« October 2007 | Main | December 2007 »
Sen. Jon Kyl is set to continue Arizona's tradition of disproportionately strong national influence.
Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) is poised to become minority whip as other senators scramble for position in lower-tier leadership races.
The whip's job is extremely difficult. These men should serve as an inspiration to Jon Kyl and show him examples of the true leadership he will have to display.
Today's leaders must have spent more time watching Star Trek than they did studying economics. That's the only way I can explain articles like this.
A coalition of education and political leaders wants to improve higher education in Arizona, arguing the state’s poor performance has contributed to the United States’ declining economic power.
Too few of the state’s residents are earning college degrees to keep high-paying jobs here, according to the Coalition for Solutions Through Higher Education. The group cites statistics indicating more high school freshmen drop out than go to college.
But the group has a plan.
The coalition hopes to accomplish such things by raising awareness of the problem. It is holding a series of meetings across the state and hopes to initiate legislative hearings on the issue early next year.
I'm sure the "awareness raising sessions" and "legislative hearings" will lead to a Blue Ribbon Panel and a white paper followed by a five part series in the Republic about how bad Arizona sucks and why we won't be able to compete with the Chinese in a few years because kids in school today will only be qualified to play the banjo.
Maybe I can save the group some time. Do you know why people aren't going to college? Because the very same intellectuals who are now gnashing their teeth...raised tuition so high that many college degrees are no longer economically justifiable.
The chart on the right tracks in state tuition since 1992. I got the data from the the Board of Regent's website and then put it into this graph. (click it to enlarge). Tuition has gone up 300% since 1992. See that big spike where it really started to accelerate? That's when Michael Crow took over ASU and decided it was going to be an A1 super duper research institution.
Shockingly, when the price of an education tripled...fewer people decided to attend college.
There's a word for that type of behavior... "rational." Economists actually assume that people act rationally, but people who grew up watching Star Trek and then went to work for the Government don't understand that incentives matter.
Degrees that once cost $10,000 made sense for an 18 year old who wanted to avoid truck driving school, but Psychology, History, Religious Studies, Political Science, English Lit, and Journalism to name a few have become uneconomic at $30,000.
It makes no sense to incur $30,000 to $50,000 in debt for a degree that has little or no economic value. Sure, a liberal arts education is a great background if you want to attend law school, but ASU accepts 160 of the 3,500 who apply. That's a pretty big gamble if your undergraduate degree is in Film Studies. Do you know how many Cappuccinoes you have to make to pay off a $30,000 debt? So students on the margin have made the rational decision to forgo college.
Now the same group who have priced students out of the market are lamenting that kids aren't attending college and they are going to hold "awareness sessions" to solve the problem.
If you want kids to attend college then you need to back the tuition down to a reasonable level and hire a President who makes $120,000 a year and wants to teach kids.
Or you can pay a University President $750,000 a year to implement his dream of an elite university on a hill. Crank up tuition and cater to the few thousand kids who can afford to attend.
But it's tough to do both...no matter how many awareness sessions you hold
Even Scotty can't change the laws of Economics.
Here's a story from today's Washington Times that's getting nationwide attention. Why haven't we read about this in the local papers? Let me guess, it involves the Global War On Terror and the Porous boarder with Mexico. Looks like fodder for page A 18 to me.
Islamic terrorists target Army base -- in Arizona
By Sara A. Carter
November 26, 2007
Fort Huachuca, the nation's largest intelligence-training center, changed security measures in May after being warned that Islamist terrorists, with the aid of Mexican drug cartels, were planning an attack on the facility.
Fort officials changed security measures after sources warned that possibly 60 Afghan and Iraqi terrorists were to be smuggled into the U.S. through underground tunnels with high-powered weapons to attack the Arizona Army base, according to multiple confidential law enforcement documents obtained by The Washington Times.
"A portion of the operatives were in the United States, with the remainder not yet in the United States," according to one of the documents, an FBI advisory that was distributed to the Defense Intelligence Agency, the CIA, Customs and Border Protection and the Justice Department, among several other law enforcement agencies throughout the nation. "The Afghanis and Iraqis shaved their beards so as not to appear to be Middle Easterners."
According to the FBI advisory, each Middle Easterner paid Mexican drug lords $20,000 "or the equivalent in weapons" for the cartel's assistance in smuggling them and their weapons through tunnels along the border into the U.S. The weapons would be sent through tunnels that supposedly ended in Arizona and New Mexico, but the Islamist terrorists would be smuggled through Laredo, Texas, and reclaim the weapons later.
A number of the Afghans and Iraqis are already in a safe house in Texas, the FBI advisory said.
Fort Huachuca, which lies about 20 miles from the Mexican border, has members of all four service branches training in intelligence and secret operations. About 12,000 persons work at the fort and many have their families on base.
Lt. Col. Matthew Garner, spokesman for Fort Huachuca, said details about the current phase of the investigation or security changes on the post "will not be disclosed."
"We are always taking precautions to ensure that soldiers, family members and civilians that work and live on Fort Huachuca are safe," Col. Garner said. "With this specific threat, we did change some aspects of our security that we did have in place."
According to the FBI report, some of the weapons associated with the plot have been smuggled through a tunnel from Mexico to the U.S.
The FBI report is based on Drug Enforcement Administration sources, including Mexican nationals with access to "sub-sources" in the drug cartels. The report's assessment is that the DEA's Mexican contacts have proven reliable in the past but the "sub-source" is of uncertain reliability.
According to the source who spoke with DEA intelligence agents, the weapons included two Milan anti-tank missiles, Soviet-made surface-to-air missiles, grenade launchers, long guns and handguns
"FBI Comment: The surface-to-air missiles may in fact be RPGs," the advisory stated, adding that the weapons stash in Mexico could include two or three more Milan missiles.
The Milan, a French-German portable anti-tank weapon, was developed in the 1970s and widely sold to militaries around the world, including Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Insurgents in Iraq reportedly have used a Milan missile in an attack on a British tank. Iraqi guerrillas also have shot down U.S. helicopters using RPGs, or rocket-propelled grenades.
FBI spokesman Paul Bresson would not elaborate on the current investigation regarding the threat, but said that many times the initial reports are based on "raw, uncorroborated information that has not been completely vetted." He added that this report shows the extent to which all law enforcement and intelligence agencies cooperate in terror investigations.
"If nothing else, it provides a good look at the inner working of the law-enforcement and intelligence community and how they work together on a daily basis to share and deal with threat information," Mr. Bresson said. "It also demonstrates the cross-pollination that frequently exists between criminal and terrorist groups.
The connections between criminal enterprises, such as powerful drug cartels, and terrorist organizations have become a serious concern for intelligence agencies monitoring the U.S.-Mexico border.
"Based upon the information provided by the DEA handling agent, the DEA has classified the source as credible," stated a Department of Homeland Security document, regarding the possibility of an attack on Fort Huachuca. "The identity of the sub-source has been established; however, none of the information provided by the sub-source in the past has been corroborated."
The FBI advisory stated the "sub-source" for the information "is a member of the Zetas," the military arm of one of Mexico's most dangerous drug-trafficking organizations, the Gulf Cartel. The Gulf Cartel controls the movement of narcotics from Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, into the U.S. along the Laredo corridor.
However, the sub-source "for this information is of unknown reliability," the FBI advisory stated.
According to the DEA, the sub-source identified Mexico's Sinaloa cartel as the drug lords who would assist the terrorists in their plot.
This led the DEA to caution the FBI that its information may be a Gulf Cartel plant to bring the U.S. military in against its main rival. The Sinaloa and Gulf cartels have fought bloody battles along the border for control of shipping routes into the U.S.
"It doesn't mean that there isn't truth to some of what this source delivered to U.S. agents," said one law-enforcement intelligence agent, on the condition of anonymity. "The cartels have no loyalty to any nation or person. It isn't surprising that for the right price they would assist terrorists, knowingly or unknowingly."
Real Clear Politics has some insight on the long-term effects of the Nation's growth patterns. We've long known that the red states are growing faster economically, that conservatives have more children and that Americans are moving from blue states to red states in droves. The next reapportionment will increase the clout of the red states in both Congress and the Electoral College.
The obvious question is whether or not the new residents will be assimilated into the red states, or if they will tip the balance and turn them into swing, or even blue states. Arizona is certainly bluer than it was 10 years ago, but it's still redder than it was 20 years ago.
Here's the article. On the other hand, Democrats own all ten of the fastest-shrinking Congressional Districts. The regions are heavily biased toward the Midwest and Northeast, where an aging population and a waning industrial base are hurting growth. All ten districts are based around urban areas, many of which are hemorrhaging population to suburbs.
The new Almanac of American Politics is out, and statistics within the Bible for political junkies show a rapidly changing American political landscape. Population, statistics show, is draining from the Midwest and Northeast and pouring into southern, sunnier states. It will take a decade for the results to be evident, but one thing is sure: With changes as rapid as these, the electoral college math in 2012 will be dramatically different from what it is in 2008.
Of the ten fastest-growing districts in America, not one cast their ballots for John Kerry in 2004. All but one, Rep. Nick Lampson's Texas 22 seat, are held by Republicans, and Lampson, some will argue, is only back in Congress because his opponent didn't have her name on the ballot. Lampson is a top target of House Republicans next year and looks to be in serious danger.
But the nine other seats are not all safely Republican. Rep. Jon Porter will face a strong challenge in Nevada 03, the Las Vegas suburbs, while Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, of Florida's 5th District, represents a district that held a Democrat at the beginning of the decade. Arizona Reps. Jeff Flake and Trent Franks come in at numbers one and two, and new residents of the state have registered overwhelmingly Democratic, according to the East Valley Tribune. Neither Flake nor Franks are in immediate danger, but a generation from now, the districts will not look the same as they do today.
The fastest-growing Congressional Districts between 2000 and 2005, with change percentage:
1. Arizona 06 -- Flake (+36.3%)
2. Arizona 02 -- Franks (+34%)
3. Nevada 03 -- Porter (+32.1%)
4. Florida 05 -- Brown-Waite (+26.9%)
5. California 44 -- Calvert (+23.8%)
6. Texas 10 -- McCaul (+23.4%)
7. Texas 22 -- Lampson (+22.6%)
8. Texas 03 -- Sam Johnson (+22.4%)
9. Florida 14 -- Mack (+21.6%)
10. California 45 -- Bono (+21.6%)
On the other hand, Democrats own all ten of the fastest-shrinking Congressional Districts. The regions are heavily biased toward the Midwest and Northeast, where an aging population and a waning industrial base are hurting growth. All ten districts are based around urban areas, many of which are hemorrhaging population to suburbs.
None of the districts are in any real danger of going Republican -- save Rep. Julia Carson's Indianapolis-based 7th District, which is only in danger because of a perennially weak incumbent -- but if states and districts fail to keep pace with the rest of the nation's growth, Democratic seats will have to be cut during the 2010 redistricting.
The ten fastest-shrinking districts, with percentage of population lost between 2000 and 2005:
1. Ohio 11 -- Jones (-9.1%)
2. Michigan 13 -- Kilpatrick (-7.9%)
3. Illinois 09 -- Schakowsky (-7.9%)
4. Pennsylvania 02 -- Fattah (-7.4%)
5. Pennsylvania 14 -- Doyle (-7.4%)
6. New York 28 -- Slaughter (-7.1%)
7. Michigan 14 -- Conyers (-6.7%)
8. Illinois 05 -- Emanuel (-5.1%)
9. California 08 -- Pelosi (-5.1%)
10. Indiana 07 -- Carson (-5.0%)
If I target someone in a post and they respond in the comment section, I generally move their comments into the main body of the blog so they have an equal footing. The Tribune's Le Templar takes issue with my Mainstream Media Meltdown post. Here are his comments.
I hope readers will take note of this story that appeared Wednesday in the Tribune that points out the serious errors made in last week's Business Journal story: http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/102465
I also need to note that Greg continues to print an significant error in his discussion of the Tribune business model. We are adding free single-copy placement and free home delivery of our new local news section to our portfolio of products in some areas. But the Tribune is NOT replacing all paid subscriptions with free newspapers. If you pay for the full newspaper today, you will have to pay to receive the full newspaper tomorrow. (The free versions do not include sports, the nation/world section or other sections we include throughout the week.)
Management did make the hard decision to stop subscription delivery in some outlying areas as a move to better match delivery costs with subscription revenue. But our total number of paid subscriptions has remained remarkably steady despite all of the recent changes.
Greg's statement that the Tribune has basically become the State Press with 70,000 papers is simply hogwash.
Craig's List is a great example of the unforeseen forces that are wiping out the newspaper industry. Classified ads used to be a cash cow for the newspaper. There was simply no alternative venue if you wanted to sell an old desk, hire an employee or advertise your yard sale.
Classified ads were once a multi billion dollar market. Who would have thought that one guy--Craig Newmark--would create a free service that is so superior that it wipes out the entire segment of the industry and perhaps tips the balance in the collapse of the industry itself.
Craig's list is free, searchable and easy to access on line. More importantly, Craig's List has the audience that used to read the paper. If you are choosing between Craig's list or paying for a help wanted ad, there's really no choice.
But what if you OWN the help wanted ads? What if you are the Arizona Republic and you are advertising for interns. Well, you have to resort to Craig's List.
The Arizona Republic is looking for a designer to work an 8-week internship through parts of January and February of 2008. As we ramp up our design projects for the upcoming Super Bowl, we need a person who can step in and do quality print work for us. We will train the candidate in CCI (our pagination system), and they would be working in the sports department of our downtown office.
My gosh, think about that. The Arizona Republic is looking for interns and has to advertise the position on Craig's List. That will give you some insight about the future of the industry.
Ok, hands down the best ad of the year.
The print media meltdown is happening so rapidly that I'm having trouble posting fast enough to keep up. Gannett stock hit another ten year low today. The stock is 30% below where it was trading on this date in 1997. The chart below tracks the Dow and compares it to Gannett stock over the last 5 years. As you can see, Gannett is down 50% and the DOW is up 50%.
Meanwhile, the Tribune's subscription numbers have collapsed in the wake of management's decision to start giving the paper away.
The East Valley Tribune's drop was even more severe. Sunday circulation dropped 11.4 percent to 70,025, down from 79,066; weekday circulation dropped 16.8 percent to 82,951, down from 99,711; while Saturday circulation decreased 13.8 percent to 78,725 from 91,381, compared to six months ago.
Frankly, it's hard to see how the Tribune survives for another year. It has a mainstream media cost structure and New Times distribution structure. Subscription totals will continue to plummet as individual subscriptions expire.
The transition to a free paper will serve as a double whammy. Advertising rates are built on a multiple of paid subscriptions. As the subscription number falls, the advertising rate collapses exponentially. Additionally, advertisers don't value a free newspaper as much as they do a traditional subscription paper, so the overall multiple will fall even faster.
The Tribune, with a free daily distribution of some 70,000 units, is now the functional equivalent of the State Press. But the State Press, of course, is written by Journalism Students who are hoping to leverage their experience into a $9 an hour internship with the Republic. My guess is that the Tribune doesn't enjoy a similar cost structure.
This is no temporary setback; the Tribune no longer has a viable business model.
The local lefty bloggers are trying to produce a little pre-election spin by proclaiming that the Republican field in CD 5 is somehow weak or second tier.
Here's Tedski's version. I’d suggest that at Harry Mitchell's re-election party next year, they serve toast.
Tedski refers to this Wacktivist post. So far the rag-tag GOP field resembles a group of misfits at the circus freak show more than it does a field of top tier Congressional candidates.
Such transparent pre-race spin would normally not merit a response, but I realized that the local MSM reporters are so new that they might actually buy the ruse.
The real story is that Mitchell, although formidable, is widely perceived as one of the most vulnerable incumbents in the nation and has drawn a field of opponents that is stronger than generally vie for an OPEN seat.
The 2006 race to replace Kolbe in CD 8 is a great example. Giffords, Weiss, Graf, Hellon and Huffman had nowhere near the resumes of Anderson, Hatch-Miller, Knaperek and Schweikert.
Indeed, although they have become prominent national figures in their own right, Kyl, Shadegg and McCain didn't initially have the experience that the Republicans in CD 5 can boast.
Here's the field. Decide for yourself.
Mark Anderson served 8 years in the State House of Representatives before being elected to the State Senate where he Chaired the Family Services Committee. He was then re-elected to the House and Chairs the Education Committee. So he will have served 12 years in the Legislature and Chaired two major committees.
Laura Knaperek served a total of 10 years in the House of Representatives. She Chaired the House Appropriations Committee as well as the House Higher Education Committee. As Tempe turned more Democratic she lost her seat, but that shouldn't be seen as a disadvantage. A Republican will beat Mitchell by convincing Republican voters to vote for a Republican candidate. Many of those potential defectors are in Tempe. She also has the advantage of being the only woman in the race.
Jeff Hatch-Miller served four years in the State House Representatives where he Chaired the House Committee on Energy Utilities and Technology. In 2002, he was elected to the Arizona Corporation Commission. He was re-elected in 2004. His status as a state wide office holder means that his name has appeared on every ballot in CD 5 in two different elections.
David Schweikert served four years in the Arizona House of Representatives and was chosen as House Republican Whip when he was just 30. He ran for the CD 5 seat in 1994 and came in second to Hayworth. He's essentially been running ever since. He served 10 years as Director of the State Board of Equalization for Symington and Hull. In 2004 he was elected Maricopa County Treasurer by a 21 point margin. During the campaign and first year of office, he earned his WP Carey MBA on the weekends. Like Hatch-Miller, Schweikert's name has been on every ballot and signs have been in every precinct in CD 5. His old legislative district covered all of Scottsdale and Fountain Hills and is completely contained in CD 5.
Jim Ogsbury is running too and he's a really nice guy.
So Who's Going to Win the Primary?
My problem is that I'm friends with all of the candidates so I have trouble being impartial. I've known Anderson and Knaperek for many years and they are wonderful. Hatch-Miller and I have worked closely on a lot of issues while he has been at the ACC and we represented the same district in the House. Schweikert and I have been friends for nearly 20 years. We've played about a thousand games of Racquetball, hiked the Grand Canyon 3 or 4 times and I was best man at his wedding.
They are all first-tier candidates and any of them is capable of beating Mitchell. Based solely on the credentials that I've listed above, I think the primary would be too close to call.
However there's one huge event that was announced this afternoon and tips the balance. The Club for Growth officially endorsed Schweikert.
Today, the Club for Growth PAC endorsed former Maricopa County Treasurer and State Representative David Schweikert in Arizona’s Fifth Congressional District race.
In the State Legislature, Schweikert was a taxpayer hero. As the majority whip, he was instrumental in passing across-the-board income tax cuts and corporate income tax cuts. On spending, Schweikert has been a strong supporter of a Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights amendment and voted against his own leadership on various budget measures when he objected to excessive spending. Schweikert is also devoted to free trade, tort reform, and free-market reform of entitlement programs. David Schweikert is clearly the most pro-growth candidate in the field.
Why is that so significant? Because the Club for Growth has serious money, plays serious hard ball and most importantly does so in Primaries.
The primary tactic of the separate Club for Growth PAC is to provide financial support from Club members to viable pro-growth candidates to Congress, particularly in Republican primaries.
The Club for Growth's endorsement typically adds well over $100,000 to the challenger's coffers, but in Sharron Angle's Nevada race and Tim Walberg's Michigan race, Club members contributed over $600,000. However the real boost comes from the Club's tendency to fund independent ads that are critical of the voting records of the other Republican candidates in the field.
Schweikert has the fire in the belly--he resigned from the Treasurer's Office in order to run full time. He has the experience; he has plenty of money and now he has the Club for Growth behind him. I think he's the one who survives the Primary.
And Mitchell? Mitchell is not to be underestimated. He has an outstanding political resume and is a ruthless campaigner--just ask Gary Richardson where all his signs went. But George Bush won CD 5 by 17 points. The 2006 election was the mother of all perfect storms. Napolitano was on the ballot, turnout for Gubernatorial elections is lower than presidential elections. Jim Pederson spent a ton of money on get out the vote efforts and as much of the vote was backlash against JD as it was support of Mitchell.
Those factors are gone. That's why you are seeing the strongest Republican field that the state has ever seen.
UPDATE: CBS has picked up the Club For Growth endorsement.
(The Politico) The anti-tax Club for Growth issued an early endorsement in a still-developing GOP primary for the right to challenge freshman Rep. Harry Mitchell (R-Ariz.).
They endorsed Maricopa County Treasurer Dave Schweikert, who is facing four other announced candidates for the September primary. His leading primary rival is poised to be former state Rep. Laura Knaperek. State Rep. Mark Anderson and lobbyist Jim Ogsbury have also announced their candidacies.
I was listening to Radio Campesina 88.3 this morning on the drive in and there was a commercial that told callers to call Senator McCain's office and urge him to vote yes on the guest worker provisions of the Agriculture bill.
The commercial included the phrase "No importa su estado legal" That means "your legal status doesn't matter."
Spanish talk radio is famous for these campaigns. When I was chief of staff for the State Senate, Pete Rios was trying to build up pressure for his bill to give driver licenses to illegal aliens and the local Spanish stations were urging listeners to call the Senate President's office. We had no warning that we would be receiving thousands of calls from Spanish speakers and the traffic essentially shut down the Senate President's phones. That's not especially productive, but Rios and Radio Campesina probably thought it was funny.
We eventually re-routed the President's phone to someone who spoke Spanish and could handle the call traffic.
However, before we could make the transfer, we needed an interim solution. So I answered the President's phones. "La Migra. ¿En qué puedo servirle?" That means "Immigration Department, How may I help you."
Inevitably, there was a gasp, silence and then the line went dead.
I guess your legal status matters after all.
I noticed this ad on azcentral this morning and it reminded me so much of this publicity shot that I had to laugh. 
People with serious talent impress me. I'm thinking of guys like Professor Hurwitz who studied for the Arizona Bar exam on the plane trip to Arizona and not only passed, but also got the highest score, or Chuck Blanchard who was number one in his class at Harvard.
I'm also impressed when people excel in two very different fields. So I was pretty surprised when Superintendent of Public Instruction--and Harvard Lawyer--Tom Horne called to ask if my wife and I would like to attend a performance of Rachmaninoff and Gershwin at his home. I said sure, who's playing? Much to my surprise, Tom said that he and a friend would be playing.
Debbie and I arrived at Tom's Paradise Valley home on Sunday afternoon, met his neighbors, enjoyed his wife's buffet and then sat down to a wonderful rendition of Rachmaninoff's Piano Concerto number two. I had to remind myself not to applaud between movements lest I reveal my Classic Rock Redneck Roots, but otherwise, the performance by Horne and his equally talented friend Charles Wells--was thoroughly enjoyable. In fact, it was really awesome.
Rach II was Ayn Rand's favorite piece. So it's a cult favorite among Conservatives...there was a time when I would listen to it everyday for months. I don't have a video of Tom Horne playing it, but if you want a great example of the piece here's Van Karajan conducting while Alexis Weissenberg plays.
UPDATE: It's funny, I never have any idea how the comment threads are going to evolve. I mentioned Hurwitz and Blanchard because I'm really impressed with what they have accomplished and because it gives some partisan balance to the post. I didn't want to have this post about Tom Horne appear out of the blue and have people respond.."oh yeah, well there are plenty of talented Democrats as well."
Ironically, Instead of commenting on the main part of the post, all the comments are on my examples. That's fair enough, but now I feel the need to back up my statements. Blanchard was indeed number one in his class at Harvard. I heard the Governor use that as an example in a speech and I verified it with him. Summas are very very rare at Harvard and are only granted about once a decade. Blanchard was number one and Magna.
Professor Huwitz had passed a prior bar exam, clerked for an Appellate judge and then clerked for the Supreme Court but when he moved to AZ, he had to take the Arizona bar. He ran out of time and only studied on the plane trip to Arizona. He had the highest score that year. Anyone who has taken the bar will understand that this feat is not diminished by the fact that he had taken a previous bar exam in another state.
As for the comment that I deleted. It not only included profanity, but it was an anonymous criticism of someone who was only tangentially mentioned in a post. I'm very patient with the comments and I allow anonymous threads to continue for weeks, but if you are going to be critical of someone--especially if you include profanity--and you are not willing to use you real name, your comment is likely to be gone in a matter of minutes.
Now chill out and enjoy Rach II.
The Independent expenditures are starting in CD 5. This ad is running in today's Republic. Here's the press release from Freedom Watch.
Washington, DC – Today, Freedom's Watch launched a print ad campaign urging members of Congress to “stop playing politics” and “fund the troops.” These full-page ads feature an open letter to Speaker Pelosi and members of Congress, highlighting the progress we are making in Iraq and calling for “Congress to show resolve, put aside politics and to unite behind victory” from Andrew Robinson, an Iraq war veteran. Andrew Robinson served courageously in the U.S. Marine Corps and was on his second tour of duty when he was wounded by an IED in June of 2006. These print ads appeared in seven newspapers across the country: The Arizona Republic, The Sacramento Bee, The Palm Beach Post, Evansville Courier & Press, Topeka Capital-Journal, The Columbus Dispatch, The [Scranton] Times-Tribune.
Congressional Quarterly has CD 5 update. There's one glaring error in the ariticle. Schweikert placed second to Hayworth in 1994. The article claims he came in fourth.
As the latest entrant to the GOP field to challenge first-term Democratic Rep. Harry E. Mitchell , former Arizona legislator and Maricopa County Treasurer David Schweikert argues that 2008 will be an obvious chance for his party to regain the Republican-leaning 5th District, and that he’s the strong candidate to do so.
Schweikert said longstanding political presence in the area — beginning with his first run for the state Legislature at the age of 26 in 1988 — have helped cement his ties in the district. “I’ve been really lucky but I’ve also been in literally this same area for 20 years in politics. .... I have gained a certain benefit by being a known commodity and that’s helped,” he said.
Sean McCaffrey, executive director of the Arizona Republican Party, said there were now “three very positive, very forward-thinking candidates who have big dreams about what could happen” in Schweikert, lobbyist and former congressional aide Jim Ogsbury, and former state legislator Laura Knaperek.
“It’s a very fresh, uplifting [message], no hard-right-versus-hard-left stuff. It’s about resumes and qualifications. It’s about what can happen if works gets done,” McCaffrey said.
It will be a second shot at Congress for Schweikert, who placed fourth in the five-candidate open GOP primary for the 6th District that former Rep. J.D. Hayworth won in 1994. Redistricting prior to the 2002 election made the renumbered 5th District a more reliably Republican district, one that Hayworth held until Mitchell unseated him in 2006 in a campaign focused largely on ethics issues.
Schweikert said that voter demographics were on his side in the race. “Nothing is ever a sure shot but if you look at the voting pattern of the district and the communities . . . it’s hard to make an argument that’s based in facts that this will stay a Democrat-controlled seat,” he told CQ Politics.
Forty-two percent of district voters are registered Republicans, while 28 percent describe themselves as Democrats and 29 percent identify themselves as “other,” and district voters gave President Bush 54 percent of the vote in 2004.
Schweikert described himself as a “consistently conservative candidate” who had the chops to help balance the nation’s budget having served as Maricopa County treasurer. He said his top interest is bringing “fiscal sanity” to Washington.
“I have great concerns about what is happening in everything from budget and tax policy to entitlement and entitlement reform,” he said.
The percentage of registered independents was rising in the state because “people are tired of both parties being either filled with broken promises or being so negative,” said the GOP’s McCaffrey.
McCaffrey said that while Mitchell is congenial, he has broken promises on campaign issues related to taxes, support for soldiers and gas prices. In Congress, he said, Mitchell has taken an unexpected turn toward the party’s liberal faction.
“He’s a very nice gentleman, he is a very well-meaning gentleman, but he campaigned on some very specific things ... and he’s made just some very strange decisions,” he said.
Mitchell said in a statement to CQ Politics that “Right now I’m working as hard as I can to improve care for our veterans, fight for fiscal responsibility and end our nation’s dependence on Middle Eastern oil and everything else I can do to represent the people of the Fifth District.”
Mark Manoil, chairman of the Maricopa County Democratic Party, said Mitchell’s overwhelming popularity will win the day. “Gosh, one of the things that people of all stripes have pointed out is that Harry Mitchell is about the only living politician serving in office who has a 30-foot statue erected in his honor,” he said, referring to a statue in Mitchell’s hometown of Tempe.
Manoil said GOP is wrong if it thinks that it can win the district without winning Mitchell’s hometown. The race will be competitive, Manoil said, but Mitchell maintains advantages. “Frankly Harry Mitchell is an extremely popular person for good reason . . . he’s like everybody’s favorite grandfather ... [and] understands what representing a constituency is all about.”
TV "news" programs long ago abandoned covering actual news and began focusing on car chases, garage fires and crime scenes. Any sense of news judgment is long gone and the sensationalist pandering is only limited by the FCC restrictions on profanity and gore.
Unfortunately, TV News websites are not constrained by the FCC or news judgment, so they often exhibit a remarkable degree of insensitivity.
Take the coverage of Carol Gotbaum--the woman who died in custody at Sky Harbor. Gotbaum's death has all the makings of a classic news story, it's salacious and has footage--it's destined to be a made-for-cable movie.
Her autopsy report indicates that she was intoxicated. OK, well and good. That's important information. But Channel 5 put the ENTIRE report on its website. Have you ever read an autopsy report? It would be bad enough to have someone you love die in a tragic accident, worse still to have it become a national story, but to have a news station make public the report that points out that her:
"Genitalia are..."
Come on guys is there no decency?
Hollywood liberals are finding that it's expensive to be out of touch with reality.
The wave of recent films set against the backdrop of war in Iraq and post-9/11 security has failed to win over film-goers keen to escape grim news headlines when they go to the movies, analysts say.
Almost without exception, however, the crop of movies have struggled to turn a profit at the box-office and in many cases have received a mauling from unimpressed critics as well.
Maybe I'm being jingoistic, but I don't think audiences are tired of war movies per se. I think audiences are tired of the US being portrayed as the bad guy.
Here's the tally so far.
"Rendition," has taken just under 10 million dollars at the box office, a disastrous return.
"In the Valley of Elah," about a father investigating the death of his son in Iraq, earned favorable reviews but less than seven million dollars following its release in September.
Even the action-packed "The Kingdom," starring Jamie Foxx and Jennifer Garner fell well below its 70 million budget with around 47 million dollars in ticket sales.
The poor returns do not augur well for more war films due for release in North America later this month, notably the Robert Redford-directed drama "Lions for Lambs" and Brian De Palma's hard-hitting "Redacted," based on the real-life rape and murder of an Iraqi schoolgirl by US soldiers.
Ah yes, the Marines as child rapists. Good luck with that.
According CQ Politics, Arizona Republicans may need to get a bigger boat. (Of course, my recollection of the movie is that the shark doesn't make it.)
There is nothing like an election victory or two to make a political party forget its recent struggles with a renewed sense of confidence — and ambition. That is the case these days for Democrats in the generally conservative-leaning state of Arizona. After gaining two U.S. House seats in 2006 to break even with the Republicans at four apiece, they are trying for more in 2008.
One of their targets is a political no-brainer: The Democrats are targeting the state’s 1st District — drawn at the start of this decade as a politically competitive “swing” district — which three-term Republican Rick Renzi , weighed by ethics controversies, has left open to retire.
The other targeted Republican seat appears a more dubious prospect, though, at least on paper. The Democrats are going after seven-term Rep. John Shadegg , an activist conservative who has won easily in his previous elections in the 3rd, a largely conservative Phoenix-area district that gave 58 percent of its votes to President Bush in 2004.
Democrats have been emboldened to challenge Shadegg by their 2006 pickup in the Tucson-based 8th District, where Gabrielle Giffords won to succeed retiring Republican Rep. Jim Kolbe — and, more particularly in this case, by Democrat Harry E. Mitchell’s victory over six-term Republican Rep. J.D. Hayworth in the 5th, another metropolitan Phoenix district that has political and demographic characteristics similar to those in the 3rd District.
The Democrats also have, in challenger Bob Lord, something they have lacked in past races against Shadegg: a candidate who has organized and raise substantial funds early in the election cycle.
Lord, a tax lawyer and first-time candidate, argues that he is “not your average Democrat.” He said he zealously supports the protection of civil liberties, among which he includes gun owners’ rights under the 2nd Amendment — a bedrock principle for many conservative voters. He also contends that his background as a tax lawyer makes him particularly attuned to the problems of overburdening private enterprise.
“I understand how business works and the effect of overly burdensome tax code or overly burdensome regulation on the business community,” he said.
Shadegg, undaunted, told CQ Politics that he will win an eighth term next year, calling his district solidly Republican turf that is “unwinnable” for the Democrats.
Lord burst onto the scene earlier this year with surprisingly strong first-quarter fundraising, and he has maintained his pace. As of Sept. 30, Lord had raised more money from individual contributors than the congressman — $388,000 to $362,000 — although Shadegg maintained an advantage in overall fundraising ($526,000 to $402,000) and in cash reserves ($451,000 to $332,000).
Mark Manoil — chairman of the Democratic Party in Maricopa County, in which the 3rd District is located — said Lord’s strong fundraising and moderate viewpoints would appeal to the district’s increasing proportion of independent voters. In October, 27 percent of district voters were registered independents, up from 21 percent in January 2003, while registered Republicans dropped from 49 percent to 44 percent of all voters in the same time period. Democrats still trailed considerably, but saw a less significant decrease during the same time period, from 29 percent to 27 percent.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), which orchestrates the party’s national campaign for control of the House, signaled its intentions to back Lord’s bid by running a radio ad in late October attacking Shadegg. The ad targeted him for voting against legislation to expand the federal State Children’s Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, which Bush vetoed on grounds that it constituted a budget-busting shift of health care costs from private insurers to the government.
Democrats hoped the message would hurt Shadegg in two ways: by making it appear that he opposes health care for kids, and by tying him to Bush, whose support nationwide has waned sharply since his 2004 re-election.
“Did you know Congressman Shadegg gets health care at taxpayers’ expense, but Shadegg and Bush are blocking health care for 10 million uninsured children?” the ad said.
Lord has picked up on the same theme. Saying he shares Shadegg’s “stated views” on fiscal restraint, he added, “However, I find that he tends to want to exercise fiscal restraint where I would least want to exercise it. I don’t think that after spending more than half a trillion on the Iraq war, we should be exercising fiscal restraint by denying health insurance to children whose families cannot afford it.”
Shadegg, though, deflects these criticisms and strikes a defiant tone about the election.
“I just want you to know this is a race that I am not concerned about, and I’m not concerned about President Bush’s effect on the race, and if Bob Lord thinks he can beat me in this district with President Bush, more power to him,” he said. “Let’s have the debate.”
Republicans also argue that support for Bush in the district is stronger than support for the Democratic-led Congress. “I think it’s a tremendous fallacy to think that voters are going to punish people for support of ideas that belong to somebody else who’s not even on the ballot,” said Sean McCaffrey, executive director of the Arizona Republican Party, referring to the president, whose eighth and final year in office is approaching.
Shadegg even baited Democratic Party organizations and individual donors to put money into the 3rd District race, saying they are squandering resources that their party would be better off employing elsewhere. “It is not going to be money well spent on their part,” Shadegg said.
Shadegg noted he has won all of his House races with at least 59 percent of the vote and with margins of at least 21 percentage points, and also pointed to Bush’s strong district showing at the top of the GOP ticket in 2004.
“Mr. Lord must be convinced that he’s pretty good, that he’s better than me and he’s better than President Bush ... and I’m thrilled that he thinks so,” he said.
It looks Tucson voters have flushed Prop 200...so to speak.
Whenever I think there's an issue that will be covered differently in the Spanish language media, I make sure to listen to Spanish radio and read La Voz. So I was looking for coverage of the Phoenix City Council races and much to my surprise, I logged onto La Voz via Azcentral and saw a lead story about firefighters killed in the a furniture warehouse.
I thought to myself "Dude, that's like a really old story." Sure enough the date is "Junio 19, 2007." The site is sorely in need of an update.
The Republic's acquisition of La Voz is like the guitar I bought in high school. It seemed like a really cool idea and I was excited about it for a few weeks, but then my fingers hurt and I could only play three chords anyway, so it sat in the closet until my mom gave it to Goodwill.
That's not the way it was supposed to be. Here's the Republic in August of 2003.
Phoenix Newspapers Inc., owner of The Arizona Republic, has acquired majority interest in a local company that publishes a leading Spanish-language weekly newspaper and entertainment guide serving the Valley's growing Hispanic community.
The Republic, the largest metropolitan newspaper in Gannett Co. Inc., announced Wednesday the acquisition of the Ashland Media Group. Ashland owns the weekly newspaper La Voz and TV y Mas, a weekly entertainment publication, as well as two other English-language products.
"It's a huge opportunity for our company to leverage the resources of the largest newspaper company in the United States," said David Kaye, Ashland's founder and chief executive officer. Gannett, based in McLean, Va., publishes 94 newspapers, including USA Today, the nation's largest-selling daily.
La Voz and TV y Mas currently distribute 50,000 and 70,000 copies, respectively, in metro Phoenix. An additional 20,000 copies of TV y Mas are distributed in Tucson.
"It's important to us to have the ability to serve and reach our entire community," said Sue Clark-Johnson, chairman, CEO and publisher of The Republic.
"Hispanics are the fastest-growing demographic segment in our state, currently representing over 27 percent of our total market."
The 2000 U.S. census identified more than 540,000 Maricopa County residents who spoke Spanish at home.
The award-winning La Voz was launched in 2000. It employs 13 full-time reporters, editors and graphic designers and five part-time writers, publisher Elvira Ortiz said.
"Basically we're going to stay the same, but we'll have more resources," she said.
John Zidich, The Republic's executive vice president, said the partnership provides the state's largest newspaper access to Spanish-speaking consumers.
"We respect what La Voz has done in the Hispanic community," he said. "Our goal is not to go in and impose a voice on it."
Zidich said the move could eventually lead to more sharing of news and advertising content as well as combined distribution of products.
Last week, I pointed to Pima County's cancellation of its 2008 bond election and said that there's a storm brewing.
I think Pima County is making a good call. People are starting to see the 2004 property values reflected in their assessments and they are getting pretty unhappy. Voter angst is being compounded by problems at the state level as well.
Reporter Mathew Benson makes a similar point in today's Republic.
Hoping to capitalize on homeowners' angst over rising property-tax bills, another citizens group is targeting the tax with a Proposition 13-style initiative planned for the 2008 state ballot.
Arizonan's for Tax Reform has put out a comprehensive list of the proposals and has a few recommendations. Here's their list.
(I pointed out earlier that the Legislature is likely to bypass the Governor and take structural changes directly to the ballot. So, I think the item dealing with Legislative alternatives at the end of their list is the most important.)
AFT-AFP Guide to Property Tax Reform in Arizona
Below you will find a quick guide from the Arizona Federation of Taxpayers, a state chapter of Americans for Prosperity, to the three property tax reform initiatives that have been filed with the Arizona Secretary of State. If the initiatives collect enough signatures, they will appear on the state ballot on November 4, 2008. AFT-AFP also comments on prospects for a property tax reform to be referred by the Legislature.
Prop 13 Arizona
Today, the Prop 13 Arizona committee filed its property tax reform initiative with the Arizona Secretary of State. Modeled on California’s famous Prop 13, the Prop 13 Arizona initiative would replace the state’s current constitutional limitations on assessed valuation (Article 9, Section 18). Features of the reform include: 1) a cap on all residential property taxes at 0.5 percent of assessed valuation; 2) a cap on all other property taxes (including taxes on business property) at one percent of assessed valuation; 3) beginning in 2009, a rollback in all property values to 2003 levels; 4) for all property purchased after 2003, assessed value will be set at the actual purchase price; 5) after 2009, all assessed values will increase by no more than two percent annually; and, 6) maintenance of the existing property valuation protection option for seniors. The initiative would repeal Article 9, Section 19 (the current levy limitations).
If it passes, and if it gets more votes than any competing initiative, the Prop 13 Arizona reforms would entail a radical transformation of Arizona’s system of property taxation, effectively ending the current role of the county assessors in setting assessed values for existing properties. The 0.5 percent residential cap and the one percent cap for all other properties, combined with the rollback to 2003 levels, would substantially reduce the amount of property tax money available to local taxing districts. Some districts could see reductions in property tax revenue of 50 percent or more. In Arizona’s education system, the result would be a large shift of burden from local property taxes to state-collected income and sales taxes. The Prop 13 Arizona initiative language is relatively simple, and leaves the mechanics of implementation to the state Legislature, including the distribution of rates and ratios between residential property and non-residential property, and the distribution of property tax revenues between competing taxing districts.
To get involved with the Prop 13 Arizona committee, contact Lynne Weaver at info@Prop13Arizona.com.
Arizona Tax Revolt
This summer, the Mohave County-based Arizona Tax Revolt committee filed two property tax reform initiatives, one dealing with constitutional levy limitations (Article 9, Section 19) and one dealing with changes to the system of assessed valuation (Article 9, Section 18).
ATR Levy Limitation and Rollback Initiative. (Article 9, Section 19) The Arizona Tax Revolt levy limitation initiative would broaden the existing two percent limit for levy increases to include all taxing districts. It would also roll many levies back to 2005 levels, and require a two-thirds majority for voter approval to raise any future levy faster than two percent in one year.
If the ATR levy limit initiative reaches the ballot (and if it is approved by Arizona voters in greater numbers than the Prop 13 Arizona initiative), its features would result in significant tax relief for all Arizona home and business property owners. By limiting yearly property tax levy increases two percent, the initiative would help to restrain the kind of outrageous overspending seen around the state in recent years. Preliminary estimates suggest that the tax revenue levied by various taxing districts could be reduced by anywhere from 10 to 30 percent.
ATR Assessed Valuation Initiative. (Article 9, Section 18) ATR’s valuation rollback would serve as a backup measure for its levy rollback, providing relief for property owners who have suffered from large increases in assessed valuation in recent years. The initiative is somewhat complex, and prescribes a mathematical system for future assessments that attempts to ensure that similar properties are valued similarly.
The ATR initiatives cover more details than the Prop 13 Arizona initiative, but if both of the ATR initiatives pass and go into effect, the Legislature will still have to make upward adjustments in the statutory caps imposed on certain taxing districts, and it would have to adjust the QTR for educational property taxes.
To get involved with the Arizona Tax Revolt committee, contact Marc Goldstone at
Chairman@ArizonaTAXRevolt.org or (602) 388-8833.
Legislative Referendum
Property tax reformers at the Arizona Legislature have been exploring the possibility of referring legislation to the November 4, 2008 ballot.
Although some legislators are looking at limits on assessed valuation (including a rollback), the heart of any truly effective proposal would be a levy limitation. If an effective limit is placed on levies, assessed values can increase without doing great harm to taxpayers, because rates will have to fall to compensate. The problem in Arizona has been the absence of effective limits on levies. Prop 101, which was referred to the November 2006 ballot by the Arizona Legislature and approved by the voters, did a good job of limiting the primary property tax levies for counties, cities/towns, and community colleges. Prop 101 strengthened existing provisions in Article 9, Section 18, by which the tax levies for those taxing districts can increase by only two percent per year. But there may be a dozen taxing districts on a typical taxpayer’s property tax bill—and most of those districts are not subject to Prop 101’s two percent levy limit.
Strong Legislative Referendum. A strong reform would apply the Prop 101-style two percent levy increase limit to all taxing districts going forward, and would be even stronger with a two-thirds voter override provision (such as the one included in the ATR levy limitation initiative).
Weak Legislative Referendum. A weak reform would involve having a two percent levy limit as a default, but allow simple majorities of taxing district officials to adjust rates so as to exceed the two-percent levy increase limit. The problem with this kind of Truth-in-Taxation provision is that it requires voters to pay close attention to the votes made by city council members, county supervisors, and dozens of other officials.
In our judgment, because of the political strength of the local taxing and spending interests, it is unlikely that any rollback provision could be referred out of the Legislature. In other words, any legislative referendum that survives would probably be forward-looking, and not provide retroactive relief.
AFT-AFP Recommendation
Out of strategic considerations, AFT-AFP recommends that grassroots property tax activists combine forces and support a single initiative. It will be difficult enough for activists to collect enough signatures to get a single initiative onto the 2008 ballot, and it will be difficult enough for activists to promote a single reform in the face of pro-spending propaganda, without also engaging in side arguments about why one grassroots initiative is supposedly better than another.
AFT-AFP’s preference among the three initiatives currently filed is ATR’s levy rollback and limitation initiative. Given the structure of the Arizona property tax system, a levy limitation initiative is the “golden bullet” for property tax reform. Although taxpayers have naturally fixated on the huge growth in their assessed values, the determining factor in the Arizona property tax equation is the amount of money levied by local taxing districts. In Arizona, limits on assessed valuation are of secondary importance to the objective of reducing overall tax burdens on home and business property owners. (The 0.5 and one-percent caps in the Prop 13 Arizona initiative would indeed achieve a form of levy limitation. But the initial reductions in revenue are likely to be so large, and go into effect so rapidly, as to pose difficult transition problems for some local districts. The spending interests will likely oppose any reform—even a weak referendum—but the heavier the revenue cut, the more realistic will be their claims of hardship.)
Ideally, AFT-AFP would like to see a vigorous public debate in 2008 that is focused on the differences between a strong levy rollback and limitation initiative (such as the one from ATR) and a referendum from the Legislature (which is likely to be weaker, and which would probably not include a rollback).
Newspaper circulation has plummeted again. The Republic is uniquely positioned as the paper of record in the fastest growing state in the nation, but the circulation is tumbling none the less. Sunday Paid circulation fell 4.64% to 480,952 and the weekday circulation fell 3.75% to 382,414.
The declines are really impressive. The population grows by 12,000 people a month and the paper loses about 3,000 subscribers a month. The penetration rate has truly plummeted. Eventually, it will be difficult to cover the variable costs of distribution and they are going to have to give it away free like the Tribune. But the collapse won’t end there. A subscriber is worth about $1,000 a year in ad revenue while a loyal web reader is worth about $10 a year. So even if azcentral gets a million loyal readers, there will be a nearly 98% drop in revenue. Sure, the production costs will disappear, but the news gathering costs will remain high. So the paper doesn’t have a sustainable business model.
The circulation issue is only important as it relates to the confidence of advertisers. There will eventually be a tipping point at which advertisers lose confidence in the medium. For example, in last Wednesday's mail, I discovered the food ads that are normally in the Wednesday Republic. That's a big deal. Sunday's sale inserts and Wednesday's food inserts provide a lot of revenue, but they are not really part of the papers. The Republic simply delivers them. If those advertisers have decided that mail provides better penetration for less money, that will be a big hit.
Management continues its rearguard action by replacing seasoned journalists with college kids. Tina May took a job as editor of a weekly in Monterey, Calif. Long-time reporter Doug Carroll, out in Mesa now, is leaving for Wisconsin, environment writer Corinne Purtill is leaving in December to write a book on the Khmer Rouge who have gone straight in Cambodia, longtime auto race writer Mark Armijo is leaving by the end of the year. More layoffs are inevitable.
I got this letter from a friend who is familiar with the industry.
It's been laughable looking at all the things the Republic is trying to do to keep a slight ray of relevance in the local market.
Home delivery for a cheaper price than even the "discount" Republic employees have (I've been doing the math)....Little sticky ads on the front page and section fronts and community sections....community conversations that next to no one is participating in....a glut of 22-year-old reporters.
But one thing you have probably noticed, and the most insulting of all at least to me, is using college students to cover the state of Arizona. You have probably noticed a glut of Cronkite News Service stories in the paper lately on such themes as a lack of veterinarians in rural Arizona, new enviro license plates being made by inmates in Florence, something about Seligman I saw the other day. There have been a lot of these lately. Of course, the Republic won't be honest with readers and tell them that they have become a glorified State Press, but that's exactly what they are doing.
Sunday's Republic had a good overview of the Arizona Blogosphere. Here's what it said about Espresso Pundit.
Among Capitol insiders, former state Rep. Greg Patterson's Espresso Pundit is a must-read. Greg's insider ties and conservative loyalty mean he's often got his finger on the pulse of Arizona politics, at least from the right's perspective.
Take the controversy over some of the phrases on the state's 9/11 memorial. Patterson broke the story that eventually got national mainstream media coverage and evolved into a significant campaign issue against Gov. Janet Napolitano by her Republican challenger, Len Munsil.
Patterson is also a self-proclaimed mainstream media critic, zealously taking on many writers of these pages (this writer included) when he perceives a bias that's counter to his.
Ian Calkins of Copper State Consulting said he reads the blog because it "has just the right mix of insider info, analysis, pics/graphics and humor."
"I read it every day because I don't want to be unprepared when my colleagues ask the inevitable question: 'Did you see that post on Espresso Pundit today?' " he said.
John Edwards has a great commercial depicting Hillary Clinton in her own words.
Being a 43 year old ASU student has its drawbacks. One problem is the language--while technically English, it's a strange dialect. I wrote the headline based on what I've been hearing today. I think they are referring to this event. Don't worry, students are being re-routed to other Starbucks on Campus.
I don't think the electronic warning system is working as well as they anticipated. The fire started at the lunch hour and I got this email at 4:10.
SAFETY ALERT:
There is a contained fire in the Memorial Union on the Tempe campus. All
occupants have been evacuated. The Memorial Union is closed until
further notice; please stay away from the immediate area.
This is interesting.
Pima County may call off a planned 2008 bond election amid concerns over voter confidence in local government and taxpayer outrage at rising property values.
Top county officials are questioning whether the county should postpone the bond election until 2009 or later, even as the county's Bond Advisory Committee prepares to sort through nearly $2 billion in recommended projects.
I think Pima County is making a good call. People are starting to see the 2004 property values reflected in their assessments and they are getting pretty unhappy.
Voter angst is being compounded by problems at the state level as well.
Analysts reported Wednesday that the state's budget shortfall had reached $374 million by the end of September, including $226 million left over from the previous fiscal year.
It looks like this year's deficit is approaching $800 million. Governor Napolitano has bragged that she inherited--and eliminated--a billion dollar deficit. It now looks like she may leave one just as large.
Legislators are frustrated by what they view as budget gimmicks and short term fixes that they see coming from Napolitano.
Napolitano, a Democrat, in mid-September announced a plan to close a $600 million budget gap by pulling $200 million from the state's rainy-day reserve and using financing, rather than cash, to spread payments for $300 million in school construction over the coming decades. State agencies would be asked to find the remaining $100 million in cuts by taking steps such as imposing a hiring freeze on non-essential positions and eliminating most overtime.
The House and Senate have to deal with the governor on budget issues, but they can bypass the governor if they send structural changes to the ballot. Look for Legislative Republicans to capitalize on the public mood by proposing a series of ballot measures to restrict spending and debt at state, county and city levels.
Pima County is smart not to ask the voters to approve a major bond sale in 2008. But my guess is that the inability to get bonds approved in 2008 will be the least of their worries.
Recent Comments