Arizona's Own Espresso Pundit

Isn't this ironic...

Golly, after 30 years of "save the rain forest" it turns out that it wasn't like, you know, a big deal. 

These new “secondary” forests are emerging in Latin America, Asia and other tropical regions at such a fast pace that the trend has set off a serious debate about whether saving primeval rain forest— an iconic environmental cause — may be less urgent than once thought. By one estimate, for every acre of rain forest cut down each year, more than 50 acres of new forest are growing in the tropics on land that was once farmed, logged or ravaged by natural disaster.

Contrary to the dogman of the modern Malthusians, the improvement comes from economic development.

In Through the Out Door

Government has long been described as a revolving door.  Many industry experts take a break from their careers and spend some time working at senior levels in Government, while young professionals often work a few years at a government agency in order to develop a unique expertise that benefits their eventual private sector career. 

Unlike some, I don't find the revolving door to be a problem.  I spent about ten years in state government and for the last eight years I've been in the private sector. 

Former government employees come in two camps:  those who know people and those who know stuff.  If you are looking for a lobbyist who can help you work with elected officials, you want a former government employee who knows people.  Ideally, you want to hire the former staff of a high-ranking elected official.  Some people don't like it, but that's the way the system works. 

Then there's the other category, people who know stuff...really complicated stuff.  If you want to build a $2 billion pipeline and you know you can't get a FONSI, you better have a NEPA expert do your EIS and the best NEPA experts used to work at EPA.  You get the picture.  The guy who understands the IRS used to work at the IRS; the guy who won't screw up your air shed permit is the guy who used to process them at DEQ. 

Both of these examples of the revolving door are well within the ethical rules.  But the revolving door becomes a legal and ethical problem when a guy who knows PEOPLE markets himself as a guy who can help with complicated STUFF.  "Having trouble with your air shed permit?  Well, I play golf with the agency director and for $10,000 a month, I can help you with your project."  That's influence peddling. 

Just because you are friends with some agency director doesn't make you qualified to guide someone through the technical aspects of government--permitting, procurement, grant programs etc.  And if you market yourself as someone who can "get things done" at a regulatory agency because you have a special relationship with the agency director, then you are simply cashing in on a friendship and you are putting yourself (as well as your Agency Director friend) in serious jeopardy.

The political team at Arizona Republic has unearthed such a relationship, but they didn't seem to understand the significance and treated the whole story as a joke.  Here's the political insider from last Sunday. 

Smooth landings for some...Jeanine L'Ecuyer, former spokeswoman extraordinaire for the former Napolitano administration is linking up with Ziemba Waid Public Affairs.

L'Ecuyer will serve as communications director for the Phoenix-based public-relations firm, founded by prominent Democrats Tom Zimba nd David Waid, both friends of Napolitano's.  Not coincidentally, the firm is opening a new branch in D.C., putting the Ziemba/Waid team in close proximity to Napolitano's new gig leading the grant machine (read:feed trough) that is the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. 

The Insider prides itself on being tongue in cheek, but I can't imagine that the reporters simply made that up, and if it's true, it would be an extraordinary ethical violation. 

Let me be clear, any friend of Janet who thinks they can cash in on their relationship by helping clients get favorable treatment from the Department of Homeland Security--whether by getting grants, procurement contracts, or even just facilitating access--is no friend of Janet and is likely to eventually find themselves answering questions from the Department of Justice.

Some doors in government revolve, but some of them clang shut with a loud electronic locking sound.  Understanding which actions lead to which door is the key to having a long and successful career.

Ten Birds are in a Tree...

There's a riddle that I told my kids when they were just learning to add and subtract.  "Ten birds are in a tree and you shoot one.  How many are left?"  Most kids will tell you the number is nine.  When you explain that the number is zero because the rest of them fly away, they learn their first lesson in dynamic analysis. 

Some kids never heard that riddle, so they grew up to be journalists.  Here's a great example from today's Republic.

Since 1998, Arizona public schools have raked in more than $263 million in private, tax-deductible donations, while private schools have collected $293 million for scholarships.

That represents a total $556 million in lost state revenue over 10 years.

That's right.  Ten birds minus one bird equals nine birds, and $263 million plus $293 million equals $556 million.  The sentence that presents the total for us would be meaningless surplusage if it were actually correct, but it's, of course, wrong because the reporters have made the bird-in-a-tree mistake.

Let's say that it costs an incremental $10,000 to send a child to public school and that a parent wants to send his child to a private school that costs $6,000.  Then let's suppose that the parent gets access to a $2,000 (that the average scholarship) or $3000, or even the full $6,000 in private scholarship money and is able to send the child to private school. 

Under the Republic's analysis, that represents a lost of $2,000, $3000 or $6000 in state revenue.  However, we know that the state no longer has to pay the $10,000 to educate the student.  So the actual SAVINGS is $8,000, $7,000 or $4,000 depending on the size of the scholarship. 

You may argue that my numbers are wrong because it doesn't cost an incremental $10,000 to educate a child.  The Goldwater Institute would disagree with you on that one.  Besides, it doesn't change my argument.  The private school scholarships enable parents to opt out of public school and they do so at a substantial savings when compared to public school tuition. 

So the "lost state revenue" number in the article is not only simplistic, but it's wrong.  You may think I'm being picky, but the whole point of the article is that the tax credits take money away from education.  The fundamental point of the article is wrong.

So if ten birds are in a tree...

Next week, we can ask the journalists if they would rather have a truck load of nickels or half a truck load of dimes.

Post Script:

There's another aspect of the tax credits that is even too complex for my kids to understand.  Here's the key line from the article.

Schools and parents see these donations as a win-win. Donors get credits on their state taxes, plus a federal tax deduction for a donation;

Golly, doesn't that mean that parents actually make a profit off the credit?  After all, they get the full amount back on their AZ taxes and then they get to deduct the amount on their federal taxes. 

Shame on them.

Sigh. 

I will admit that this one is actually tricky.  But here's a quick crack at it.

Your state tax liability is deductible for federal taxes.  So since the credit reduces your state liability, you have lost a federal deduction.  Making the contribution deductible holds you harmless. 

Another way to look at it is that if you get a state refund, it's taxable for federal purposes, so you need to be able to deduct the contribution for federal purposes in order to offset the taxability of the state refund.

(I've left out any possible Alternative Minimum tax calculations.)

Going the way of the Dodo

I've been amazed at simplistic--verging on facile--arguments that the editorial boards have been making against budget cuts.

The reality, of course is that the State is out of money, out of gimmicks and out of borrowing authority, so there will either have to be a massive tax increase, deep cuts or both.  Yet instead of offering real solutions, the editorial boards--which were eerily quiet while Governor Napolitiano got us into this mess--are offering simple bromides and tired metaphors.  Every program is an "investment" so don't kill the body by using an ax, chain saw, starvation etc.

Here's an example of an especially simplistic analysis  from the soon to be defunct Arizona Daily Star.

We call on parents, educators and business leaders to make sure lawmakers know how valuable public education is to our community. This investment must be protected. Starving our educational system will only make it that much harder for Arizona to pull out of this damaging economic downturn.

Starving our way out of the downturn?   Star editorials often read like they were written by high school students,* so I found this line to be especially funny.

We asked a high school student job-shadowing at the Star what she would worry about if state education funding is cut, and her list of possibilities is insightful and telling:

Wow, that's the in depth analysis we have come to expect from professionals.  Could they have at leased CALLED a high school student instead of asking the one who happened to be in the newsroom that day?

I'm not the only one who is frustrated by the lack of honest analysis, last week, Republic Columnist Bob Robb made the case as well as I could. 

Those advocating deep cuts in state spending are addressing the issue honesty and responsibly. Those protesting the cuts are not.

The only honest and responsible alternative is to raise taxes. Those who don't like the consequences of paring back spending to match revenues need to put a tax increase on the table large enough to support the state government they think Arizona should have.

Until then, they are avoiding rather confronting reality.

Then, right on schedule,  Robb's own editorial board uses a full Sunday editorial to serve up this analytical oatmeal.

Let's Use a Knife not an AX, on College Budgets

The editorial isn't on line yet, but the final paragraph will give you a flavor of the analysis

Arizonans need to take a thorough look at the true impact of reducing university budgets.  Legislators, regents and university officials need to set aside rhetoric and discuss what cuts are possible without slicing through arteries. 

Slicing through arteries...how clever.  

So much for honesty...or even creativity.  The amazing part is that they actually get PAID to write this stuff...well they get paid for now anyway.

*I'm serious when I say the editorials often look like they were written by high school students.  My son is a sophomore at Desert Mountain, so I have a rough idea what high school essays look like.  Take a moment and read the full Star editorial. It is shallow and trite; the analysis is simplistic and conventional, while the writing style is weak.  The mixed metaphor about "starving" the system making it harder to pull out of the "downturn" is inexcusable. 

 

The 49ers

Is this image from azcentral meant to be a cruel assessment of the Napolitano Administration?  After six years of neglect, Arizona has actually fallen to 49th in education funding and these guys are marching to show their disgust.   Dude, that's harsh. 

I'm mean, she has a legacy there's..well...the employer sanctions law.

Time For the Delegation to Step Up.

Randy Pullen has won the race to be the Republican Party Chairman.  The state's Congressional delegation has made it clear that he was not their guy, but now that he has won over their objections-- twice--it's time for them to step up and give him the logistical, moral and--perhaps most of all--financial support that he will need for the next two years.  The delegation has a lot of influence on where the national money goes, and they need to make sure that Pullen has the resources he needs. 

Since Schadenfreude is my favorite vice, I understand them wanting to see him fail, but the Democrats are already geared up for the once-a-decade redistricting fight and Republicans have frankly botched the last couple efforts.  So unless Franks wants to run against Pastor, or Shaddegg wants to run against Flake, I would suggest that folks put aside their differences and step up to the plate.  Step up, grow up, whatever.

I'm starting to really like this guy...

This caught my eye.

The Obama administration fell in line with the Bush administration Thursday when it urged a federal judge to set aside a ruling in a closely watched spy case weighing whether a U.S. president may bypass Congress and establish a program of eavesdropping on Americans without warrants.

I'm starting to get it now.  That wailing and gnashing of teeth by the left was just posturing--or flopping for you soccer fans.  Pretty soon Obama will confirm that Valerie Plame wasn't really an undercover agent and that Joe Wilson was a lier.  Dude, this is awesome. 

Oh and speaking of the Obama Administration, I heard Former Governor Napolitano's confirmation hearings on NPR, and it sounded to me like she was calling for a federal employer sanctions law.

Hmm, That sounds like lobbying...

Here's an interesting note from Republic Reporter Casey Newton's blog.

Senate leaders remain focused on cutting spending and are reluctant to pursue new sources of revenue, they said in a briefing this morning.

As a feisty Capitol press corps pressed the leadership to consider tax hikes, Sen. President Bob Burns said his top priority was to reduce spending.

The comment also appeared in Newton's Republic article this morning.

So is that the role of the media, to "press the leadership to consider tax hikes?"

Of course, the reporters don't merely press for tax hike in the briefings.  They set the stage for them in their coverage.  For example, here's how Howie Fischer covered the story.

State Senate president rules out any tax increase

Burns would end deficit by slashing more than $1 billion from schools

Come on, You have to Appreciate the Irony-updated

The commenters have some good points.  When I watched it live, it sure looked like Obama botched it and the first mistake was clearly his, but it looks like the second mistake was Roberts' and hijinks ensued. 

First, let me say that I wish President Obama the best during his four years in office.  Let's have Democrats run things for a few years and see how it works out.  Besides, I'm so happy about the way things have turned out in Arizona that I'm ready to declare the Obama Administration a spectacular success--and since I'm constantly trying to find left-handed role models for my kids, I think this is an especially great day. 

But come on, you have to appreciate how ironic it is that the left has been pummeling Bush for being inarticulate and crowing about how intelligent, smooth and sophisticated Obama is...and then Obama flubs the oath of office. 

Here's a great examplefrom Jon Talton. 

Just to have a president who can speak well and intelligently, who reads books and newspapers, who seems to have an interior life, calm center and an open mind, who's smart, who won't embarrass us in the world.

Speaking of intelligence, I think Jon needs to buy a verb, but you get the point.  Here's the video.

Dude, that's really painful to watch.

Len Munsil Speaks out on Immigration

It goes with out saying that Len Munsil is widely respected in Republican circles; one of the reasons he has earned that respect is that he tends to provide thoughtful analysis on controversial issues.  You may not agree with Len, but even his opponents will agree that he's not a shrill voice reaching down to the lowest common denominator.  In his latest blog post, Len takes the immigration issue head on--and takes on some of his fellow Republicans as well.  It's an important post and worth reading.  Here's a piece.   

I have always supported a hard line against illegal immigration, and I opposed Congressional efforts over the past two years to enact comprehensive reform. I believe border security is a national security priority. I supported employer sanctions and voted against efforts to weaken Arizona's current law.

But the people I agree with on the issue were wrong in their treatment of conservative Republicans who favored comprehensive reform. Republican Party officials have every right to call up elected officials and (1) scream bloody murder, and (2) let them know privately that they are getting angry calls and letters from the Party faithful. In fact, they have an obligation to do so. But party officials hurt their own cause when they launch public campaigns challenging elected officials of their own party.

For elected party officials to publicly accuse Jeff Flake, John Shadegg and Jon Kyl of being traitorous RINO's is not only foolish, but nonsensical. These men and others have taken bullets for the conservative cause for decades, and have earned the respect of all conservatives.