Arizona's Own Espresso Pundit

AZ races viewed from Inside the Beltway.

Here's an interesting analysis. 

With the exception of the annoying choice of "Copper State" instead of "Grand Canyon State" the analysis seems pretty solid.  I think Republicans will do better in the Congressional contests than the author does, but the article is interesting nonetheless.

The Copper State has tilted heavily Republican for sixty years. It was the only non-Southern state to support its favorite son Barry Goldwater in 1964. It has tilted back some to the Democrats over the past two decades. In 1996 it voted for Bill Clinton, its only vote for the Democratic nominee in 60 years. A rapidly growing Hispanic population has proved key to Democratic emergence here. Hard-line immigration positions did not help the Republicans at all in 2006, as they lost two House seats. Arizona would probably be prime battleground territory in 2008, except that Republicans have nominated the state’s senior Senator, John McCain, as their Presidential nominee.

Sen. Johnson Retirement Party

Senator Ken Cheuvront hosted a retirement party for Senator Karen Johnson this afternoon.  In this picture, Senator Linda Gray explains to Senator Johnson that the Earth is indeed round, it just LOOKS flat.

(Obviously I'm kidding.  Karen is a dear friend whom I have known for nearly 20 years.  She is an outstanding Senator and I'm going to miss being able to work with her.) 

It's the Spending Stupid

Since the government is about to be shut down and the state teeters on the edge of bankruptcy, governor Napolitano, the spending lobby and their media enablers are sure claim that the crisis is being caused by a revenue shortfall.  The real answer is that the crisis was caused by a spending surplus. 

Tom Jenney just sent out this graph that compares actual state spending to the increase in population plus inflation. 

As you can see, the "population plus inflation" line at the bottom rises dramatically, but not nearly as fast as the actual spending line at the top.

Here's how Tom puts it.    

The Arizona chapter of Americans for Prosperity (AFP Arizona) announced today that the state government’s revenue next year will be roughly equal to the revenue allowed by the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR), a fiscally conservative spending limit, if that limit had been adopted in 2004, after the state’s last major budget crisis. TABOR would have limited state spending to the rate of growth of Arizona’s population, plus inflation. Instead of facing a $2.2 billion deficit this year, the state under TABOR would today enjoy a small surplus.

Target of Opportunity

We are getting our first glimpse of a post Napolitano world, and it's a dangerous place. 

Before Governor Napolitano, the Democrats had been out of power for so long that they didn't have a bench.  Baseball analogies will no longer suffice.  The last six years, have given Napolitano the opportunity to recruit, equip and train a phalanx of talented foot soldiers who will affect state government for years to come. 

Here's the first example to come out of Camp Napolitano.

Tim Nelson has practiced law for 20 years. He served as General Counsel to Governor Janet Napolitano, where he advised her on a variety of legal issues and policy matters, including the drafting of veto messages, development and implementation of health and immigration policy, the use of executive orders, and the negotiation and signing of tribal gaming compacts. He also helped successfully defend the Governor in lawsuits, including two before the Arizona Supreme Court brought by members of the Arizona Legislature.

There's only two words that describe a resume like that:  Battle Hardened.  Nelson is the special forces soldier of political guerrilla warfare.  He could kill you with a rolled up invitation to his latest fund raiser and you wouldn't even have time to scream.

Here's a of great example Special Forces in action.  Nelson is running for Maricopa County Attorney and another Democrat has been foolish enough to challenge him in the Primary. So in yesterday's Tribune, we read this story.

Richard got Help From Convicted Felon

A candidate vying to become the Valley's chief prosecutor has used the help of a convicted felon to qualify for a spot on the ballot this fall, public records show. Gerald Richard, a Democrat, recently turned in more than 5,000 signatures to run in the Maricopa County Attorney's race later this year.

Wow, that sounds really serious.  Of course we soon learn that the felon is former state Representative Sue Laybe who pled guilty to a bribery count---17 years ago.  And the only help Laybe provided was to gather 30 of Mr. Richard's 5,000 signatures.  Then we learn that Laybe has had her rights restored so it is perfectly legal for her to circulate petitions.  So should a candidate reject help from someone who pled guilty to a crime 17 years ago, served her 103 days and then had her rights reinstated?  Should Laybe be a pariah?  Is this even a story? One person seems to think so.  The reporter goes on to quote "Josh Kilroy" who thinks that it's a big deal.

"It is generally considered to be poor judgment for candidates for county attorney to associate with people convicted of serious crimes - especially when the crimes involve the betrayal of the public trust,"

Of course, Kilroy is no independent observer.  The reporter discloses that Kilroy happens to be Tim Nelson's campaign manager.

Hmm, do you think that Tribune reporter Nick Martin spent a few days combing through Mr. Richard's signatures, recognized Laybe's name from the headlines 17 years ago and called Tim Nelson's campaign for comment?  Or do you think it's more likely that Nelson's campaign combed through Mr. Richard's petitions, called the reporter and convinced him that it was a big story?  If Martin and Nelson deny it then lunch is on me. 

Of course, getting a story like this into print takes more than just a well-trained candidate, it takes a gullible reporter, after all, a quote from Nelson's campaign manager alone doesn't make for a very credible story.  Maybe Nick Martin could salvage the story by finding someone who is actually credible and willing to claim that it's "poor judgment" to accept 30 signatures out of 5,000 from someone who pled guilty to a felony 17 years ago, but has had her rights restored?

How about the man who prosecuted Laybe?  Maybe Rick Romley will say that it was "poor judgment."  Nope.

Romley declined, however, to say what he thought of Laybe's participation in the county attorney's race.

How about someone else who is credible...like a U.S. Attorney?  Nope.

Former U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton, a Richard supporter, said the Laybe connection really has no influence on the campaign.

So Martin has one prosecutor who says it's not a problem and one prosecutor who declined to comment and a quote from Mr. Richard's opponent's campaign manager who says it's "Generally considered to be poor judgment."  Well, it can't be too "generally considered" because Nick Martin can't seem to find anyone else who considers it poor judgment. 

The only poor judgment in this story belongs to reporter Nick Martin. 

Every campaign would be thrilled to accuse the other candidate of "poor judgment."  And the headline "Richard got Help From Convicted Felon" is worth its weight in gold.

At a minimum, Nelson took advantage of the reporter's inexperience and managed to get the "poor judgment quote."  Soon you will see it again in Nelson's mailers and commercials. 

It's more likely, however, that the entire story was generated by the Nelson campaign.  That shouldn't happen.  Reporters are supposed to be more savvy.  Editors are supposed to be paying more attention.   Candidates are supposed to be more able to defend themselves.

But a battle harden end and well trained operative knows how to ruthlessly overwhelm a target of opportunity.  Camp Napolitano will affect political campaigns and tactics for decades to come. 

 

Gannett Decline Steepens

From the WSJ.

Shares of Gannett Co Inc. fell to levels last seen in December 1994 as the nation's largest newspaper publisher disclosed increased declines in print-advertising revenue for May, further highlighting the pressures facing the industry.

JPMorgan, which affirmed its negative view of Gannett, said, "We see no reason for upside in the stock given the ongoing deterioration in fundamentals."

Turn out the Lights...

Legislative leaders say a state budget deal is "imminent."

State lawmakers are confident they can pass a budget before some government agencies must close their doors July 1, the start of the next fiscal year.

However, it is becoming increasingly obvious that there is no possible way that the Legislature will have a budget ready by the beginning of the fiscal year.

Budget logistics are complex.  Once there is a an agreement, it takes a few weeks to draft the full budget, at least a week for the line-by-line negotiations and another week to vote a full package out.  That's at least a month assuming no hitches.

The fiscal year ends in two weeks and the Legislature hasn't even agreed on the conceptual framework. 

Naturally, the Governor is attempting to blame the legislature:

Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano voiced her frustration Wednesday with a Legislature that she said lacked "organization, drive, purpose and urgency" with regard to approving a new state budget.

However, let's not forget that Governor Napolitano's initial "budget" included the traditional accounting gimmicks:  fund sweeps, new debt and "roleovers" plus some truly creative tricks like raising $90 million with photo radar and forcing the counties to house state prisoners.

She tossed that mess into the legislature's lap and then went to Vegas to campaign for Obama. 

The time line is further confounded because legislative leaders don't trust Napolitano to keep her word in budget negotiations.  Remember how the 2005 budget deal turned out.

Republicans have consistently said the vetoes from last May poisoned the Capitol atmosphere, prompting House Speaker Jim Weiers to hand out bumper stickers and T-shirts that read: "SHE LIED."

Negotiations had become so tense that legislators insisted that Napolitano's chief negotiator initial every line of the budget--then she vetoed four provisions despite the verbal agreements AND the initials. 

That lack of trust will add a week to the sine die process as House and Senate budget negotiators attempt to craft a budget that is immune from line item vetoes and other last minute shenanigans. 

Leadership insists that they will be done by the 30th.  But don't bet on it. 

The bottom line concerning the bottom line is that we are six years into the Napolitano administration, the state is virtually bankrupt and the government is about to be shut down.

For her sake, I hope the Obama thing works out.   

I never did like it all that much and one day the ax just fell.

Dude, serious layoffs out there.  I just got this email from someone at the Kansas City Star.

We just laid off 10 percent of the paper today -- 120 people. The newsroom lost 20 to 25 people and two in sports, including our Kansas State beat reporter, a friend of mine who's been here over 20 years.   I guess it was worse at Miami and Fort Worth -- they each cut 17 percent of their workforce.

Not a fun place to work right now.

Sunday Square Off

I'll be on Sunday Square Off with Rep. Ben Miranda and The Republic's Joe Garcia this Sunday at about 8:10 following Meet the Press.  I brought my son Daniel to the studio and Rick DeBruhl was kind enough to give him the "nickel tour."  Daniel had a great time on the set and I want to thank Rick for showing him around. 

Here was my Final Thought.

"Well, the economy is slowing, gas prices are rising, the state budget is collapsing and just when you think that your wallet can’t take anymore, Governor Napolitano is proposing an 18% increase in the sales tax in order to fund transportation projects.  Maybe I’m short sighted, but if I were going to propose a huge tax increase for transportation, I would spend the money on, you know, “transportation.”  But the governor’s plan includes  billions of dollars on goodies like buying habitat and projects to “facilitate wildlife movement.”  I guess that would be bridges for elk and tunnels for tortoises.  Most troubling is that the governor wants the entire 43 billion dollars to be exempt from the state procurement code and the rule making process.   The proposal is called the TIME initiative but it’s an idea whose time has definitely not arrived.  Remember that when the homeless guy at the library asks you for your signature."

If you want to read a more detailed analyisis of the TIME initiative, you can click this post from last week. 

Bringing in the Big Guns.

Supporters of the TIME initiative have hired Stan Barnes as the Republican strategist to advise the campaign.  Stan could sell ice in Alaska, so if anyone can convince Republicans to raise the sales tax to fund $7 Billion in light rail, build a train to Tucson and write a huge check to the Nature Conservancy so they can buy elk right of way, it's Stanley. 

Post Script

Since recording my final thought for Sunday Square off, I have become less concerned that the governor has exempted the $43 Billion from the Rule making process and the Procurement Code.  I've decided that this is just a formality since the Governor doesn't feel the need to follow the Rule Making process or the Procurement code anyway. 

All the News that's fit to Botch

How can you trust the New York Times with the big stuff, when then can't even get the little stuff right.

"Representative Harry E. Mitchell, a Democrat from the Tucson area, on Tuesday pressed the case for keeping the Guard in place by raising concerns that rising drug violence in Mexican border towns could spill into the United States."

A Nation of Laws

Nothing ticks me off more than when someone throws a cigarette butt on the ground.  My wife an I remodeled our house in 2001 and I can't count the number of cigarette butts we found in the back yard. 

But we live in a nation of laws and we can't simply say that some one is "bad" or that something they do "really ticks us off."  They need to, you know, violate an "actual law". 

That's why this article in today's Republic is so troubling.

Four of the country's largest home builders have agreed to pay $4.3 million in fines over claims that they repeatedly failed to take basic steps to prevent construction-site dirt and pollutants from contaminating the nation's waterways.

"When it rains, dirt and whatever else is on the ground can get caught in storm drains," said Granta Nakayama, assistant administrator for the EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. "That means garbage, dirt, pesticides, cigarette butts . . . paint, concrete stucco. These and other materials can end up on your local beach or in your local waterways."

I like clean water as much as the next guy.  But the Clean Water Act says that it's illegal to discharge a pollutant from a "point source" into "navigable waters". 

The case law defining "navigable waters" is a mess, but a consensus is emerging that it involves at least some actual water. 

"Point source" is pretty well defined and it doesn't include people, parking lots or construction sites.  As much as it ticks me off when a cigarette butt or construction debris gets washed off a constructions site, or oil residue washes off a parking lot, it's not a violation of the clean water act. 

If the EPA wants start prosecuting these "violations", it should ask Congress to amend the law.