We oftentimes get accused of shooting our own here on Sonoran Alliance in the name of conservative principles. The majority of the time, I have to agree that the problem with the GOP is that we try to play down our conservatism at large by running moderate to liberal Republicans only to find out that after they win, they give the party a bad rep because they vote no different than the Democrat.

We’ve been watching the same thing unfold in Republican district 23 in New York between so-called Republican, Dierdre Scozzafava, and Conservative, Doug Hoffman. Today, Dierdre Scozzafava suspenced her campaign and effectively withdrew from the race (AP Story). This is definitely good news for conservatives as the voters will now have a clear difference when they vote next Tuesday between a liberal and a conservative. If Hoffman pulls a win off in NY-23 it will send a strong message (as will the Governor’s races in VA and NJ) that the people are mad as hell at Democrats, liberals and incumbents for that matter, and they ain’t gonna take it any more.

Agree with my premise or not, next Tuesday’s election will be an indirect referendum on the Obama Administration. There are millions of pissed off voters – many of them Independents – who have swung back right of center. As for NY-23, one lesson the GOP should take away is that Republicans need to revisit the doctrine that conservative principles are actually a winning platform.

“Isms”  social, progressive, communal and otherwise … Take a visit to a time in this nation when Americans still understood the dangers of “ISMS.”

For those of you who don’t know, John Dewey is held as the father of modern American education; esteemed by educator’s and hailed as visionary by those who don’t know otherwise… In 1928 upon his return from Soviet Russia (communism) Dewey said,

I have never seen anywhere in the world such a large proportion of intelligent, happy, and intelligently occupied children” [New Republic, 1928]

John Dewey, an original signer of the Humanist Manifesto today would be proud of what he helped usher in … America, are you beginning to see what Obama is doing?  The way has been paved by “fellow travelers” for over a century now.

United We Stand Tea Party (www.unitedwestandteaparty.org) is taking place right at the Arizona Capital from 12:30 – 2:30 PM. It is located at 1700 W. Washington in Phoenix.  It is on Veteran’s Day, Wednesday, November 11, 2009.

Because it is NON-PARTISAN, the organizers have invited Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. Sadly, they have not received any response from any Democrats.

Please, bring canned food for St. Mary’s Food Bank Alliance.  Please, help others by bringing food for the needy. We need to help our neighbors.

All speakers will be addressing the Constitution and Bill Of Rights.

Current Speakers:

12:30-12:50 – Paul Porter – www.PaulPorterShow.com
12:50-1:00 – State Rep. Debbie Lesko (LD 9) – www.DebbieLesko.org
1:00-1:10 – Debbie Lee – America’s Mighty Warriors – www.americasmightywarriors.org
1:10-1:20 – John Paul Mitchell, Indep. gubernatorial candidate – www.aznextgov.org
1:20-1:30 – TBD
1:30-1:40 – Clint Bolick – www.goldwaterinstitute.org
1:40-1:50 – Tom Horne – Arizona State Superintendent of Public Instruction, exploring a run for AG – www.TomHorneExploratory.com
2:00-2:10 – Bradley Beauchamp, candidate in CD -1, running against incumbent Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (D) – www.beauchampforcongress.com
2:10-2:15 – TBD
2:15-2:30 – Dean Martin – Arizona State Treasurer – www.votedeanmartin.com

One of our taxpayer activists, Dorothy, wrote me an email (which I have pasted below), complaining about the huge increases in preschool fees that have been mandated this month by the Arizona Department of Health Services.

Here was my response:

Dear Dorothy—

Your daughter is dealing with a rotten government scam, from start to finish.

A lot of economists will tell you that the entire licensing scheme is a racket, and that nearly all of the useful and efficient regulation of child care centers is achieved through reputation, parental/consumer choice, and the tort system.

It is wrong for DHS to raise fees to astronomical heights to prop up a mostly useless licensing scheme.

Unfortunately, as you can see in this news article, the people who ostensibly defend the rights of children in Arizona have been barking up the wrong tree:

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2009/10/28/20091028childcare1028.html

The child rights activists are demanding that the government spend more money to prop up the licensing scheme, when they should be working toward pulling the plug on the whole thing.

Thank you for writing to me. You have reminded me that I need to bring this matter up before members of the Legislature’s HHS committees.

For Liberty,

–Tom

Here was Dorothy’s email to me:

Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2009 8:50 AM

Hi Tom,

I’m not sure if you can help shed any light on the below email my daughter received from the preschool (Bethany Learning Center) that her son goes to. Is this a done deal? Is there anything we can do besides writing letters, etc. the director suggests. This seemed to come out of nowhere – we hadn’t heard anything about it.

Any help or suggestions would be appreciated.

Thanks,
Dorothy

Dear Parents,

As most of you have either heard or read this past week, The Department of Health Services is planning a licensing increase for licensed preschools. The increase will be raised by 8,800 percent. For (Name of preschool withheld) our fee will multiply from $150.00 to $13,442.00 based on the sliding scale fee schedule. The proposal for the increase was made due to deep budget cuts. Unfortunately the escalation of this proportion is outrageous.

This increase in fees comes at a difficult time for preschool and child-care providers. We have all been hit hard with the recession. The implementation of these new fees with no time to plan or budget is too much too fast. We agree the rates are due to go up, however this is something that needs to be done gradually not overnight.

(Name of preschool withheld), as most facilities, is scrambling to figure out how this increase can be paid for. Ultimately these costs are likely to be passed on to families who attend each facility. The Department of Health Services is organizing a public meeting in Phoenix on Tuesday, October 27, from 5:00-6:00pm, for those of us affected by this increase to offer some alternatives to the proposed fee structure. If you are as concerned as I am about the increase in licensing fees, plan on attending the meeting so your voice can be heard.

As the Director of (name withheld) I would like to encourage you write a letter to Governor Jan Brewer letting her know that this is outrageous. It is a back door tax being imposed and it has the potential of putting facilities such as ours out of business. The governor signed this bill; she needs to be aware of the impact. In addition your concerned e-mails to the legislators letting them know that this fee structure will be devastating to child-care facilities will employ them to get involved. I have included the links to the e-mails of Will Humble – Interim Director of Department of Health Services; Bob Burns – President of the Senate; Kirk Adams – Speaker of the House; Nancy Barto – Chairperson of the Health and Human Services Committee; the Senate Appropriations Committee members; the House of Representatives Appropriations Committee; and Governor Brewer’s office.

Let me know if you have any additional questions.

Sincerely,

(Name withheld)
Director

This just in from Senate President Burns. From a public relations standpoint, this could become a sore point for the focus-like-a-laserbeam-on the budget crowd, but it will also ensure that other bills get started and heard in a timely manner. I’m willing to bet there are a lot of legislators down at the Capitol who are not looking forward to going through the next session with the budget deficit still not resolved. By hearing non-budget related bills in addition to resolving the budget crisis, the next session’s workload may take the incentive out of being a “citizen legislator” at $24,000/year (plus per diem). Many of the Democrats are there as activists or because they see it as a “political hobby.” Yes, there are some conservative activists down there but I find little to disagree with them on public policy and the budget.

Here’s Senator Burns’ Memo:

ARIZONA STATE SENATE

Robert L. Burns
President of the Senate
District 9

M E M O

TO: All Senators
DATE: October 29, 2009
RE: 49th Legislature, 2nd Regular Session

As we prepare for the upcoming legislative session, I believe it is necessary to outline the Senate schedule with regards to committee consideration of bills. While I maintain that the State’s financial condition is the most pressing issue and should remain a key focus, all standing committees will meet and take legislative action when session begins. I urge all committee chairs to use their discretion in placing priority on which bills advance through the process and are vital to the citizens of Arizona. I intend to coordinate with the Speaker on the schedule for next year, but I wanted to quell the rumors about the Senate order of business.

By Tom Patterson
Goldwater Institute
 
State Rep. Kyrsten Sinema recently rebuked U.S. Sen. Jon Kyl in the pages of the East Valley Tribune for recommending that “stimulus” funding be terminated. The federal government, by spending $308 million on infrastructure in Arizona, is providing a “much needed economic boost” to the state, she claimed.

Nobody can say for certain what might have happened without this $767 billion handout. But economic downturns always work themselves out. Markets are inherently self-correcting. In fact, there is a strong possibility that the massive bailouts and market manipulations by the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve have lengthened and deepened our current recession.

But there’s another, more fundamental problem with the “stimulus” program. It isn’t paid for with real money. The federal government is simply sharing the use of its magic printing press with the states for a while.

Printing trillions of dollars to pay for today’s wishes is wretched economic policy. When the stimulus money runs out, states will be in worse shape than ever because of the program expansions required to obtain the stimulus funds. Sooner rather than later, states will be forced to face the bitter reality of a “near permanent reduction in state revenues that will force us to reduce the size and scope of our state governments,” according to Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana, writing in the Wall Street Journal.

Like many individual Americans, many states spent extravagantly in the good economic times of this decade, making no provision for the future. Arizona unfortunately was one of the worst offenders. Now, that future is here. States are banking on an economic rebound, but gross domestic product growth would have to average 7 percent, twice the historic average, for revenues to be restored to their previous level by 2012.

In response to declining tax revenues, more than half the states have raised taxes. But today’s mobile individuals and businesses simply flee states that try to sock it to them. Beneficiary states are like Indiana, where state spending has been severely reduced and the tax climate is business-friendly. This year alone, more than 30 businesses have moved from tax-and-spend states to Indiana.

Yet Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer still insists on protecting state spending as much as possible by raising taxes. But she’s just postponing the day of reckoning. There is no choice but to fundamentally reduce the scope of state government or face permanent economic decline. Daniels notes that “wishing for an improbably huge boom while chasing your own tail through self-destructive taxes won’t prove much of a strategy.” Is anybody listening?
 
Tom Patterson is chairman of the Goldwater Institute and a former state senator. A longer version of this article originally appeared in the East Valley Tribune.

With the Tucson City council elections just days away, Karin Uhlich is showing her true feeling towards her constituents.  Rather than standing on the issues and her own voting record, she has now laid the smack-down by calling those who oppose her,  “Tea baggers”.  Not unexpected from the state-run media, but somewhat shocking from my local “enlightened” council-gal.

Right from her website:

Click to Enlarge

Reprinted from

COMMON SENSE

“In the following sheets, the author hath studiously avoided every thing which is personal among ourselves. Compliments as well as censure to individuals make no part thereof. The wise and the worthy need not the triumph of a pamphlet; and those whose sentiments are injudicious or unfriendly, will cease of themselves, unless too much pains is bestowed upon their conversion.”

 October 28, 2009

David Smith’s Private Twilight Zone – It is not what you think it is

There is a place in another dimension, where a confluence of seemingly unrelated elements is found, joined by the glue of pure circumstance. That we have discovered them at all might be attributed to serendipity, though some could argue, given David Smith’s obtuse actions, our discovery was all but inevitable. The elements are basic, human behavior, the wisdom of our Founding Fathers and clueless, blundering.

Maricopa County (Arizona) County Manager David Smith is our anti-hero. Freshly emerged from a series of inept moves, one would think Mr. Smith should have learned to think seriously about the nature of cause and effect. One would think, but given his history, we know better.

The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, at whose pleasure Mr. Smith serves, has been involved in a long running battle against the office of the County Attorney, Andrew Thomas. Several of the board members are under criminal investigation by the County Attorney. With misguided wisdom, the Board of Supervisors has sought to undermine those investigations using a series of gimmicks including withholding much needed funds from the office of the County Attorney. That these actions have drawn considerable attention from a disapproving public is not astonishing. The local blogs has been aflame with incriminations, finger pointing and fact corrections offered by cognoscenti, as well as lesser lights.

The Board of Supervisors has not been pleased, to say the least. He, or she, caught with a hand in the cookie jar is never happy, and repeatedly, bloggers have found Board member hands in the jar, or at least have been able to report crumb-coated fingers, guilty grins and missing cookies. One would think the Board, and its appointed manager, would take the hint and strike a lower profile. One would think, but then again, logic does not seem to be a guiding principle of these people. Attempted retribution is what they pulled out of their bag of tricks yesterday, with dismal results.

David Smith is demanding that several employees of the County Attorney’s office disclose details of their communications with various media, including their private communication sent from their personal computers during non-work hours. It is here that we find the confluence of their foolishness, the First Amendment and human behavior.

Our Founding Fathers, primarily at the insistence of Thomas Jefferson, endowed upon us a legacy of freedom, based in part on these immortal words: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press… David Smith appears to be nibbling at the edges of the First Amendment, never an advisable thing to do, and in the process, has triggered the third element of our extraordinary confluence – human behavior, specifically the manifestation of aggression that comes from frustration. Psychologists tell us that more arguments result from interruption of speech than any other source. David Smith tells us to shut up; we feel frustrated and lash out ever more aggressively in our blogs.

This begs the question: why does the Board of Supervisors tolerate such behavior from their chief employee, and has the time come for him to step down? Furthermore, if they are in complicity, shouldn’t they all seek new jobs? We believe that this would be C O M M O N  S E N S E.
 
Who the author of this Production is, is wholly unnecessary to the Public, as the Object for Attention is the Doctrine itself, not the Man. Yet it may not be unnecessary to say, That he is unconnected with any Party, and under no sort of Influence public or private, but the influence of reason and principle.

- Philadelphia, February 14, 1776

President Obama’s administration is SO good at resolving our economic calamities that they are now going to TRIPLE-DOWN on GMAC.  According to the LA Times, GM is simply too big to fail, which makes perfect sense as long as Barack continues to throw billions down the rat hole.  Even though the president has told us that he has brought us back from the brink in May, in September, and October, apparently General Motor’s financial division did not get that memo.

A Treasury Department spokesman confirmed that it was in talks with GMAC about a third helping of aid. The government already owns a 35 percent stake in GMAC after providing $12.5 billion to the lender. It also owns a majority-stake in GM and a smaller stake in Chrysler.

Kirk Ludtke, a senior vice president of CRT Capital Group LLC in Stamford, Conn., who follows GMAC, said the automakers can’t succeed without GMAC.  “We continue to believe that a viable GMAC is critical to the success of GM and Chrysler,” Ludtke said.  [This in spite of the fact that GMAC posted a wider second-quarter loss of $3.9 billion].

Treasury’s move would make GMAC the only U.S. company to receive three rounds of bailout aid.

• Last December, the government gave GMAC $5 billion in exchange for 5 million shares and GMAC’s agreement to extend financing services to bailed-out Chrysler LLC.
• Then in May, the Treasury Department announced a new $7.5 billion injection for GMAC — short of the $11.5 billion the government’s stress test showed the company would need to stay afloat if the economy worsens.
• And now, The Wall Street Journal first reported late Tuesday that the U.S. government could hand over another $2.8 billion to $5.6 billion to Detroit-based GMAC.

In less than one year, Barack will sling $15 billion+ into a company that continues to plummet into obscurity.  A wise farmer friend of mine shares the best common-sense advice:  when you find yourself deep in a hole, STOP DIGGING.  But again we are talking about common sense, which is none too common in Washington DC.

via The AP.

Take a moment, and restore your faith … 2010 will be here sooner than you think!  From Congress to the Maricopa Board of Supervisors, a new day is dawning come November 2010 and it begins with you!

by Clint Bolick and Sandy Bahr
 
Many aspects of environmental and energy policy divide the authors of this column. But we join together to urge the Arizona Corporation Commission not to squelch an innovative approach to solar energy that benefits private and public entities alike.

At issue are solar-service agreements, in which solar companies install and maintain solar panels on schools and other tax-exempt organizations for free. The schools receive power for a low monthly fee over an extended period of time. The solar companies collect renewable-energy tax credits for which tax-exempt entities are not eligible.

Such solar-service agreements are a reality with unlimited potential in Arizona–but only if the commission decides in the coming days not to treat the solar companies as public utilities and subject them to costly and burdensome regulation. The likely effect would be to send the firms packing to other states that do not regulate them like utilities.

Solar companies are not utilities. They are not producing energy; rather, they are facilitators that enable private entities to generate their own energy. They assist entities that could not afford to construct solar facilities and that are unable to access the tax credits that otherwise could make such facilities economically feasible.

Schools across the state, which are copious consumers of energy, are anxious to reap the benefits of solar service agreements. The escalating and constantly gyrating costs of energy can play havoc with a school district’s budget.

The commission’s decision comes down to either expanding its power or accomplishing its renewable energy mission. In this instance, it can best achieve its mission by recognizing that these solar firms should not be treated as utilities.

Clint Bolick is director of the Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation. Sandy Bahr is chapter director for the Sierra Club’s Grand Canyon Chapter. A longer version of this email ran in the Arizona Republic.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/134080

Take these two items together and consider how the individual in the White House views Israel.  This is being posted so folks who wish to can consider how events like these may impact them.  The White House is stalling on Afghanistan and the dollar is still in ICU.  And, why on 9/11 there was no mention in the U.S. media of the words “Muslim”, “radical”, or “Islamic.”

Taxpayers in the City of Tucson, courtesy of Proposition 200, are being asked to amend the city charter to strip the current and future city councils of their authority to establish budgets for the police and fire departments. The Arizona Tax Research Association (ATRA) strongly urges Tucson taxpayers to reject this effort at ballot-box-budgeting.

From local school districts to the state of Arizona, clearly the most important duty of our elected representatives is to establish an annual budget. Once adopted, those budgets reflect months of planning where elected officials are challenged with managing changing spending priorities against the budget decisions of previous elected officials.

The State of Arizona has become the poster child for the negative policy implications of ballot-box-budgeting. For the last two decades, a steady stream of special interest groups used the initiative process to either permanently earmark funds to their causes or establish guaranteed funding levels outside of legislative oversight and control. Collectively these initiatives have undermined the state’s budgeting process by handcuffing state lawmakers ability to react to changes in the economy or spending priorities. Today, the state of Arizona faces a $3 billion budget deficit. It would be an understatement to say that the challenge of closing the deficit is complicated by the fact that some major budgets units are “voter protected” and cannot be reduced.

The inherent flaw with ballot-box-budgeting is that citizens vote to mandate a spending obligation without understanding the long term budget impacts of the proposals and clearly the proponents prefer it that way. Side-stepping the cities budgeting process allows the proponents of Proposition 200 to have an isolated budget debate regarding police and fire protection without the unpleasantness of a tax increase to fund it. Make no mistake; in the end, this process always poorly serves taxpayers who are left questioning why citizens were not properly informed that these services are not free.

In fact, in order to force a more informed debate regarding the true costs of mandated spending initiatives, Arizona voters amended the state’s constitution in 2004 to require that such initiatives “also provide for an increased source of revenues sufficient to cover the entire immediate and future costs of the proposal.”

By any measure, Proposition 200 will force increased spending that will either drive future tax increases or impact other city services. With the current economic crisis facing Arizona serving as a painful reminder, Tucson taxpayers can be assured that, if approved, Proposition 200 will certainly force a tax increase at some future date.

Kevin McCarthy, President
Arizona Tax Research Association (ATRA)

ATRA is a sixty-nine year old statewide, non-profit, non-partisan taxpayer association

In a recent report, the president’s oversight board released data specifically showing more than 30,000 jobs created or saved nationwide, including more than 650 in Arizona. Recipients in Arizona said they had received $29.6 million of $139 million in contract awards so far.

Again, for you folks educated in the public school systems, I’m going to my old-school calculator to help you out.

$29.6 million divided by 650 jobs equals $45,538.46 per job!  And this is being reported as good news.  Uh-huh.

One last question, How do prove that you saved a job?

via azstarnet.