You are here: Home / 2009 / September / Archives for 9th

Private School Students More Tolerant and Politically Accepting

September 9, 2009 By 6 Comments

Goldwater Institute News Release
September 9, 2009

Phoenix—Are Arizona’s high school students better served by private or public schools? We asked those who know best: the students.

The Goldwater Institute surveyed students in public and private high schools about the academic environment and racial and political tolerance in their schools. The results are being released in two reports. The first, “Tough Crowd: Arizona High School Students Evaluate Their Schools” measured students’ satisfaction with their schools and the schools’ academic environments. The second, “Better Citizens, Lower Cost: Comparing Scholarship Tax Credit Students to Public School Students” examines student perceptions about civic tolerance, diversity and volunteerism within their schools.

The survey shows that by a four-to-one margin, students in private schools report a greater sense of civic responsibility, look forward to going to school, volunteer in their community and value diversity over their public school counterparts.

Survey responses include:

“My school teaches me to value, respect and tolerate differences in others.”
76 percent of students in private school agree with that statement, compared with 51 percent of students in public school.

“My school treats all students with respect regardless of race.”
64 percent of students in private high school agree with that statement, compared with 40 percent of public school students.

“My school has high expectations of me.”
71 percent of students in private high school agree with that statement, compared with 48 percent of students in public high school.

“I look forward to going to school.”
66 percent of students in private high school agree with that statement, compared to only 47 percent of students in public school.

“This survey punches semi-truck sized holes in the old arguments against private school education, and in turn, the value of the tuition tax credit program,” said Goldwater Institute Vice President of Research Matthew Ladner, Ph.D. “Students are in the best position to tell us what’s really going on in the classroom, and the results show students in private schools are getting a better education and adopting better civic values, all at a lower price tag to the taxpayer.”

“Tough Crowd: Arizona High School Students Evaluate Their Schools” and “Better Citizens, Lower Cost: Comparing Scholarship Tax Credit Students to Public School Students” are both available online. The Goldwater Institute is an independent government watchdog supported by people who are committed to expanding free enterprise and liberty.

Filed Under: Press Release

AZ CAP and TAX Dams Uphill Battle

September 9, 2009 By 13 Comments

by Gayle Plato


With all of the health care scare and town halls going code blue, The American Clean Energy and Security Act, HR 2454, otherwise known as the Cap and Trade legislation, is ready and able, moving closer to Senate approval status. Volumes could be written about how it will impact Arizona. This legislation affects every single Arizonan who uses water, eats food, and relies on power. This legislation has nothing to do with green energy and everything with greenbacks. Cap and Trade will face a serious uphill battle with Arizonans- literally.

CAP has another key meaning here, The Central Arizona Project. The CAP took 20 years and $4 billion to complete, and uses coal to work. Coal creates the electric power used to move the millions of gallons of water around Arizona and the West. The CAP will be hammered by Cap and Trade legislation as coal-burning plants, specifically the Navajo Generating Station (NGS) is the only energy producer supplying the CAP power for the pumps. Water does use gravity to travel but in Central Arizona, much of the water must travel uphill and that requires electricity from the Native American power plants. Nearly a quarter of all the power generated by the NGS goes to the CAP. Imagine the slam to the economy the Navajo and Hopi Nations will face, the costs for the state, and the reality of the Cap and Trade mandates?

“The CAP is the largest single source of renewable water supplies in the State of Arizona and the largest single end-user of power in the State. The CAP uses about 2.8 million megawatt hours of energy to pump about 1.6 million acre-feet of water each year from the Colorado River…Today, CAP’s energy costs are about $50 per acre-foot of water delivered. A $200 per acre-foot increase in CAP energy rates would represent a 400% increase to our water users.” http://tinyurl.com/le3noz
Is the state of Arizona ready for the federal designs on energy? Susan Bitter Smith can reassure us at CAP’s website, taxes won’t be raised.  But let’s face it; CAP’s own site states that costs will skyrocket.  What about the reality that the federal plan directs more than a scrub of the emissions? The Cap and Tax scam fuels a scrubbing of the entire power generation process.
We just completed the CAP in the 90s; are we really prepared to switch all power sourcing over to–what? Hundreds of solar panels lining the highway from Kayenta to Page? Maybe we could put up millions of dollars of wind turbines all over Monument Valley? The plan for hydro-electricity failed at the onset of the CAP because no one wanted to see dams built in the Grand Canyon.  The Navajo Generating Station was created to accommodate the CAP, creating jobs and fueling an entire community of support and infrastructure.  Greening the nation sounds great as a campaign slogan or over a hummus pita in a Flagstaff coffee and organic hemp shop. When you’re in college and thinking about joining the Obama volunteer forces, consider how it’s going to feel on the unemployment line after your year of service, because Cap and Trade will eviscerate the economy one curly cue toxic light bulb at a time. Walk in beauty natives, as the costs to the community will be insurmountable. Never mind the Navajo, the Diné, the People; Yá’át’ééh a bini. To my Navajo friends: Át’aa la’ hóníí’ ‘o’oots’id (loosely-I feel burned)!

But don’t get confused about what Cap and Trade really is. This is not about greening the environment. Carbon credits including the regulation of emissions, is the creation of a truly green currency. The trade of a new currency, that is a carbon emission credit, is the real story and every publication seems to drop that lede. There will be huge profits for the scam artist carbon credit brokers. One metric ton of greenhouse gas equals a carbon credit. The traders of these, on the international scene, follow the greenhouse gassy Kyoto agreement plans dropped down from on high at the United Nations: this is one pile of steaming crap for trade. The best part- a tree must be planted in turn for the credit. Think of the movie Bugsy recalling how Benjamin Siegel sold shares of The Flamingo over and over, ending up in a dire situation with a few bullets in his head. When the trade of credits and subsequent trees being planted cannot be tracked, outright fraud will prevail. But, what a great money maker it will be for the few years is flies.

Coal burns but people shouldn’t be burned as the new greening of the world leaves many cooked. Whether water, food, or people needing to move around the country, power matters. If the POTUS administration REALLY wants to help the environment, get off of the incredibly useless solar and inefficient wind power ideas. Get the country drilling. Drill baby drill– for what we have most of- Natural Gas. Help the natural gas drilling happen and stop blocking it. Listen to a leader who knows a thing or two about energy:

“In addition to immediately increasing unemployment in the energy sector, even more American jobs will be threatened by the rising cost of doing business under the cap-and-tax plan. For example, the cost of farming will certainly increase, driving down farm incomes while driving up grocery prices. The costs of manufacturing, warehousing and transportation will also increase…We must move in a new direction. We are ripe for economic growth and energy independence if we responsibly tap the resources that God created right underfoot on American soil. Just as important, we have more desire and ability to protect the environment than any foreign nation from which we purchase energy today.

In Alaska, we are progressing on the largest private-sector energy project in history. Our 3,000-mile natural gas pipeline will transport hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of our clean natural gas to hungry markets across America. We can safely drill for U.S. oil offshore and in a tiny, 2,000-acre corner of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge if ever given the go-ahead by Washington bureaucrats.Westerners literally sit on mountains of oil and gas, and every state can consider the possibility of nuclear energy…We have an important choice to make. Do we want to control our energy supply and its environmental impact? Or, do we want to outsource it to China, Russia and Saudi Arabia? Make no mistake: President Obama’s plan will result in the latter.”- Governor Sarah Palin”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/13/AR2009071302852.html?sid=ST2009071302882

Filed Under: Energy, Environment, Federal Budget, State Economy

County Attorney A. Thomas Launches Potential Run for Attorney General

September 9, 2009 By 14 Comments

Proven Crime Fighter Andrew Thomas Launches Exploratory Committee for Arizona Attorney General

Maricopa County Attorney Touts Results, Effective Change in Potential Bid for State’s Top Law Enforcement Job

PHOENIX, ARIZONA. SEPTEMBER 9, 2009. Having presided over a reduction in crime and illegal immigration during his tenure as Maricopa County Attorney, Andrew Thomas is interested in setting his sights on the Arizona Attorney General’s Office, where his long-standing focus on protecting the public and securing the border might benefit all Arizonans.

Thomas will file his paperwork this morning with the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office, establishing his exploratory committee.

Thomas was nominated by Republicans in the 2002 race for Attorney General, a primary election in which he swept all of Arizona’s 15 counties. He was subsequently elected twice as Maricopa County Attorney, in 2004 and 2008.

Perhaps best known for his tough-on-crime stance and related policies, Thomas has established a reputation throughout the region for improving the overall safety of Maricopa County. And the numbers don’t lie. Since taking office in 2004, overall countywide crime per 100,000 people has dropped 18 percent, violent crime has dropped 8 percent and property crime has been reduced by 21 percent. Additionally, during the same time period, the number of criminals sent to the Department of Corrections has increased by nearly 30 percent, while vehicle thefts have steadily declined by up to 30 percent in metro-area cities.

“County Attorney Thomas has dedicated his life to a successful fight against crime,” said Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. “If he ultimately runs for Attorney General, I will do whatever I can to help elect him.”

Thomas has implemented innovative policies to fight crime, such as ending plea bargains as they had been customarily used for serious violent criminals, fighting human smuggling, sponsoring programs to prevent crime and drug abuse and putting a greater emphasis on identity theft cases. Thomas also successfully prosecuted two of the Arizona’s most notorious criminal cases, the so-called “Serial Shooters” and “Baseline Killer” cases.

“Whether it’s taking a stand against illegal immigration before doing so was politically safe, working with police officers to take serial killers off our streets, or standing up to powerful lobbies, I have never hesitated to defend the public interest, no matter the personal cost,” Thomas said. “The changes and results have meant better protection for our citizens through reduced crime.”

Should he choose to run for Attorney General Thomas said he would continue his tough-on-crime policies for violent and repeat offenders and identity thieves, but also focus on issues such as offering common-sense environmental protection and upholding constitutional values in state government.

In previous campaigns, Thomas has been endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police, Phoenix Law Enforcement Association and Border Patrol Agents Association.

Thomas and his wife, Ann, have four children. He is a graduate of Harvard Law School. Prior to being elected Maricopa County Attorney, Thomas served as an assistant attorney general for Arizona, a prosecutor for Maricopa County, and chief attorney for the Arizona Department of Corrections.

To arrange interviews with Mr. Thomas, please call Jason Rose or JP Twist.

-30-

PAID FOR BY THE THOMAS FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL EXPLORATORY COMMITTEE

Contact:
Jason Rose
Rose & Allyn Public Relations
Work: 480.423.1414

JP Twist
Rose & Allyn Public Relations
Work: 480.423.1414

Filed Under: Campaigns & Elections

Three steps to prevent future budget debacles

September 9, 2009 By Leave a Comment

by Byron Schlomach, Ph.D.
Goldwater Institute
 
The Arizona Republic recently ran a series of editorials on the state’s budget crisis castigating legislative leadership for the budget debacle. The editors should have focused on the institutional structures that permit Arizona’s legislative and executive branches to ignore their constitutional duty to balance the budget.
 
The state constitution could be clearer, but there is an expectation that policymakers will balance the budget when it says: “Whenever the expenses of any fiscal year shall exceed the income, the Legislature may provide for levying a tax for the ensuing fiscal year sufficient, with other sources of income, to pay the deficiency.” Left unsaid is that the policymakers also may reduce expenses to meet income.
 
For three months, one-quarter of the fiscal year, we have operated with an unbalanced budget. In June, Governor Brewer vetoed specific spending cuts and conforming legislation, not to balance the budget, but that further drove up expenses. The result was pressure on the legislature to increase taxes.
 
While General Fund revenues have fallen at least 30 percent, expenditures have been reduced from their high-water mark by only about 8 percent. State spending has only begun to come down to a level that might be sustainable in the long run. In the short run, it’s still completely unsustainable.
 
Several checks should be put in place in order to avoid these kinds of problems in the future. First, the constitution should state clearly that it’s illegal for the state to operate without a balanced budget, and a statewide elected official other than the governor should certify that the budget is balanced. Second, the legislature needs to draft budget bills straightforwardly, stating spending for the next year rather than specifying spending changes relative to earlier years. This would protect against line item vetoes of spending cuts. Finally, it is abundantly clear that a spending limit based on population growth and inflation would have prevented much of the budget debacle. Such a limit imposed at the 2001 spending level would have ensured a $2.5 billion balance by 2008.

Policymakers should act now to prevent future budget debacles.

Byron Schlomach, Ph.D, is director of economic policy at the Goldwater Institute.

Filed Under: Constitutional Law, Economics, Government, Spending, State Budget, State Government, Taxation

Supervisors want deputy county attorneys to swear a loyalty oath to unelected DAVID SMITH?

September 9, 2009 By 5 Comments

A m e r i c a n P o s t – G a z e t t e

Distributed by C O M M O N S E N S E , in Arizona

Tuesday, September 08, 2009

Supervisors want deputy county attorneys to swear a loyalty oath to unelected DAVID SMITH?

submitted by a reader

This is unbelievable. The County Supervisors continue to spiral out of control, trying to take over the offices of other county officials in power grabs, and are overspending their budgets by millions of dollars while forcing 15% cuts to law enforcement and other county agencies. Now, they are telling deputy county attorneys – who work for and report to the County Attorney, not the Supervisors – to take a loyalty oath to their unelected county manager, David Smith. Smith is currently under investigation by the Sheriff’s Office. The loyalty oaths would require the deputy attorneys to consult with Smith instead of their bosses in the County Attorney’s Office regarding legal issues! Even our SOLDIERS serving the country aren’t required to take a loyalty oath to the president. This is bizarre because the Supervisors and their manager Smith are not the bosses of these employees, they are in a separate county agency, the County Attorney’s Office.

County Attorney Andrew Thomas filed an objection in court, saying, “It was an obvious attempt to continue carving up the civil division and to amass power at the expense of the taxpayers,” Thomas said. “And so far, they have gotten away with it.”

In another recent power grab, the Supervisors set up their own “shadow county attorney’s office,” slashing the budget of the County Attorney’s civil division by 1/3 and hiring away some of their employees. They hired a 35-year old green attorney to run their shadow county attorney office and are paying him around $175,000/yr – a lot more than even the County Attorney makes. It is obvious that the Supervisors are trying to dismantle the County Attorney’s Office and put that office underneath them. But that’s not the type of government we have. If the voters want a County Attorney that is appointed by the Supervisors, they can change the system of government. But so far they haven’t, and they would prefer to elect the County Attorney, Sheriff, etc.

The question is, who do you want advising the county on civil issues? The County Supervisors (most of them are Republicans but they always side with the Democrats when it comes to spending and social issues like promoting diversity) and their manager David Smith, who have proven time and time again that they are spending out of control, or the County Attorney, who was elected to the position by the people and has a proven record of fiscal responsibility?

Filed Under: County Government, Spending