Dave Rioux Claims He’s a Victim of a Political Hit

Dave RiouxStraight from the Arizona Republic:

A Buckeye councilman running for re-election said the timing was “politically motivated” of a story that he had sent sexually charged text messages to a town employee.Town Councilman Dave Rioux held a news conference Monday outside Mount Pleasant Church, nearly a week after The Republic’s West Valley Editorial Board broke the story on azcentral.com.

Rioux, 46, filed his candidacy petition on Dec. 8, the day the content of the text messages became public. The District 6 representative faces one challenger in the March 9 primary. His opponent, Eric Orsborn, has said he began working on his candidacy packet before the allegations against Rioux surfaced.

Public records obtained by The Republic show a town employee reported that Rioux had sent her text messages in October about joining him in his hot tub and engaging in sexual activity. Rioux told the woman her job would be safe from the next round of layoffs, according to a complaint she filed with the town. Rioux told town officials that he was trying to help the employee and did not intend to cause her stress, records show.

We don’t care (or even know) what political party Mr. Rioux belongs to, he still needs to resign and the Buckeye Town Council needs to get their house in order.


Planes, Trains and Automobiles to a Free Delivery

About seven years ago, we sat in on a parents’ meeting at the Lycee Francais Albert Camus in Conakry, Guinea, a country in West Africa. It was more out of curiosity than need, to observe how the French run these things, and the French parents were very nice and inclusive, so who could say no? There was just one item on the agenda that day, the discussion of a scholarship for a student, a Guinean girl. The scholarship had been stalled at the French Embassy for approval; the Embassy questioned whether the family qualified.

The father was there to plead his case. He had a right to French tuition assistance for his daughter because he held a dual French-Guinea citizenship. The head of the Parents Association, a French woman, noted that he’d received a loan from the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) to start a theatre business in a city a few hours from the capital. The man said he hadn’t been able to pay back the loan as the business had failed – too many videos and DVDs available. We listened as they went on to note his current income and so forth. The father argued very persuasively that he qualified.

They then noted that they found it hard to believe he didn’t have means because he’d written down his youngest son had born recently in the USA and was listed on the application forms as a US citizen. It was quite common to meet families in those places with kids born in various countries, a different passport for each kid, so that wasn’t surprising. But the French ladies persisted with their coup de grace, if he didn’t have the means, how did he afford paying airfare and US medical bills for his wife’s delivery in the USA, in an expensive US hospital?

The man sat up and exclaimed, “It didn’t cost us ANYTHING in America for the delivery. It’s FREE!” He spread his hands and absolutely beamed with genuine, delighted awe, “It was wonderful! Beautiful hospital, nurses, doctors, clean, and it was all free! American hospitals are superb and they are all so nice to you!”

To say the flabbergasted looks on the two French women were priceless is an understatement. Rendered speechless, their deer in the headlights eyes met ours … the American in the room … and it took nearly superhuman effort to not burst out laughing at them, lean across the table, high-five and shake the man’s hand, so awesome was this demolishing of the totality of the French conceit of their stereotyped opinions of American health care. It was a good thing though we restrained ourselves, because we would have clasped his hand with delight the one second, and then punched him the next moment.

We have six children, and they were all born in the USA. They weren’t “free.” We pay insurance and co-pay and the hospitals billed us, and quite creatively. We learned early on that 50-cent hospital pacifier was about $10, the “complimentary bag” of mostly manufacturers’ samples was about $100 and so forth. But the bottom line was, the hospital billed us and by extension our insurance company, not just for our children’s births, but for this Guinean man’s son’s birth, too. He scraped the money for an almost two-thousand dollar round-trip air ticket; his wife waddled into a US hospital emergency room and gave birth on our dime. At least we hope she waddled in on her own steam, and didn’t call 911 so the EMTs bought her in … at additional unreimbursed taxpayer expense.

Their son also got a crisp state of the art blue US passport as a US citizen. Mom and baby US citizen flew back to Guinea where he has been raised as a Guinean Susu-Francophone bi-lingual African who doesn’t speak English. But if any emergency which requires the United States Embassy to have to evacuate all US citizens out of Guinea, this boy is on the evacuation list, and would of course, while he’s young, require a family member accompany him. All paid for by the US taxpayer. There are more than hundreds of thousands of US citizens growing up in other countries who were born in the USA, but have no language or cultural ties or affinity for it, they are their families’ emergency exit tickets. International flights have women sitting awkwardly in tight airline seats, late in their third trimesters, claiming they aren’t, headed for the USA every day to give birth.

Frankly, who can blame them? Guinea’s per capita GNP is abysmal – under $500 per year – parking it squarely in the World Bank’s Low Income nations grouping, the world’s poorest nations. Compare that to Mexico’s Middle Income status at about $6,000 per year, and Mexico is what many Americans think of when they think “underdeveloped.” Guinea’s infant mortality runs in the 140 per 1000 live births range while America’s infant mortality runs closer to 5 per 1000 live births – which include the incredibly delicate premature babies. So, if we were Guinean, we’d beg, borrow and steal the air ticket money together and fly to the USA, for the world’s best health care for free, too.

It’s legal, but it isn’t free to provide. Hospitals buy supplies, buy medicines, pay nurses, technicians, janitors, pay electricity, water, heating, cooling, invest in state of the art scanners, x-rays, labs … the costs are numerous. Our bills went up with each child. But the hospitals were scrambling to cover mounting expenses they’d incurred by treating zero-pay walk-ins. No one wants to turn away anyone in need, but when more money goes out than in, hospitals go bankrupt and close, and everyone suffers, so ignoring this is not viable.

This is exactly the sort of problem that Americans expect to be fixed with any “health-care reform,” but there is nothing that addresses this untenable situation, in fact it stands to get worse, a strained and ultimately abusive give-away for foreigners, at the expense of nationals.

Congress is quite capable of crafting a logical and sensible guest-worker program for foreigners who want to work in the USA, which includes a simple requirement for any guest worker to buy and provide proof of a basic healthcare insurance coverage while in the USA. This would provide a huge relief for hospitals with large Mexican and Central American walk-in patient demands, and private insurers would have plenty of new clients to compete for instead of paying out for. Under this, any children born of foreigners in the USA would not be automatically citizens, but have a certificate of birth that requires them to have a set number of years of residency requirement by age 18 before being eligible for permanent US citizenship. Likewise, foreign nationals who make the effort to fly to the USA should be required to have insurance coverage that will pay for any medical costs incurred in the USA during their proposed sojourn. If a Third World woman is on an airplane, chances are she’s got some reasonable means to pay a short-term insurance policy, at a minimum. The poorest people of these nations never get on the plane in the first place, so this current arrangement enables a subsidy to the Middle and Upper Class of the home nations who have simply availed themselves of a golden opportunity on the backs of Americans who buy their own private coverage and take care of their own bills responsibly.

Was Sen. Gould Willing To Support Gov. Brewer’s Sales Tax Increase?

Gould Pointing 2According to media reports, Senator Ron Gould says that he would have supported the ballot referral of a three-year increase in the sales tax in exchange for a three-year phase out of the state income tax.  We have to admit, we honestly had no idea.  So much has been made of the Senator’s absolute refusal to support any increase in taxes and so much coverage in the media and on the blogs was focused on the single-minded purity of his votes against it, that we never even considered the possibility that he would vote to refer Brewer’s tax hike to the ballot.

If what the Senator is saying is true then much of his absolute language regarding the referral must be taken with a rather large grain of salt.  If his offer was genuine, then he was in fact willing to vote to refer the sales tax increase to the ballot, so all of his vocal and rather scathing critiques of his fellow legislators ring somewhat hollow.  On the other hand, if he was merely tweaking the Senate President by asking for something so out of reach that he knew in advance he could not get it, then his protestations at this point that he was somehow reasonable and amenable to a deal are likely disingenuous at best.

Naturally, any insistence on eliminating the state income tax over three years would have make the entire deal unworkable because it would have dramatically increased the state’s deficit, leaving the Legislature farther from the solution instead of closer to it.  But one assumes that Gould’s rational for supporting such a package would have been that a) the tax referral could always be voted down, and b) the size of the tax cuts would have been greater than the sales tax increase, and they would have lasted long after the sales tax increase had ended.  Ironically, the same arguments were made for the conservative package that Gould voted against.  It had hundreds of millions of dollars in tax cuts for individuals and businesses, as well as property tax cuts, all to boost the economy.  And it cut more in taxes than the sales tax increase would have raised, assuming it would even pass.

What is clear is that Senator Gould has nothing good to say about any Republicans who would have exchanged larger, lasting tax cuts, for a referral of a shorter, smaller tax increase.  He has even been quoted as saying “If Republicans do a tax increase, our party’s dead. The voters will throw us out if we do a tax increase.”  The fact that he proposed to make the very same kind of deal is more than just curious, even to seasoned Capitol observers that have grown accustomed to the public posturing of politicians.

Bill Konopnicki vs. Sylvia Allen for LD-5 Senate

I just received an invitation to a fundraiser event for Bill Konopnicki who is exploring a run for the Senate seat in Legislative District 5. The event will be held on January 4, 2010 at the University Club in Phoenix and it’s pretty clear he will be running as a traditional candidate since he’s accepting PAC money. (not that there’s anything wrong with that!)

But what is also clear and wrong in the minds of many conservatives is why would he challenge a great conservative legislator like Sylvia Allen?

In his announcement, Konopnicki notes that the money raised will be in support of his Senate Exploratory Committee. Oddly, Konopnicki has not yet registered a senate exploratory committee with the Secretary of State’s office. Rather, he has a generic exploratory committee listed with no office designation. (Could this be one of those back to the future moments?) So how can he announce a fundraising event (and commitment) for a state senate seat if he hasn’t even registered with the SOS?

Konopnicki’s record in the Legislature has not exactly been stellar nor conservative especially on fiscal and budget issues. The Arizona Chapter of Americans for Prosperity issued Konopnicki a 2-year average score of “57″ which doesn’t quite define him as a fiscal conservative. Sylvia Allen however, received a score 98 (albeit, she did not start voting until after she replaced the late Senator Jake Flake in June, 2008.)

Taking a look at Konopnicki’s position on fiscal issues via his website, it states,

“Bill’s efforts led to the largest tax cut in Arizona history. At the same time, state employees received the largest pay raise in years, more was spent on K-12 Education, and Higher Education was fully funded. The state paid off most of what it owed and put $650 million in the “Rainy Day Fund”. Bill brings leadership on budgeting, the economy and fiscal discipline. Arizona needs his leadership skills on the budget issue.”

For many conservatives, something doesn’t quite reconcile when comparing Konopnicki’s rhetoric with his record.

Left to right: Bill Jeffers (D), Bill Konopnicki (R), Shirley Dawson (D) & Jack Brown

Left to right: Bill Jeffers (D), Bill Konopnicki (R), Shirley Dawson (D) & Jack Brown (D)

So why should the rural voters of LD-5 switch horses when they already have a great State Senator in Sylvia Allen? Konopnicki is term-limited so the fact that he’s out of a job may have something to do with it.

There were rumors that Konopnicki was looking at a run in CD-1 but with Rusty Bowers in that crowded primary race, he may have gotten cold feet.

Both Konopnicki and Allen are Mormons and there may be a faith-based factor at play.  There may be yet another factor at play here, gender dominance.  It is no secret that Konopnicki has historically opposed any woman who has elected to run for the legislature from his district beginning with Debra Brimhall-Pearson in 2002 and now including Senator Allen since 2006.   Make no mistake, I’m not suggesting he doesn’t work well with other elected women such as Janet Napolitano or Kyrsten Sinema, but conservative women from his home district may be another issue of his.

Whatever the reason, it’s not good political form to challenge a very popular state senator who has a very conservative voting record.