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
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
Maricopa County Supervisors running amok: Scheming to block mandated election
AEA president has facts wrong about Florida education reforms
by Matthew Ladner, Ph.D.
Goldwater Institute
Last week, I had the opportunity to discuss Florida’s education reforms on KAET-TV’s “Horizon” with Arizona Education Association President John Wright. We were discussing the Nation’s Report Card scores for Florida and I was surprised to hear Mr. Wright make the following claim: “The steepest increases that Florida saw in both reading and math scores were between 1994 and 2002–before most of these reforms took place.”
There are a few problems with this statement. First, the Florida legislature enacted most of the reforms in 1999, which falls between 1994 and 2002. Second, the Nation’s Report Card gives tests for fourth-grade reading and math, and for eighth-grade reading and math. Florida students, however, did not take a Nation’s Report Card test in 1994 for fourth-grade math, eighth-grade math or eighth-grade reading.
Florida’s fourth graders did take a test in reading in 1994. Between 1994 and 1998, Florida’s reading scores increased by two points. After the reforms, Florida’s scores increased by 18 points between 1998 and 2007. A 10-point gain equals about a grade level’s worth of learning.
Still, while I thought Mr. Wright had his dates mixed up, perhaps there was something to his assertion on trends.
But the truth turns out to be much different. Going back as far as possible into the 1990s for each subject, the average gain in scores before the reforms were adopted equaled four points. Post-reform, the average gain over nine years has been 20 points.
Mr. Wright also claimed that Arizona’s K-12 education budget cuts were “pulling the rug from beneath the teacher’s feet.” The 2008 Superintendent’s Financial Report, however, reveals the total revenue per pupil to be $9,707 while the 2009 Superintendent’s Financial Report reveals the latest figure at $9,424 per pupil: a whopping decline of $283 per pupil or less than 3 percent.
Someone is indeed trying to pull something–it’s the AEA trying to pull the wool over our eyes, not the Arizona legislature.
Dr. Matthew Ladner is vice president of research for the Goldwater Institute.
Bill would require all governments to provide spending details online
by Byron Schlomach Ph.D.
Goldwater Institute
Today, the Arizona Senate Committee on Appropriations will consider an important measure from Senator Jonathon Paton which would require all levels of government (including cities, towns, counties, school districts) to disclose in detail how they spend taxpayer money. It would also require the state to maintain a website where anyone could get quick access to information on every government in Arizona that has the power to levy taxes on them. Those governments would post details on a website about every expenditure and tax revenue collected, like an online checkbook register for city hall or the county courthouse.
This bill also would require government agencies and departments to establish performance benchmarks and list them for the public to review. Accurate crime statistics and details about county prosecutions would have to be reported as well.
For little cost, information about government operations can be made available 24 hours a day to people researching on their home computers or even on their cell phones. Most local governments have websites now, but the information they post often is so general that it doesn’t provide any real insight into how it conducts the people’s business.
The primary objection to these websites is that they will be costly to create and maintain. But experience proves otherwise. State Treasurer Dean Martin launched a transparency website in the midst of budget cuts, and states like Virginia, South Carolina, Kansas and Texas put spending information online using only existing resources. Nebraska created its spending transparency website, which does much of what this bill would require, for only $40,000. Some software companies, like ProcureNetworks, are even offering software to government agencies for free.
I have a question for those who use cost as a reason to oppose spending transparency: considering the recent declines in government revenue, how can we afford not to engage citizens more comprehensively in determining spending priorities and hunting down new efficiencies?
Taxpayers who foot government’s bills deserve the widest possible access to information on how their money is spent. Perhaps then Thomas Jefferson’s vision will be fully realized.
Dr. Byron Schlomach is an economist and the director of the Center for Economic Prosperity at the Goldwater Institute.
Here we go again: “Pro-Liberty, Conservative” Arizona Republicans Foisting Expensive National ID Plans on Law Abiding Arizona Citizens
“Good morning, Citizen. YOUR PAPERS, PLEASE!”
Representatives Carl Seel (R-LD6) and Frank Antenori (R-LD30) are doing what they think is right and what ostensibly is a good idea: to count illegals in the classroom in order to assess impact of their cost on the state education system.
The intention is right. But what are the details? How is this to be implemented?
Well, read the bill!
Text from HB2382:
…school districts shall collect and compile from the parents or legal guardians of all students enrolled in a public school, data concerning students who are enrolled in a public school and who cannot prove lawful presence in the United States.
How are the school districts going to do this? How will they know who is here LEGALLY in the United States for the 95-99% of us who are law-abiding American citizens ?
Well, that’s obvious, schools will need to verify immigration status of ALL students, including law-abiding Arizona/US citizens.
As a parent, I know what *my* response is going to be when the school asks me to verify the citizenship status of my children. I cannot post it here. But it goes a little something like this: “@#$$%% @@!# &&%$##$^ !@#@$^&.”
Will that mean my child is prohibited from attending school? Will that mean that I, an otherwise, law-abiding, taxpaying productive American citizen who is just sick and tired of government bureaucracy will end up in jail?
For the 99% of us who are citizens, how are we going to comply and what are the ramifications if we do not?
It is American tradition to not force the law-abiding citizen to have to undergo the yolk of government in order that the government can enforce laws against the non-law-abiding. It is the government’s job to enforce against the non-law-abiding, not for them to heap on additional bureaucratic regulations and costs on the law-abiding because the government cannot or does not enforce its own laws.
The concepts of Reaganism were not only to reduce taxes, but also to reduce REGULATIONS. Regulations increase costs. Furthermore, Reagan highlighted that government is the PROBLEM, not the solution.
Heaping more government, more bureaucracy and more regulations on the law-abiding citizens of this nation is necessarily anti-liberty and AGAINST the legacy of the Reagan revolution.
Furthermore, these new enforcement mechanisms also necessarily require a national id system, a system to collect information on law-abiding students and families, a system to track law-abiding students and families, a system to enforce the regulations against non-compliant OTHERWISE law-abiding students and families, and then, lastly, the infrastructure to track and enforce against illegal immigration.
All of this involves costs, regulations, but most objectionable: the presumption of guilt against innocent law-abiding citizens by their government.
I know Reps Seel and Antenori are doing what they think is right. I support enforcement against illegal immigration, but not at the cost of more spending, more regulation and abrogating the presumption of innocence against the 95%-99% of us who are, in fact, innocent.
There is a little something called the Law of Unintended Consequences. In this case, humanity has been through this before historically. The bible also weighs in on the numbering of human flesh. I don’t think I need to elaborate further.
You cannot be anti-liberty and pro-liberty at the same time. If Reps Seel and Antenori believe they are pro-liberty then they need to protect the liberty of law-abiding Arizona citizens and not heap additional burdens on their children and their families.
At a minimum, to protect those whose religious beliefs preclude placing a mark, the number of a man, in the mind or in the hand of human beings, there must be a religious exemption.
“Citizen, where are your papers?!? Please come with me.”
Arizona’s “Freedom to Breathe Act”
Finally Arizona is drawing the line against more federal incursions into Arizona’s sovereignty. Cap-n-Trade is a disaster to any developed society and to think that Senator McCain remains staunch in his belief that its the right thing to do is completely beyond belief.
The McCain/Palin position from 08
Cap and Trade Nullification
“Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen (R) of District 5 needs your help! She and Senators Gould and Grey are the primary sponsors for Senate Concurrent Resolution (SCR) 1050. Together, they have made Arizona the fourth state to introduce Cap and Trade nullification legislation, and this bill has “teeth”!
Known as the “Freedom to Breathe Act”, the legislation, if passed, would make it illegal for “..any governmental official to enforce within the borders of the state of Arizona federal laws or federal regulations purporting to restrict intrastate emissions of anthropogenic carbon dioxide or other greenhouse substances is herewith declared a violation of civil rights and unlawful under Arizona state law.””
Senator Allen addresses the AzFRW on Cap-n-Trade
At last an idea who’s time has come … sure beats missing committee hearings like her left-of-center opponent seems to. Here is the full story:
Arizona House Considers Rental Car Tax Increase
Guest opinion from Americans for Tax Reform
While much attention has been paid to Gov. Brewer’s sales tax increase and the Phoenix food tax, Arizona taxpayers should keep an eye on legislation (HB 2736) currently moving through the Arizona House that would raise the already high rental car tax in Maricopa County and impose a new tax on ticket sales for all Cactus League spring training tickets sold in Maricopa County. Funds from these tax increases would be used to keep the Chicago Cubs in Mesa. While this is certainly a desirable goal, raising the rental car tax, or any tax for that matter, is the wrong way to go about it.
Considerable costs are already heaped upon car rentals at Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport with the five taxes and fees that are currently applied. For example, these taxes and fees already add over 38% to the four day rental base price for a midsize SUV. Also keep in mind that the 18% sales tax hike that will be on the ballot in the May already threatens to substantially jack up the cost of renting a car.
While proponents of this tax hike may claim that this bill mainly affects out of state visitors, that is most certainly not the case. Arizonans renting replacement vehicles would be subject to this tax increase. Given the fact that replacement vehicles represent the majority of the car rental business, this tax increase would be paid mostly by Arizona residents.
HB 2736 would also have a negative economic impact on the local economy. One study shows that a recent localized rental car tax hike led to a 9% reduction in car rentals and as much as an 86% reduction in the number of days cars were rented. Likewise, HB 2736 will lead to reduced demand for rental cars and likely not meet revenue projections.
Additionally, the Goldwater Institute has pointed out that raising taxes to benefit a single sports franchise, as HB 2736 would do, may very well violate the Arizona constitution. Furthermore, Goldwater Institute also points out that this bill would grant a sports authority a level of power that may constitute an improper delegation of legislative authority.
ATR is asking lawmakers to reject HB 2736, which is simply bad policy and worse, violates the Taxpayer Protection Pledge. Five Pledge signers are listed among the bill’s sponsors. ATR urges those lawmakers (Sen. Verschoor and Reps. Adams, Nichols, Tobin, and Yarborough) to reconsider their support.
Nuclear Energy Could Create 10,000 Jobs in Arizona
For Immediate Release: February 22, 2010
Nuclear Energy Could Generate 7,743 Construction and 3,000 Nuclear Engineering Jobs in Arizona
ASU Study Predicts Non-Carbon Energy Impacts
PHOENIX – According to a study by Arizona State University, Arizona could gain 7,743 highly paid construction jobs and 3,000 atomic engineering jobs if the plan proposed by Arizona House Leadership gets passed. ASU’s Steidman Institute prepared an economic impact report for industry leadership last week showing significant benefits to the high paying jobs that would be created by such a massive multi-billion dollar atomic energy construction project. If another atomic energy plant is constructed in Arizona, the 414 jobs could be created within 24 months and up to 7,743 jobs within the 7 year construction period.
Last Monday President Obama awarded a $9.3 billion loan guarantee to the Southern Cos., the main power provider in Georgia to simulate high tech jobs in the atomic energy sector. A request for Arizona’s share of atomic energy planning and development money was passed in the Arizona House Energy and Water committee last week on a straight party line vote in HCM 2014.
Governor Brewer came out in support of solar, atomic and other non-carbon sources of energy last month in speeches to industry groups.
House Bill 2767, which is an Energy Parks concept plan, includes tax incentives, tax exempt loans for solar, atomic, wind, geothermal, and other non carbon energy sources, as well as a 50 year strategic energy plan. This bill goes to Government committee and if passes, advances to the full House next week for consideration. “This Energy Park incentive bill closely matches the incentives Utah passed last June, with the addition of a 50 year statewide energy strategy plan. We can’t let Utah beat us in the non-carbon energy race, like they beat us in basketball,” Representative Warde Nichols said, the bill’s co-sponsor.
The construction and development of a new atomic energy facility in the State would provide Arizona families with $2.46 billion in new disposable income, and provide the state $457 million in new revenues according to the ASU study. “These are private sector jobs, private sector projects, and public sector benefits,” said Representative Tobin. “It only makes sense that we should grow private sector high energy physics projects in atomic energy just like we grew the high tech bio medical sector years ago.”
Author isn’t fessing up to Alternative Budget Proposal
To: poster #2 on the Konopnicki swap with Allen story (PCbutnotPC). Since you said Konopnicki has something to offer it got us to wondering and we found this little gem. What we really thought was interesting was the food tax proposal and in the video, a hospital bed tax proposal. Yes, Konopnicki does have something to offer … but isn’t leadership putting your name on your work?
Arizona lawmakers review Mystery Alternative Budget Proposal
By Paul Davenport
PHOENIX (AP) – Arizona legislators are examining and debating an alternative budget-balancing proposal whose origin remains somewhat murky.
The proposal widely circulating at the Capitol in recent weeks has been called a bipartisan alternative to Republican Gov. Jan Brewer’s budget proposal, skipping her spending cuts while using significantly more tax increases and borrowing.
Brewer’s plan is the basis for a legislative budget proposal that majority Republicans are drafting behind closed doors.
Several legislators have voiced support for parts of the alternative while acknowledging involvement in 2009 discussions leading to its preparation.
Republican Rep. Bill Konopnicki of Safford has told The Associated Press he personally paid $2,000 to a retired California university economist to help compile the proposal.
However, none of those lawmakers accepted invitations to discuss the proposal Thursday during a joint House-Senate briefing to compare it with Brewer’s offering, said House Appropriations Committee Chairman John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills.
That left Kavanagh and several other senior Republicans complaining they don’t know the alternative proposal’s true origins and couldn’t ask questions to its drafter or drafters about its revenue assumptions and specific provisions.
“If they can’t put on their big-boy pants … and take responsibility for the plan they’re trying to implement, then they must not really believe in them,” said Rep. Rick Murphy, R-Glendale.
http://www.azpbs.org/horizon/play.php?vidId=1704
[does anyone remember watching Horizon on PBS on Feb. 2, 2010?]
Kavanagh said he won’t spend more time on the alternative because issues as important as the budget require more transparency.
“It’s a real threat to the institutional process. This committee is not a hotel where you book a room and bring in whoever you want,” he said.
However, several other lawmakers, including Democrats and at least one Republican, said their colleagues should keep the door open and not reject the alternative proposal out of hand.
“We have a culture that doesn’t encourage people to step out and try to find ideas that are out of the box,” said Rep. Vic Williams, R-Tucson.
Responded Senate Appropriations Chairman Russell Pearce: “I’m not sure I’m finding any gems here. It’s $3 billion of taxing.” Pearce, R-Mesa, at one point said parts of the alternative proposal mirrored a budget spreadsheet linked to an Arizona State University administrator.
But ASU officials have denied involvement, Pearce said. The university official named by Pearce, Richard Stanley, did not immediately respond to a query e-mailed to him by the AP.
Salvino Challenges Sinema to Healthcare Debate
For Immediate Release: February 22, 2010
After Appropriations Hearing Dust Up Dr. Chris Salvino Challenges Rep. Sinema to Debate on Healthcare
Tempe, AZ -Last week, GOP Congressional candidate Dr. Chris Salvino testified before the House Appropriations committee on ways to help save the state of Arizona money spent on healthcare. Rep. Sinema became upset because Salvino had dared to send out a press release announcing that he was providing testimony.
“Perhaps Rep. Sinema wasn’t prepared to talk about the issue last week, that is why I wrote her today,” said Dr. Salvino.
Today, Dr. Salvino wrote to Rep. Sinema and challenged her to a debate on the healthcare issue. [The text of the letter is below]
“With Harry Mitchell ducking town hall meetings and Rep. Sinema’s position as President Obama’s lead Arizonan on healthcare reform, I thought that she might be willing to have an honest dialogue on the healthcare issue. Last week when I testified Rep. Sinema was clearly not interested in talking about policy, I hope that changes,” concluded Dr. Salvino
February 22, 2010
The Honorable Kyrsten Sinema
Arizona House of Representatives
1700 W. Washington
Phoenix, AZ 85007
VIA FACSIMILE 602-417-3015
Dear Representative Sinema:
I write to you today in reference to our exchange from last week when I was providing testimony to the House Appropriations Committee. Specifically, you took issue with the fact that I had put out a press release about my testimony, and you seemed uninterested in discussing the issue at hand. I and other members of the committee were clearly surprised by your reaction.
My purpose was to help educate legislators on the costs associated with the use of helicopter transport in connection with acute trauma care, something that as a trauma surgeon I have firsthand experience with.
My opponent, Congressman Mitchell voted for the disastrous Pelosi-Obama Healthcare Plan, but he won’t engage his own constituents on the issue – that is unfortunate.
However, most Arizonans know President Obama personally selected you to lead the discussion effort in our state on his healthcare proposals. It is with this in mind, and considering that perhaps discussing healthcare at a different venue might be more to your liking, I would like for you and I to debate healthcare in a public forum.
In case you were unaware I have introduced my own healthcare plan and attached a copy of it, the HELP (Health Expense Lowering Plan) for your review.
To schedule the event please call my Campaign Manager, Teresa Martinez on her cell phone at ***-***-****. Thanks again and I look forward to this event!
Most sincerely,
Chris Salvino, M.D.
Republican Candidate
Arizonas Fifth Congressional District
Hayworth Endorsed by Phoenix Law Enforcement Association
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 22, 2010
CONSERVATIVE SENATE CHALLENGER RECEIVES MAX CAMPAIGN CHECK FROM MEN & WOMEN IN BLUE
PHOENIX, Ariz. February 22, 2010. The organization representing the officers of the largest law enforcement agency in Arizona announced their support of JD Hayworth today in his bid to unseat Senator John McCain. The Phoenix Law Enforcement Association (PLEA) also announced today that they are making the maximum contribution allowed by law to Hayworth’s campaign.
“We are proud to stand behind JD. He stood behind our officers during his time in Congress and during his time as a broadcaster,” said Mark Spencer, President of PLEA. PLEA represents more than 2500 sworn officers of the Phoenix Police Department. “We look forward to his continued community service through his support of front-line public safety personnel.”
Hayworth, who is mounting a conservative challenge to the moderate McCain, is moved by the endorsement.
“Few endorsements mean as much to me as the folks who are on the front lines of keeping our communities safe. I am honored that Phoenix cops think that much of me,” said Hayworth. “The fact that they are supporting my campaign financially makes it that much more special.”
Vulnerable to the more conservative Hayworth on taxes, pro-law enforcement issues and illegal immigration, McCain has resorted to attacking Hayworth on spending, despite Hayworth having a better lifetime rating from Citizens Against Government Waste, among other organizations.
McCain also voted for the $850 billion bailout of the big banks which included $150 billion in earmarks, proposed a $300 billion bailout for mortgage lenders and, according to the Heritage Foundation, sponsored an amnesty bill that would have cost taxpayers $2.6 trillion over the long-term.
Eric Wnuck Withdrawals; Endorses Ward
Eric Wnuck Announces His Withdrawal as a Candidate for Congress and Endorses Jim Ward for Arizona’s Fifth Congressional District
For Immediate Release: Monday, February 22, 2010
February 22, 2010 – Today Eric Wnuck issued the following statement regarding his plans to represent Arizona’s Fifth Congressional District:
“Today, I am announcing that I will no longer be a candidate for Congress. Representing the great citizens of the Fifth Congressional District would have been an honor and a privilege and to step down now was an exceedingly difficult decision.
“As many of you can understand, this is a tough economy and we all have been affected. I too have been impacted and need to concentrate on protecting my business and all of my employees whose jobs and families depend on its success. But most importantly, I must focus on what has always been my first priority, my family.
“This has been an amazing experience and in stepping down I would like to thank those who were instrumental to my candidacy. “First and foremost, I would like to thank my wife and son for always standing by me and supporting me. Second, thank you to all the volunteers and contributors who put your faith and support behind my campaign. And finally, thank you to my dedicated staff. Although this may not have been our time, you continually impressed me with your determination and commitment to stand on the side of freedom.
“We live in a time where the Democrat leadership in Washington would have us believe that the solutions to our high unemployment and troubled economy are increasing the size and influence of government. They tell us that a bigger government is the only solution and that we must accept the hand out of big brother instead of the hand up from our community. However, their plans are always based on the premise that as long as they have the ability to tax, you and I and future generations will be there to bail them out.
“Arizona’s Fifth Congressional District deserves a Representative that understands that the path to prosperity and liberty is not through the heavy hand of government control, but through the principles of a free-market.
“It is because of this and many other reasons, I am proud to endorse Jim Ward. Jim is a successful business leader that knows what it means to do more with less and expects the Federal Government to operate the same way. He knows what it takes to balance a budget, create jobs and provide opportunities to his employees. He’s a principled business man who never backs away from his beliefs. I believe in Jim Ward and I know he is the right candidate to beat Harry Mitchell.”
Good for Nothing
In any campaign, one of the things you work for is “earned media”. Your candidate gets free media exposure and in most cases, it is a good thing and very valuable. If you can send that stuff out on the ‘net, all the better!
I received an email earlier this week touting 8 reasons conservatives should vote for JD Hayworth over John McCain. I read it, but was immediately taken aback. Was this considered positive? I’ll give the author a pass for not understanding Arizona election history, he is from Idaho. But didn’t anybody catch the underlying premise, intentional or not, of his writing? It is now on JD’s website’s homepage, I guess if it is all you’ve got.
The writer gives reason #1: It Could Work…
That’s right, “it could work”. That is as strong as it gets. Certainly not a roaring report of candidate supremacy, highlighted by accomplishments and the promise of more; any affirmative belief in Hayworth’s abilities, skills, or even position on the issues is glaringly missing. He supports the concept by using the results of the 2008 Arizona Presidential Primary. Sen. McCain WON that contest receiving 47% of the votes cast, the highest by a wide margin, in a multi-candidate primary. The writer attempts to twist that into the idea that R’s might not vote for McCain.
OK…
Unfortunately, he didn’t mention that Hayworth actually LOST his last general election. No hypothetical assumptions necessary; Republicans did not vote for him in a district that had 52,000 MORE Republicans than Dems. Even with that huge party advantage, JD got beat receiving 46% of the vote in a district with Republicans making up 62% of the voters. The Republicans who know him the best did not vote for JD.
So, that works how?
It doesn’t get any better….#2: Hayworth is a Plausible Senator…
Now that’s powerful! PLAUSIBLE…really, that’s the best you got? That has to be the political equivalent of “he has a good personality”.
Encarta Dictionary defines plausible as:
Plausible (adjective)
- Believable and appearing likely to be true, usually in the absence of proof.
- Persausive, having a persuasive manner in speech or writing, often combined with an intention to deceive.
It does make sense when you consider the lack of demonstrable legislative effort and the overly developed, ummm…loquaciousness.
Unfortunately, the last week has not been good to Team Hayworth. After 3+ years of radio rhetoric, pre-announcement festivities, and the road trip to make it official topped off with the high hopes of the “money bomb”. The grand pronouncement was that $100,000 would be raised in 24 hours; but when reality struck, it took a full 5 days to raise $100,000. In the scheme of things, this is nearly as ugly as the numbers of his election loss. Donations are an investment in the candidate, evidence of believability in their ability to prevail or the desire that they will.
Plausible? Apparently, not really.
After that, numbers 3-8 never mentions Hayworth. Nada, zero, zip. Which is about as much good as this article does for JD.
Glenn Beck at CPAC
Incredible closing keynote speech by Glenn Beck! Here is that video
Hayworth embraced by Prescott!
Here’s a brief video clip from the introduction and reception that JD Hayworth received from the citizens of Prescott this last Tuesday evening.
Pima County Retires Retiree Program
Tucson politicians, all doped up from the $63 million voting bribe federal grant for the four-mile streetcar line, quietly sent out this announcement Friday AM, hoping that no one would be paying any attention.
PIMA COUNTY’S RETIREE INSURANCE PROGRAM WILL END ON JULY 1, 2010
After much consideration and analysis, Pima County has finalized the decision to end the Pima County Retiree Insurance Program, effective July 01, 2010. The Retiree Insurance Program included both medical and dental coverage. This decision is based on the fact that the substantially higher utilization in the retiree plans would otherwise result in a considerable increase in the premiums paid by the County and its active, insured employees.
Effective immediately, those employees who retire from Pima County with current Pima County medical and/or dental coverage at the time of retirement will be notified of the right to elect continued coverage pursuant to the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986 (COBRA).
- Under COBRA, Pima County is required to offer “continuation coverage” for a period of up to 18 months to insured individuals who experience a qualifying event resulting in a loss of coverage. Among other things, retirement is a qualifying event under COBRA guidelines.
- This means that at the time employment ends, covered individuals will receive written notice (COBRA notification) allowing the extension of health insurance coverage (medical and/or dental) for up to 18 months.
- The cost for this continuation of coverage is 102% of the full premium which includes a 2% administrative fee charged by the COBRA administrator.
Depending on your years of service, you may be entitled to receive a subsidy reimbursement from your appropriate retirement system. These retirement systems also have medical and dental insurance available to eligible retired members.
I’m willing to bet that this will be a topic of conversation around the “water cooler” next week.
Gifford’s Voting Record Will Hurt Her in the 2010 Election
Gabrielle Giffords voted for approval of the $787 billion stimulus bill without reading it beforehand. The consequence of this omission is Giffords could not have known that the stimulus bill was back-loaded for 2010 and beyond. Only 30% of the stimulus bill was spent during 2009, the year we needed to see at least 70% of it spent.
Giffords also voted for the so-called “cap and trade” bill, also without reading it or the related amendment. In her letter to constituents, Giffords proudly claimed that the bill will actually reduce the average household utility bill by seven percent.
Energy rates are projected to increase by 90%. Even President Obama admits that energy prices will “skyrocket” under “cap and trade.” On average, the cost for electricity for my residence is about $200 per month for electricity. Under ACES, the acronym for the “cap and trade” bill, my monthly rate will increase to $380. Gifford claimed that rates will decrease by 7% by 2020.
Although the rate will be much higher than $380 per month in 2020, let’s use $380 as our example. A 7% decrease in 2020 translates to a monthly rate of $353.40 or a 77% increase over today’s rate. I don’t know what kind of math Gifford used but it does not add up. There is no 7% decrease, only a 77% increase. Experts agree that rates for electricity, gas, and natural gas will almost double across the board under this bill. ACES is a massive tax increase on the American people and Giffords has participated in one of the largest hoaxes in this nation’s history.
In the July 16, 2009, edition of Arizona Capitol Times, Giffords was interviewed. In the interview she claimed that 50 million people did not have access to health care and another 20 million are underinsured. The numbers are estimates not facts. Further Giffords claim that 50 million people do not have access to health care is palpably false. What these people do not have is health care insurance but they do have access to health care.
Additionally, Giffords has followed Nancy Pelosi’s orders on not only the stimulus and “cap and trade” bills but also the so-called S-CHIP $33 billion expansion of government health care, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (a sop to trial lawyers), the Stupak antiabortion amendment compromise to the health care bill, the Affordable Health Care for America Act adding $2 trillion to the deficit, the Medicare Physician Payment Reform adding more than $200 billion to the deficit, and the Permanent Estate Tax Act increasing inheritance taxes to 45% on estates larger than $3.5 million.
In one of Giffords’ emails to her constituents, she wrote:
”I always appreciate hearing from constituents, like you, who are informed and interested in the important issues affecting Arizona and the nation. My job as your representative is to help you connect with federal agencies, access services and get your questions answered thoroughly. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if you require assistance.”
Giffords failed to mention that her most important responsibility is to represent her constituents. Gabrielle Giffords is not a Blue Dog. She’s Nancy Pelosi’s lap dog. So far, it appears that she has been doing Nancy Pelosi’s business rather than the people’s business: not a very good track record to run on in the next election.
Nuclear Iran- Part II
“I am sure Ahmedinejad is thankful.”
Indeed he is. The Progressive Liberal Left is helping wage his war of breaking down of will to stand up against him, garbling debate and employing boilerplate stereotyping tactics to encourage people to ignore the warning signs and berate anyone who raises the alarm – at a time when a number of actions – not necessarily war – are still available to help counter this aggressive and brutal regime. All this running interference for free! Ahmedinejad is not just thankful, he’s delighted.
Ignore, ignore means the Iranian regime can carry on without disruption, and steadily increases the probability of total war, the worst case for everyone. We may be quite unperturbed and complacent here in Arizona, but have we checked the European press lately? They are very very very worried. The UN has three sets of sanctions on the books now which Iran is blatantly ignoring, and with the rising anxiety from the Iranian Regime’s announcement regarding achieving their benchmark objective to enrich uranium to levels required for weapons applications – not even a shock – there is heavy pressuring for more sanctions. ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8522910.stm ). Europe will be in the target zone and they do not have a missile shield. Because of the expense and development required, they’ve been long banking on the USA to provide that – and Obama by his rebuffing of Poland, is sending out a clear message to our allies they cannot count on that, as long as the Democratic Party holds on to power.
Because of its size, even ONE nuclear warhead detonating anywhere in Israel would be far more devastating than two or three in a nation the size of Iran. They’re worried. What good does it do Israel to have “300 warheads” it can rain down on Iran when the one can’t be stopped? Iran will not launch one, they will launch multiple. Only one has to get through. Iran knows it, Israel knows it. It’s an intolerable situation. When Iran announced this week that Israel wanted war by this summer, Israel coolly replied, “No we don’t.” But the inclination of the press is to admonish Israel, not Iran for provocative nuclear talk.( http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18/20100216/twl-israel-mulling-a-spring-or-summer-wa-3cd7efd.html )
Why focus on just Israel? Iran and Iraq are traditional enemies; Iranian Revolutionary Guards were infiltrating, training and heavily funding the insurgency in Iraq against US troops. Iran could easily choose to drop a nuke on Baghdad as payback for Saddam’s invasion of Iran and the resultant 9 year war during which over a million people were killed, and by that also eliminate an inconvenient democracy on their border. On Iran’s other border, a nuke to destroy Kabul and by that, the Afghan government there would make it easy for Iran to invade and conquer that nation in order to spread Iran’s form of radical Revolutionary Islam.
It doesn’t HAVE to go to war, but the way the Obama Administration is not handling this, aggravated by Obama reaching his hand out to the Anti-American Ahmedinejad, hugging the America-hating Hugo Chavez, in the room with American-murdering Ghaddafi, and nothing extended to the pro-freedom Iranian people has sent a terrible message across the globe. Allies and enemies alike are downgrading their traditional assumptions about America’s reliability for the worse, a weakness that our enemies will exploit, and greatly increasing other nations resorting to war to stop Iran before it can attack them.
America is not helpless. Citizens have every right to expect and insist that our elected leadership represent our national interests of security, which includes our allies. That’s their JOB. These representatives are supposed to be stewards of our military and our foreign policy, maintaining capacities; working at all levels of diplomacy and using all available established mechanisms to make every reasonable effort to keep the conditions that produce war from not developing.
But the United States Government today, controlled monopolistically by the Democratic Party, is presiding over not national security, but a massive political fete, featuring a pinata of American wealth, loading it up with taxpayer money, and tinsel goodies bought on debt – with entitlement groups swinging blindly to smash the bird while special interest groups fight over the “free money” sweets that spill to the ground.
That is NOT the role of good government. That is NOT the behavior of a responsible citizenry.
When the favors have run out, the money gone, the taxpayers broken, the hangover begins. The national wealth blown on an out of control binge fueled by greed; frivolous pursuits indulged while national security was neglected. Our irresponsible government will stagger off like the dissipated Belshazzar of Babylon who feasted and partied, squandering the wealth of the people instead of attending to his duty of guarding the city while the king was away, leading the army to defend the nation, drunkenly blinking incomprehensively at the words written before him on the wall that condemned him: Mene Mene Tekil Parsin.
“Because of your arrogant and irresponsible behavior, your kingdom has been divided and given to the Medes and the Persians.”
As we consider the many candidates who are lining up for 2010 and 2012, for a chance to be the ones chosen to represent our state, and our nation, as representatives, senators and president, those who understand this grave duty and can stand firm despite political attacks and pressure to capitulate should be the ones selected to move to state and national seats. Citizens have a responsibility to each other to chose wisely, to consider well the character, the experience and the abilities of each candidate. Shallow and uninformed decisions will reward representatives who are unequal to the task of representing and governing.
The Persian leadership is poised to test America as it has never been tested before; they are but one of our enemies, so we need to select men and women who will be able to provide informed and solid leadership, and who will always vote for the best interests of the American People and their rights as derived from the American Constitution.
