cerberus Capital Management.
Money wouldn't be a problem. In addition to Quayle's connections, there are plenty conservative investors who would be interested in wholesale changes at the Republic.
But who would run the paper? Is there a conservative out there who has media experience, political experience and is currently looking for work, someone who knows the internal working of the paper and would be able to separate the dead wood from the productive branches, someone who Dan Quayle knows and could trust to Publish the paper, someone who could really whip the paper into shape and halt its long decline, someone who could, dare I say it, act like a bully for long enough to get things back on track? No, I can't think of anyone either.
I was intrigued by the name of Dan Quayle's investement company. After all, what kind of name would you pick for an investment firm that acquires weak companies in struggling sectors and makes the hard changes that internal management would never make. What do you call a company that dramatically cuts costs, changes management and shakes things up? After all, to survive, indeed thrive, in the investment world, your company need to be tough and the name should reflect that.
Quayle's company is called Cerberus. You know Cerberus...the three-headed dog that guards the entrance to Hades in order to ensure that the dead can't leave and the living can't enter. You may be hearing a lot about Cerberus in the future.
I had lunch with a good friend who said that when he got married, his father sat him down and said, "son, you are about to have a big wedding, that's not your deal. Just don't be late and stand where you are supposed to stand. She's also going to want a family...the number of kids and the timing...that's not your deal. Oh, and she's going to want a house...that's not your deal." I don't know what my friend's deal is, but he's been married for over 20 years and I think his father is a smart man.
In 1990, Debbie and I bought a lovely sub-Arcadia home that was built in 1953. We planned to live here for five or six years. We didn't have any kids and I was making $15,000 as a State Representative. Well, time flies, we have three kids a dog and a minivan and we've lived here for 16 years.
Fortunately, in the early years, Home Depot took direct deposit, so I could just have my check deposited there. Then we finally broke down and spent a small fortune to put a master bedroom and bath on the back. I love the house and would be happy to live out my days here.
So Debbie comes to me one day and says...you need to sell our house in espresso pundit. Naturally, I was hesitant. For one thing, I'm just getting unpacked. But she knew that wasn't the real reason. "Why don't you want to put the house on the website?" she asked. I said "Because the Governor's people will know where I live. After all, "you step out of line, the men come and take you away." She said "Dude, you have got to get some new music."
I was going to keep arguing about it. But...it's not my deal.
So here it goes: For Sale, Lovely Arcadia Home. 2073 sq feet, 4 bedroom, 3 bath, wood floors, 18 inch ceramic tile, lush landscaping. It's at 54st near Osborn which is about 15 minutes from the Capitol.
The price is negotiable for the next couple weeks, then we are going to list it. We are thinking $480,000. The house down the street sold for $490,000. It's about the same size and quality, but it has a new kitchen.
The dog's not included, but I'd be happy to throw in the minivan.
I predicted earlier this week that the Republic would be up for sale this year. It's unlikely that the ownership rules that allow Gannett to own the Republic and Channel 12 will be relaxed and if Gannett is going to cut its losses, the Republic is the obvious choice.
The market for newspapers is like the housing market--no one knows how far it has slipped until one sells down the street, and major newspapers don't sell everyday. However, the newspaper industry was rocked by the sale of the Minneapolis Star Tribune. The paper sold for half the price for which it was acquired a mere 8 years ago.
Here's how Editor and Publisher covers the story.
Early Wednesday, Goldman Sachs became one of the first newspaper industry analyst firms to analyze the shocking announcement of the pending sale of the Star Tribune of Minneapolis by McClatchy Co. to a private equity firm. In its heading, Goldman stated it plainly: "Minneapolis valuation a Bearish signal for newspaper industry."
While McClatchy will "generate a tax benefit of about $160 million," Goldman observes, it is also taking a hit on the sale price, having paid $1.2 billion for the paper in 1998, now selling it for $530 million.
"The substantial loss on the sale is a vivid reminder of the industry's declining fortunes over the last several years," Goldman declared. "While we are intrigued that a private equity firm is showing interest in the newspaper sector, the 7.4x estimated EV/EBITDA valuation is not a Bullish indicator for the sector given a current newspaper group average 2007E valuation of about 8.7x."
Here's an interesting letter
Greg,
I saw that you pointed out gannett's ownership of ch12 on EP. Interesting part of that is that I know someone at the newspaper who says this year's election coverage was lackluster at best. While there isn't a formal policy or anything, my source at the Republic is under the impression that someone with Gannett decided weak political coverage in the newspaper would sell ad time on Ch12's airwaves. After all, politicians have to go somewhere to get there message out.
On February 17th of 2006, I pointed out that things were not right at the Arizona Department of Homeland Security.
In the Beginning the Earth was Void without Form...
The State Homeland Security Department was in budget hearings this week and one of the analysts said that he couldn't find the authorization for the agency in statute.
His counterpart in the executive branch admitted that there was no statutory authorization. The State Department of Homeland Security--a state agency that receives millions of dollars in federal funds--had been created by executive order.
When asked for a copy of the order, the executive analysts sheepishly admitted that...it was a VERBAL Executive order.
Is that cool or what? Think of all the sunset hearings that can be avoided. Not only can the Governor create a state agency ex nihilo, but also, she can do it by merely speaking.
Does she at least have to wave her arms and say Abracadabra?
Following that incident, the legislature called for an audit of the State Homeland Security Department and things went from bad to worse.
Here's the Republic's coverage of the Auditor General's report.
State auditors say Arizona homeland security officials haven't done enough to ensure that more than $175 million in grants issued since the Sept. 11 attacks were properly awarded and spent.
The Office of the Auditor General has determined that, in many cases, the state's Office of Homeland Security and Division of Emergency Management didn't record why projects were funded or if the money was spent for approved purposes.
In the wake of that report, State Homeland Security Director Frank Navarette chose to step aside.
Navarette and the department were criticized in a state audit this fall for lax oversight of $175 million in grants awarded to the agency since the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. While Navarette has decided to step aside, he will continue to advise Gov. Janet Napolitano on homeland security issues.
Unfortunately, the federal government decreased the amount of Homeland Security funds destined for Phoenix and Tucson.
On Christmas day, CBS News chief investigative correspondent Armen Keteyian had this profile of the Phoenix Situation.
(Mayor Gordon's) metropolis in the desert is now the nation’s fifth most populous urban area, the sprawling home to four million people and still growing by 100-thousand new residents a year. Yet in 2006, the Phoenix’s share of federal homeland security funds shrank by 60-percent from $10 million to $4 million, or to one dollar per person.
"I think a lot of people still think that we're a small western town, where, you know, maybe we're still in wagons."
No Phil, they don't think we're still in wagons.
They think we are a small western town, where, you know, maybe the governor can create a major state agency using a verbal executive order and then that agency can fail to properly track the $175 million provided by the federal government.
That's what they think...and they're right.
Have you stopped to notice that Gannett owns Channel 12 as well as the Republic? My understanding is that this arrangement can only be maintained for a limited period of time, and Gannett was counting on Congress to relax the ownership rules...a Republican Congress that is. The odds of that change happening in the near future have decreased dramatically.
Hmm, looks to me like the Republic may be on the block soon.
Meanwhile, the entire sector continues to weaken.
Standard & Poor's on Friday cut its ratings on Gannett Co. citing worsening operating results as the newspaper sector weakens.
"Operating results have been adversely affected by the challenging newspaper operating climate in both the U.S. and the UK," S&P said in a statement.
However, "this has been tempered by the television operations' significantly higher political revenues in this election year," S&P said.
Gannett, the publisher of USA Today, in October reported a lower quarterly profit and missed revenue forecasts on Wednesday because of weak advertising, setting the stage for a downbeat earnings season for newspaper publishers.
The Business Journal is reporting that Matt Salmon is considering running against Harry Mitchell.
Salmon said Thursday he is considering moving into Mitchell's congressional district to run against the Democratic freshman. Salmon currently lives in Mesa but said he has roots within Scottsdale/Tempe district.
The Republican previously represented parts of the district when he served in Congress from 1995 to 2001. Arizona congressional district lines were redrawn in 2001, creating the current fifth congressional district that includes closer-in eastern suburbs of Phoenix. Salmon said his parents live in Mitchell's district.
I'm sure that Mitchell's camp will view Salmon's run like the Salmon run pictured above, but I wouldn't be so sure. Salmon has good relations with the party faithful and he has access to plenty of DC money. After all, nothing says "electability" like being a former Congressman. Of course the words "moving into the district" don't sound good. But folks forget how far Salmon's old district used to extend into Phoenix. I live in Arcadia and Mitchell is my Congressman now, but Salmon was my Congressman from 1994 to 2000.
The article goes on to list Michelle Reagan and Hugh Hallman as possible opponents. I've mentioned them before and I think that Reagan would be especially formidable. She's got a great name and it would be hard to portray her as a bully. Plenty of folks sent me emails to say that they didn't think a pro-choice moderate could get through the primary. Of course, if she's running against 3 or 4 middle aged conservative white guys, it's going to get easier.
Speaking of middle aged conservative white guys, here's a name for you (and it's a long one)--Schweikert. I left Schweikert's name off my original list because I assumed he would want to serve a second term as Maricopa County Treasurer. I assumed he would get re-elected in 2008 and then plan to make a run at the new seat that Arizona is going to get in 2012. However, I think he's at least considering a run.
Actually, Schweikert has been running for that seat since high school. He represented North Scottsdale and Fountain Hills in the Legislature and he ran against Hayworth for the seat in 1994. He ran an impressive race for County Treasurer in 2004, and he has the best grassroots Rolodex that I've ever seen.
Mitchell is going to be a tough candidate. The Democrats are going to give him an opportunity to shine. Political junkies will recall that after the 1980 redistricting, Jim McNulty and Jim Kolbe ran for the new seat that became District 8. The Democrats in Congress wanted to protect McNulty so badly that they let him run a bill that President Reagan vetoed and then Congress overrode the veto. McNulty may still hold the record as the only freshman who sponsored a bill that overrode a veto. But Kolbe defeated McNulty the next year and then held the seat for 22 years.
Arizona has plenty of examples of one-term fluke Democratic Congressmen. Mitchell may join Jim McNulty, Karen English and Sam Coppersmith as part of the one-termer club.
I'll be on Sunday Square Off with Congressman Jeff Flake and Mike Newcomb this Sunday morning at 8:05 following Meet the Press.
We recorded it this morning and topics include: US Policy toward Cuba, Iraq troop levels, Congress under Democratic control and on the lighter side, the new "Hustler" store opening in Tempe.
Square Off ends with a 30-second "final thought" and I still haven't figured out how to read from a teleprompter without sounding like a robot. Sunday will be no different. Here's the text of my final thought.
"Some people think there is a war on Christmas. Well, I don’t think that there really is a war on Christmas, but I do believe that in many parts of the world, there is a war on religion. France for example, has banned people from wearing certain religious attire in public. But that type of religious intolerance isn’t reserved for the Europeans. Arizona Republic Editorial writer Linda Valdez wrote a column for the Republic in which she voiced support for the French ban on "Islamic headscarves, Jewish skullcaps and large Christian crosses." Linda Valdez claims that this “Religious exhibitionism” undermines civil society. So while there may not be a war on Christmas, don’t forget that there is a war on religion and some of its most dedicated soldiers are based right here at home."
Let's try an experiment. If your business or state agency has a job opening and you want me to post it for free, let me know and I'll set up a page. I think there are a lot of folks out there who are interested in having a clearing house of employment information.
Let me know if you would be interested in EP posting some resumes as well.
On October 1st, the Republic Editorial Board finally noticed the offensive inscriptions on the 9/11 Memorial.
Likely to get a thorough scrubbing are such inscriptions as, "You don't win battles of terrorism with more battles," "Congress questions why CIA & FBI didn't prevent attacks," "Erroneous US air strike kills 46 Uruzgan civilians," and "Violent acts leading U.S. to war, 05-07-1915, 12-07-41, 08-04-64 & 09-11-01."
In response to that Editorial, I wrote that the Editorial Board just doesn't get it.
What the Republic editorial board and Billy Shields don't seem to realize is that removing the offensive phrases doesn't solve the problem. The Memorial isn't a remembrance of 9/11 PLUS some offensive and some trivial phrases. The memorial is exclusively offensive and trivial phrases. There is no traditional remembrance.
The monument isn't a memorial to 9/11. It is an altar built for the worship of post modernism's twin Gods of Moral Relativism and Tolerance.
Removing the references to dead Afghan civilians won't fix that.
This morning, the Republic finally came around.
The heart of the matter is not that the memorial's inscriptions express sentiments that are especially anti-war, though some do. It is that so many of the brief inscriptions are just plain banal.
It's not that they express pacifism or defeatism - or, for that matter, fury or pro-American nationalism. Too many simply don't punch any buttons. They don't seem to express anything coherent or worthy of reflection.
The Republic is exactly right. The memorial is banal, trivial and incoherent. You can't commemorate 9/11 by writing "Gracie of Phoenix Makes kids Giggle Again."
Let me be frank...the design is not salvageable. If the current design is going to be maintained, the words either need to reflect the time line of the events, the names of the victims or both.
However, now that we have determined that the phrases don't work, we should step back and look at the design. The design itself is highly flawed. The Memorial has very little visual appeal and the designer forgot a key feature--the memorial is a concrete basin but doesn't have any drainage. Water had to be pumped out for the dedication.
Let's face it. We need to start over.
Folks have asked me if I would be satisfied if the offensive statements were removed from the 9/11 memorial. I have tried to explain that the entire memorial concept is flawed. The statements will either be left-wing rhetoric, right-wing rhetoric or pablum--none of which is appropriate for a 9/11 memorial.
The Tribune makes that point better than I've made it in today's editorial.
We are not going to engage in the principal debate that reassembled the commission after its task to design a memorial for Wesley Bolin Plaza was supposedly completed. Those arguments focus on whether it is appropriate to have inscriptions on the memorial that are favorable or unfavorable, depending on your view of the progress in our battles against terrorism or the continued necessity of the war in Iraq.
Those arguments themselves are academic because anything on the memorial that deals with the war at all should be something for another memorial. This memorial’s purpose is as clear as its name: To honor those who died in the vicious, surprise terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, in New York, Washington and in a Pennsylvania field.
The best modern example of a memorial to such an event that does not extend into the military campaigns that followed is the USS Arizona Memorial at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii. Visitors note that its inscriptions do not discuss the world war that came after that vicious, surprise attack on American soil by Japan on Dec. 7, 1941. The Pearl Harbor memorial deals with the events and sacrifices of that day, and rightfully so.
Dr. Tom Patterson makes some excellent points about AIDS and our funding priorities in this column that he wrote for the Tribune.
In this context, it seems difficult to justify further increases in federal spending for AIDS research. The practical reality is that public research funds have a finite limit. Money spent on AIDS is money that will not go to other diseases. AIDS research already receives more funding than 13 other diseases that cause more American deaths.
AIDS prevalence is still increasing in Africa, but there are stronger arguments for devoting any funding increases to malaria. Malaria affects 300 million people a year while about 40 million around the world have AIDS. Malaria is Africa’s leading cause of childhood death and consumes about half of all the medical care dispensed on the continent. It is a result of poverty but also an important cause. According to the World Health Organization, malaria costs African economies about $12 billion a year, even though “it could be controlled for a fraction of that sum.” It’s unlikely additional AIDS dollars would have a comparable impact.
Malaria is a topic that just drives me crazy. The west's reaction to malaria has been unconscionable. Rachel Carson's Silent Spring led to the elimination of the use of DDT but no one seemed to understand that DDT saved over one million people a year. Before widespread use of DDT, malaria killed 100,000 people (mostly children) annually in South Africa alone. DDT got those numbers down to a few thousand and now that DDT is gone, the number is back to 100,000 deaths annually.
No one argues that DDT should be used in agriculture, but trace amounts used inside residences would save millions of lives. Some will argue that DDT reduces bird populations. Well that's probably true. But how many kids is a bird worth? I know that sounds condescending, but it's a real trade off. Is it worth saving 1,000 birds if a million kids have to die? How about one for one--a million birds for a million kids? Is that worth it? Before you accuse me of setting up false choices, let me remind you that birds for kids IS the choice, and the west has made it. We want the birds. Of course, since they aren't our kids, the choice is easier.
Tedski jokes about the rivalry between R Cubed and Espresso Pundit with his post "Uvas Agrias". But I have a more serious question. Why hasn't Gabby Giffords pick Tedski for her six figure Director of Communications? After all, Tedski can write; he's a true believer, he's got the connections and he was with her from day one.
Maybe she offered and he turned her down so he can spend more time watching soccer--a noble pursuit indeed. Or maybe he starts in January and I'm just out of the loop.
Or perhaps Gabby just doesn't realize that she has a diamond in her own back yard.
UPDATE: I've just learned that Gabby hired the Citizen's C.J. Karamargin as her six-figure communications guy. That's a good choice. R cubed and the Citizen probably have about the same circulation. And as a Citizen reporter, it's unlikely that Karamargin would have had a job by the end of 2007 anyway, so he probably needed it more than Tedski.
I'm getting reports that the Republican Party Executive Guidance Committee voted nearly unanimously to support Randy Pullen.
Arizona's 9/11 Memorial was featured on National Public Radio's All Things Considered today. Here's a link to the story on the NPR website.
I may have to take back all those things I said about the "New York Times and NPR crowd."
In Phoenix, a memorial to the victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks has kicked up a political dust storm.
The cement and steel monument on the state's capital mall was meant to be a somber and respectful tribute to victims of the terrorist attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. Instead, the memorial became something that is considered by many to be offensive. And some are saying it should be changed or taken down.
Wesley Bolin Plaza is a grassy lawn stretching east of Arizona's state Capitol. It's a quiet spot in otherwise busy Phoenix, and home to the state's monuments.
The newest addition is a 42-foot steel ring, tilting skyward. It looks like a giant halo. And as you walk under it, you can read several dozen inscriptions visible in the shadows of the cement base. The words touch on a number of subjects.
As Greg Patterson, a Republican former state lawmaker, says, "It's a very stark memorial. And then when I started to read it, I realized that what it is, is a criticism of the United States!"
Patterson is offended by many of the inscriptions, which he says have nothing to do with remembering the victims of 9/11. The phrases are short; some are more provocative than others. "Congress questions why CIA and FBI didn't prevent attacks" and "Middle East violence motivates attacks in the US" are two that Patterson singles out.
One of the worst, he says, is "You don't win battles of terrorism with more battles."
"I'm not saying these things can't be spoken," Patterson says. "But this is the official 9/11 memorial at the Arizona state Capitol grounds, and this is not how I want my family to remember 9/11, and I don't think it's how many Arizonans want to remember 9/11."
Since I haven't listened to a new song since high school, I generally leave the music reviews to the Republic's Dan Nowicki. However, I feel compelled to make an exception.
When the Ray Charles biopic "Ray" came out a few years ago, I was intrigued by the guy in the movie who first spotted Ray Charles' real talent and seemed to be the only guy who treated Ray decently. I later learned that the man depicted in the story was Ahmet Ertegun, son of the Turkish ambassador and music genius. Ertegun had an amazing ear for music and a knack for finding obscure groups and sounds and turning them into legends. He and Jerry Wexler bought part of Atlantic Records in 1956. Ertegun's knack for spotting talent changed music history.
Ertegun started with Jazz and recorded greats such as Coltrane and Charles Mingus. He signed Ray Charles and Aretha Franklin and in the 70s signed Led Zeppelin, Cream and Crosby Stills and Nash.
I felt compelled to write about Ertegun because I've been impressed with him since I saw the movie, and because Ahmet Ertegun died last week at the age of 83.
So how does an 83 year old music genius die?
The same way that I want to go.
He died as a result of a head injury suffered at a Rolling Stones concert.
Arizona Capitol Times just came out with it's "Best of the Capitol Mall 2006." Espresso Pundit was named "Best Political Website." Which is cool. Thank you to those of you who take the time to read Espresso Pundit and thank you for your votes.
I had a meeting with David Schweikert a few years ago and he was a few minutes late. Obviously flustered, he said, I'm sorry I'm late I just had a meeting with.... He drew a blank on the name and said..."lobbyist, great hair." I immediately responded "Michael Preston Green." He said..."yes, that's him."
So, it is no surprise that Michael Preston Green tied for best dressed as well as best hair. Jason Rose must be devastated.
The minimum wage should be $50 an hour.
I think people who work hard should enjoy a six figure income that allows them to provide for their families, pay for college and save for the future. If employers aren't willing to pay a decent wage, we should mandate it.
That idea probably isn't going to fly, but the reasons aren't moral, they are economic. It's pretty obvious that a lot of jobs would be uneconomic at $50 per hour so those jobs would go away and those workers would be unemployed.
The most important word of the at last sentence is "obvious." Raising the minimum wage by any amount above its natural equilibrium will lead to unemployment--but those newly unemployed are not "obvious." We know they exist; it is an economic certainty that raising wages causes some folks who have jobs to lose them, but more likely, it causes some folks who want jobs to be unable to find them.
But those people usually aren't "obvious," so the social engineers who seek to organize society according to their theories of economic morality don't have to deal with the hidden human costs of their tinkering.
Well they don't generally have do deal with those hidden costs. Check out this ironic juxtaposition in Saturday's Tribune.
In an OP ED piece titled "This Season Please Support MARC Center," former Tribune Publisher Charles Wahlheim tells the history of a center for the developmentally disabled and the clients it serves. "Today , MARC Center has just completed its greatest growth spurt in history, expanding behavior health programs in adolescent services, community living, vocational training placement and outpatient clinics."
"Vocational training for the disabled" means the Center provides jobs for the developmentally disabled.
Meanwhile, an article on the front page says that the MARC center may be shut down because the disabled population that it serves...do not make the minimum wage.
Some organizations that provide jobs for the severely disabled fear they will not be able to afford to employ many of their workers unless state officials find a way to reconcile existing work programs with the new law.
There is an exemption in the federal minimum wage law that allows organizations like the MARC Center to operate, but that exemption was not included in the recently passed Prop. 202.
Advocates for the disabled are crying out for the Legislature to fix this "unintended consequence," however the Legislature's hands are tied. A few years back, George Soros funded an initiative in Arizona that removed the Legislature's ability to change an initiative unless it's by a 3/4 vote AND "furthers the purpose" of the initiative. It's hard to argue that providing an exemption that allows some people to work below minimum wage somehow furthers the minimum wage law.
Don't get me wrong. It's not surprising that the minimum wage law is going to eliminate businesses like MARC and throw hundreds of needy people out of work. That part was inevitable. The surprising thing is that you were able to see it.
Maybe folks should consider that when they try to engineer their next utopia.
Here's an example of the classic Mainstream Media trick. This article from the Washington Post is designed to make you believe that crackdowns on illegal immigration will hurt your pocket book.
Notice that the police are storming hordes and the illegal workers are victims? That's just a side show. The premise of the article is that you should be unhappy with these raids because they cost you money.
Of course there are lots of caveats. The reporter uses "may" and "could." But the entire purpose of the article is to convince you that meat prices are rising because these crackdowns have reduced the availability of cheap, illegal labor.
That premise is debunked later in the same article.
Swift & Co. said its meatpacking plants were running at reduced levels a day after nearly 1,300 employees were arrested in a massive immigration sweep that temporarily halted operations.
Cattle slaughter numbers had been running about the same as a year ago the day prior to arrests. The immigration sweep on Tuesday cut the nation's daily cattle slaughter numbers by 9 percent, Mintert said.
Still, Mintert cited preliminary data from the Agriculture Department's federally inspected slaughter numbers showing that by Wednesday slaughter numbers nationwide had recovered and were up a fraction from a week ago as other meatpackers picked up the slack at Swift's plants.
"It looks like what took place had limited impact we had a one-day impact," he said.
The headline should have read:
"Immigration Raids Have Little Effect On Meat Prices"
But that wouldn't fit into the Washington Post's agenda, would it?
Golly, a lot of office holders are getting indicted just in time for Christmas.
Hot AZ it Gets points out that threatening people is sometimes, like, you know illegal.
An alert attorney notes that Napolitano** may have violated state extortion law, a class 4 felony, by her threats to the Maricopa county attorney, as well as previous threats she's made, which include threatening the board members of the Chamber of Commerce (espressopundit.com notes that the Capitol Times ran a story on this yesterday), and threatening the Historic Names board members in the renaming of Squaw Peak to Piestawa Peak (for those of you who don't remember, Napolitano insisted they rename it immediately, instead of waiting 5 years as required by both state and federal law).
As they say, read the whole thing.
(I'm a bit confused by the references to "statutes" I just finished the first semester of law school so I thought judges made all the laws.)
KJZZ's Rene Gutel put together a great story on the Memorial which ran Thursday. (You can listen to it here. ) The story is going to run nationally on NPR this weekend.
Meanwhile, the dead tree press is scrambling to rewrite the history of the story of the memorial. Check out this magnificent piece of misdirection by the Republic's Ed Montini.
It became a news story when Napolitano's opponent in the November election, Len Munsil, promised to tear it down and build a new one.
Really? Actually the Memorial was a national story long before Munsil climbed on board. Here's how the Republic's Dan Nowicki described the spread of the story.
The furor over Arizona's 9/11 Memorial near the state Capitol was sparked by a Sept. 20 comment by blogger Greg Patterson. Under the nom de blog "Espresso Pundit," Patterson writes about politics from his perspective as a former Republican state lawmaker.
He took issue with some of the phrases on the monument, including one that lists the historically controversial Aug. 4, 1964, Gulf of Tonkin incident among other "Violent Acts Leading U.S. to War." President Lyndon Johnson used the Gulf of Tonkin incident as a pretext for escalating the Vietnam War. Patterson didn't think it was appropriate to equate it to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist strikes.
"The memorial looks like a MoveOn.org Web page," Patterson wrote.
Soon the 9/11 Memorial was burning across the right-wing blogosphere. The influential Drudge Report linked to an East Valley Tribune story. Patterson was interviewed on the national Fox News.
So why does Montini rewrite history? First, his little misdirection implies that the objections to the Memorial were based on politics. After all, the Memorial only became a news story when the Governor's opponent made an issue of it.
Montini's rewrite also restarts the time clock. The Republic finally started covering the story about the time Munsil chimed in. By alleging that "it became a news story" when Munsil made his comments, Montini is able to conveniently forget that the Memorial story broke in espressopundit, appeared in the Tribune, was linked on Drudge, appeared in over 120 newspapers as well as Fox and CNN...all before the story appeared in the Republic.
The memorial story shows the power of the Blogs. The Republic didn't want the story to get out. After all, the Republic helped fund the memorial and it had the potential to embarrass the Governor prior to the election. The Republic refused to cover the story while it went national. For the first week, you could see the story on national TV, or read about it in newspapers all across the country, but you couldn't read it in the Republic.
Now Montini wants you to forget about that embarrassing little lapse. In the old days that may have worked, but it's a new world Ed.
Post Script
The memorial story wasn't the only story that went national over the Republic's objections. I printed the still shot of JD Hayworth in the Sniper scope that appeared in Harry Mitchell's commercial. That story went national later that week. Fox broadcast the picture from espressopundit and interviewed Hayworth. The story appeared nation wide but it never appeared in the Republic.
Last November, HotAZitgets broke the story of the 9th floor's strong arm tactics toward the Arizona Chamber. I linked to the story on November 4th, and Howie Fischer has picked it up in this week's Bussiness Gazette. Read the whole thing; it's really an amazing story. The behavior is completely Nixonian. Here's a sample.
A top aide to Gov. Janet Napolitano extracted an endorsement for her from the state's largest business lobbying group and then called the supervisors and lobbyists of board members who did not vote to support it.
Members of the board of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry said the demand for an endorsement came after the organization hired Glenn Hamer as president and chief executive officer. Hamer was executive director of the Arizona Republican Party at the time of his hire, a position he used to criticize the incumbent Democratic governor.
The disadvantage of having a blog with an unusual name is that I constantly have to explain what it means. There are advantages however. For example, it makes it easier to identify junk mail.
Dear Espresso,
We are pleased to announce the release of the Winter issue of Democracy: A Journal of Ideas, now available at our website, DemocracyJournal, via print subscription by clicking here, or at your local bookstore or newsstand (if they don’t carry it, ask!). Democracy also makes a great – and easy – holiday gift; for gift subscriptions, please click here.
You probably read the incredible Tribune story about the non-violent prisoner who was placed in a cell with a convicted murderer and was dead within 24 hours.
A prisoner with no record of violence was beaten and stabbed to death in September after Arizona Department of Corrections officials placed him in a cell with a killer serving a life sentence. William Harris, 45, who was serving 3 1/2 years at the state prison in Florence, was stabbed three times, hit repeatedly on the head and choked, according to a Maricopa County Medical Examiner’s report obtained by the Tribune.
Here's the quote that struck me.
Harris’ cellmate, whose name is being withheld, is considered the prime suspect.
Prime suspect? You mean that a guy gets beaten, choked and stabbed to death while locked in a cell with a convicted murderer and the cellmate is "considered the prime suspect?" I wouldn't want them to jump to any conclusions; maybe they are checking OJ's alibi.
A far more serious aspect of the story is that it appears that there was a full blown cover up of this event.
Department of Corrections officials did not release information about the incident to the public in the months following Harris’ death.
In fact, Harris was listed on the department’s Web site as being released from custody on Sept. 7 — the day he was killed. And officials would not confirm the killing until presented with the medical examiner’s report.
The department: didn't release the information, listed him as released and would not confirm the killing until presented with the medical report. That's not an oversight, it's a cover up. That's a smoking gun. And you know what comes after a smoking gun don't you? That's right. A moving bus. Because when the media finds a smoking gun, someone gets thrown under a moving bus
It looks like Department of Corrections Director Dora Schriro is planning on doing the throwing.
She said, for instance, that she contacted Dennis Burke, Gov. Janet Napolitano’s cochief of staff the night Harris was killed.
“I either left him a voice message or I spoke to him directly. I can’t remember,” Schriro said Wednesday afternoon.
"Mom, Dennis knew about it all along. I told Dennis. I called him. He's in trouble too."
Golly every time that I call the Governor's office to let them know someone is dead I never remember if I get through either. But Dora is clear about one thing...she's not going down alone. She's not leaving the Governor any plausible deniability.
Do you know what follows a landslide? Hubris. We all know what follows hubris.
There's nothing like a second term to ruin a politician's reputation. With Napolitano safely re-elected, the media is going to start actually examining her Administration. It's time for the Governor to do a little second term house cleaning.
Rep. Jonathon Paton led a tour for a handful of US Senators in Iraq. I like this picture of Rep. Paton and Senator McCain and I bet that both of them use it in their next campaign.
Here are Paton's comments on the tour.
I returned from Fallujah in time to see Sen. McCain who visited Baghdad today. I got a chance to ride to the Al Faw Palace with him. It is surrounded by a beautiful lake, which is interesting because it is this small island of beauty surrounded by wreckage everywhere. I told him that Saddam used the lake to drown over 700 opponents of the regime. It is one of the strange quirks of the country that even the beautiful things we have seen are tinged with something dark. He had Sen. Susan Collins, Lindsay Graham, Joe Lieberman and John Thune with him. It was interesting to see them under the current circumstances.
They met with LTG Chirelli (sp?) and I got the chance to sit in on the meetings. The comments about the war were fascinating. It felt like I was a part of a historical moment by being in that brief. They asked the two 3-stars some tough questions and got some blunt and honest answers back. The most important questions, however, came from Lieberman. He asked about Al Qaeda. The reality, he was told, is that Al Qaeda is less and less of a problem. It is the sectarian violence, principally these Shia militias that are causing the violence. Iran's actions in arming them and training them through Hezbollah, along with corruption and/or complicity in the Iraqi government are becoming an ever greater factor in the problems here.
I felt like Dante's tour guide in the inferno, pointing out the significance of this piece of rubble or that. I got to show Sen. Collins Saddam's throne. She seemed to enjoy seeing the throne (it's become sort of the favorite tourist picture at Camp Victory). I liked talking to her the most. She was quiet but very thoughtful. She didn't say much during the brief, but after it was over she leaned in towards me and asked, "what do you need more of here?" Her whisper kind of hung there in the air while I thought about it. "You mean more than booze and good cigars?" She smiled and nodded. I thought back to my trip to Fallujah with the marines and the trips I had hitched a ride alongside Al Qaeda detainees on what I call "Con-Air" flights. I thought of mortar attacks and small arms fire I had experienced. I thought of the underlying difficulty with every operational element I have been a part of since I got here -- whether it had to do with air transport, intelligence analysis or the guys pulling the trigger in the field. I had the feeling that what I said might actually make a difference some where, at some point (or maybe I'm just fooling myself) so I just told her the honest truth as I saw it at the time: "We need more troops, especially here in Baghdad."
The other soldiers I am with in some of the pictures are of my OIC MAJ Magrass (for the non-military people that means my boss) and our S-6 MAJ Cathcart (he's in charge of Communications).
Jonathan
I occasionally encounter an editorial in which the analysis is so poor that I wonder if it was part of a high school essay contest. This editorial from the Tucson Citizen is great example.
The point of the editorial is that Republicans in the Legislature are out of touch on immigration issues and waste time passing immigration bills in an effort to embarrass the Governor. How does the Citizen determine that the Legislature is out of touch and Napolitano knows what the people want? The Citizen uses Len Munsil as a proxy and claims that his defeat shows that the voters agree with Napolitano on immigration issues.
Legislators should have learned something from this month's election. Len Munsil, a conservative Republican who parroted many of the Legislature's immigration themes, was soundly beaten by Napolitano in every one of the state's 15 counties.
Weiers must grasp something: If voters embraced his party's fixation on tinkering with immigration laws, Napolitano would have been defeated, and the Republican majority in the Legislature would have grown. Neither happened.
How's that?
If voters embraced his party's fixation on tinkering with immigration laws, Napolitano would have been defeated,
The Citizen forgot one little fact. Actually, they forgot four little facts. The Legislature, unable to get Napolitano to move on the immigration issues, decided to bypass the Governor, put the issues on the ballot and let the people vote on them.
We don't need some sort of proxy to see if the "voters embraced his party's fixation on tinkering with immigration laws." We can look at what the voters actually did.
And what the voters actually did was overwhelmingly approve the immigration bills that the legislature put on the ballot. The voters agreed with the Legislature on the very issues that the Citizen uses to chastise the Legislature for being out of touch.
Check out these results.
Prop 100 Bailable Offenses. Amends the state constitution so bail can be automatically denied for illegal immigrants charged with "serous felony crimes" under state law. Passed with 78%.
Prop 102 Standing in Civil Actions. Denies punitive damages in civil lawsuits filed by illegal immigrants. Passed with 73% of the vote.
Prop 103 English as the Official Language. Passed with 74% of the vote.
Prop. 300 Public Program Eligibility Expands the list of state programs open only to citizens or legal residents to include adult education classes, child day care subsidies, and in state tuition at universities and community colleges. Passed with 71%.
All four of these examples of Republican's "fixation on tinkering with immigration laws" passed in every county and they passed by a margin of 2-1 in PIMA County.
So why would the Citizen claim that the Legislature is out of touch on immigration bills and ignore the fact that voters supported those bills overwhelmingly? Either the writers are completely clueless, or they assume that you are.
The Real Question
The real question, of course, is not who is more in tune with voters on immigration issues. The question that intrigues me is "How long can the Citizen survive?"
Is it the only remaining afternoon daily in a mid-sized market? The Phoenix Gazette has been gone for more than a decade, and the Citizen's circulation continues to decline. In fact, Pima County now has a population over one million and the Citizen's circulation has actually fallen below 30,000--a decrease of over a third in 10 years.
They know they are in trouble. The Tucson Weekly has a story on the "Shocking decline of the Citizen" that includes this quote. "As an afternoon newspaper in a town where there's already a strong morning newspaper, you can't be the same thing and hope to make headway," said Michael Chihak, the Citizen's editor and publisher.
Let me add one more admonition to Mr. Chihak. As a liberal afternoon newspaper in a town where there's already a liberal morning newspaper you can't have high school kids write your editorials and hope to make headway.
Threats and denial...Threats and denial...
It's well known in the lobbyist community that if you cross the 9th floor, your bills are dead. Even the mainstream media is starting to notice a pattern.
Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas said that his office has been threatened with a loss in state funding by a high-ranking official in the governor's office.
But who made the threat and other details remain unclear.
Thomas said an official from Janet Napolitano's office contacted Maricopa County officials within the last two weeks and threatened Maricopa County with loss of funding in the new state budget for the costs incurred as a result of the county attorney's crackdown on repeat offenders.
So what do you do when you get elected to a Congressional District in a perfect storm and wake up on Wednesday morning to the realization that you are ideologically compatible with about 30% of your constituency? Do you vote your conscience for two years, play to your base and hope not to get crushed in the next election?
Or do you vote for the preferences of the majority of your constituents? That sounds fine--after all, you are a "representative." Of course, you would be abandoning both your ideals and your base.
Looks like Harry Mitchell's made his choice.
For many Democrats elected in previously staunch Republican districts, that means paying closer attention to the mood of constituents than falling in lockstep with national Democratic Party leadership that tends to be more liberal.
That was the thinking behind incoming Democratic Rep. Harry Mitchell's decision to attend a Blue Dog caucus last week.
"I met with the Blue Dogs. It's not what I am, but it fits my district" in Arizona, Mr. Mitchell says.
"It's not what I am, but it fits my district." Wow. That must be a pretty tough realization. It's also a pretty tough way to spend two years.
I'm not an expert on the Democratic Party, but the two major factions seem to be the "progressives" which used to be called liberals and the Democratic Leadership Council which describes itself as "centrist." The Blue Dogs are to the right of the DLC and are conservative on a lot of issues. Here's a description.
Democrats who identify with the Blue Dogs, on the other hand, tend to be social conservatives, but have differing positions on economic issues ranging from fiscal conservatism to economic populism. For example, most Blue Dogs are strong supporters of gun rights and get high ratings from the National Rifle Association, many have pro-life voting records, and some get high ratings from immigration reduction groups, which cannot be said for most members of the DLC.
Recent Comments