From the mouth of liberal, Mike Barnicle today:
Everyone was stunned and didn’t know what to say.
Some things are just plain sacred.
Arpaio will NOT run for Gov.
April 14, 2010 By 11 Comments
Despite the hype that Mr. Vath may be trying to create on his blog, I’m pretty certain that Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio will NOT run for Arizona Governor.
What leads me to this conclusion? Well, to the best of my knowledge, Mr. Arpaio hasn’t filed a campaign committee to run for governor yet. I understand that means that the Sheriff can’t collect signatures for the race. In the Governor’s race, one needs to collect around six thousand signatures to qualify to get on the ballot. Tomorrow is April 15th and the dealine to file your nominating petitions is May 26th. So, if Joe were to file tomorrow, he’d need roughly 143 signaturees per day to get qualified for the ballot. If he waits until his May 1st announcement to file a campaign commitee, he’d need roughly 230 signatures per day.
Mr. Vath reported that Joe is looking at professional companies to try to collect signatures for him. Be that as it may, I believe Ken Bennett recently reported that 22 people are in the governor’s race among all the parties. Many of these candidates have been getting signatures for quite a while. So, many of the eligible signatures have already been given out. Considering the mounting number of signatures he’d have to get per day, and the number of candidates and how long they’ve been collecting signatures, I have to conclude that Joe would face a very stiff mountain climb to get enough signatures to get on the ballot even if he hired people to get his signatures. I don’t see the man running a write-in campaign.
One may next say, “What about that $2 million he just raised?” Somehow, I suspect that money will be used for his legal defense when the County Board of Supervisors gets ahold of him. This leads me to another indicator that Joe will not run: not only will other gubernatorial candidates be gunning for Joe based on his utter lack of policy experience, his free spending and other issues, but the County Board will be doing their best to eviscerate Joe as well. Does that really bode well in a gubernatorial contest? When the state spending is too high, will the people really vote for a guy who allows his friends to double dip, buys more helicopters than he needs, and wastes money on a mobile artillery piece?
In audio clips of Joe on the radio, Joe said he wouldn’t be holding a press conference on May 1st so media types couldn’t chide him for conducting another “Joe Show”. He said he would simply issue a press release. If the man were really running for governor, do you really think Jason Rose would allow him to get away with issuing only a press release? Jason would spare no expense conducting the world’s largest circus, replete with acrobats, jugglers, bearded ladies, fireworks and Russian bears riding unicycles, with Joe in the center ring.
When has Joe ever shied away from being the center of media attention? How many times has he let warrants pile up and then put on a big media show about apprehending all those criminals he allowed to roam free? How many gubernatorial election years in a row has he made noise about running for governor? It is against Joe Arpaio’s very nature not to try to grab headlines. His statement that he’s just going to issue a press release is a dead give that he’s not going to run.
My ultimate guess: Joe will be announcing his retirement on May 1st.
Come May, I invite all of you back here to throw rotten vegetables at me if I’m wrong, or to watch me gloat when I am proven correct.
CD 4 Candidate Janet Contreras Townhall
April 14, 2010 By 6 Comments
Look for more townhalls from Janet between now and the general election. She is the first credible challenger Ed Pastor has had in CD 4.
Sales Tax Increase? Easy Answer
April 14, 2010 By 31 Comments
Alberta H. Charney, in the Eller College of Management Spring economic report, wrote an article, “What Will It Cost If Voters Reject the One-Cent Sales Tax Hike?” The article is a textbook piece propaganda.
Charney stated that passing the sales tax will raise about $1 billion annually (taking it from the private sector) But, she goes on to state, the government spends those dollars, pumping money back into the economy: “That spending by the public sector adds to aggregate demand just as private sector spending does.”
My analysis: taking money from the private sector to pass through government to prime the pump of the private sector is not only inefficient but also ineffective: government has to spend part of that tax money on its own operation. For example, the government tax removes $1 billion from the private sector but returns, for example, only $800 million to the private sector. In effect, government is always less efficient because it has to use part of the tax revenue to tax, collect and spend.
Then she works her way through an analysis that the cost of the sales tax increase will cost Arizona only 7,400 jobs. Failing to approve the sales tax increase will cost Arizona 20,500 jobs. What she doesn’t say is the 7,400 jobs are in the private sector; the 20,500 jobs are in the public sector. Ergo, approving the sales tax increase will save over 13,000 jobs.
As I read it, saying no to a sales tax increase reduces the size of government not the private sector. Saying yes to the sales tax increase reduces the size of the private sector by eliminating 7,400 private sector jobs, saves 13,000 plus public sector jobs, does not reduce the size of government and increases taxes by $1 billion during a recession.
I know how I’m voting.
Rick Romley resigns as Terry Goddard’s lobbyist and “Special Adviser”, eyes return as County Attorney
April 14, 2010 By 16 Comments
The Arizona Guardian has a piece on Rick Romley’s recent resignation as Terry Goddard’s lobbyist and “Special Adviser”. The Secretary of State still lists him as an active lobbyist for Goddard, but Romley says he quit the day he applied to replace Andrew Thomas as County Attorney, just last Thursday. The Board of Supervisors will name a replacement soon.
This may not be the type of credential that endears Romley to his fellow Republicans, and this news did not sit well with Arizona Republican chair Randy Pullen, who blasted Romley. Whether or not he gets the nod to head up the County Attorney’s office, clearly Romley is a leading candidate to head up Republicans for Goddard this fall. Romley even said Goddard is a man of “unquestioned integrity.”
A Goddard endorsement would be consistent with Romley’s recent history. He’s made news more for his endorsements of Democrats than Republicans in the last few years. He endorsed ultraliberal Chris Cummiskey for Secretary of State over Jan Brewer when she ran for and won that office, and more recently endorsed Dan Saban and Janet Napolitano’s lawyer Tim Nelson over Sheriff Arpaio and Andrew Thomas.
Republican Candidates’ Positions on the Border
April 14, 2010 By 25 Comments
It is interesting and revealing to compare each of the candidates’ positions on the “Border.” It is easily determined which candidates have actually given serious thought to the issue as opposed to a “sound bite.”
The candidates that gave serious thought to their positions have some similarities: they are Commissioned Officers in the Reserve (one in the Army, one in the Air Force); both are combat veterans; both are college graduates; and both have traveled abroad outside of the military.
Their positions, as posted on their websites, on the Border follow.
Jonathan Paton’s website – “Jonathan Paton endorsed an 18-point border security plan released today by the Arizona Cattle Growers’ Association, stressing the urgent need for immediate action to end lawlessness along the border.
And Paton – who attended the press conference in Phoenix today where the plan was released – called on Gabrielle Giffords to finally listen to her constituents and adopt the group’s recommendations.
Paton also continued his call for U.S. troops to be sent to the border – No. 2 on the “Restore Our Border Security Plan” – as a mechanism to add security and reduce violence immediately.
“I applaud the cattle growers’ multifaceted plan to bring security immediately and will continue to work to bring action to this national security threat,” Paton said. ”This is not a new problem. Sadly, the ranchers and citizens living along the border know that better than anyone. Still, our politicians have continuously ignored the violence and mayhem in Southern Arizona. Gabrielle Giffords has dithered on this issue and ignored the people in her own district for too long. She’s talked tough in TV ads here at home, but gone to Washington and voted to weaken our security. That’s unacceptable.”
Many of the provisions in the plan are things that Jonathan has long supported, both as a state lawmaker and a candidate for Congress. Those include: sending troops to the border, making it a felony to enter the country illegally, writing the state’s human smuggling law and increasing funding to catch and prosecute those who break our immigration laws. Paton also opposes amnesty or a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.
Giffords, however, has said one thing in Arizona – but done another in Washington.
She was a co-sponsor of the STRIVE ACT, which provided a path to citizenship for illegal aliens. The bill also included the DREAM ACT, which would provide education benefits for illegal aliens as well as permanent residency. (HR 1645, 2007)
And she voted against funding the construction of at least two layers of reinforced fencing, and the installation of additional physical barriers, roads, lighting and cameras along the border (RC 490, HR 2638, 6/15/2007).
“We need real action, not just election year rhetoric,” Paton said. “I’m confident that enacting this plan by the cattle growers will finally bring us closer to securing our border and reducing the violence that is plaguing our community.”
The 18-point plan:
1. The judicial and law enforcement systems, which handle prosecution of these criminal activities, shall recognize and apply an enforcement mechanism that provides for the prosecution of illegally crossing into the U.S. over the Border, for the first time, as a felony barring any person from ever working or receiving residency visa status in the U.S. No exceptions.
2. Immediately deploy operational units of the U.S. Military to the Arizona/Mexico Border. Station overwhelming Border Patrol/Military blocking force denying illegal entry at the Border.
3. Establish permanent Forward Operating Bases (FOB) immediately adjacent to the U.S. border with Mexico. (Suggesting at least one FOB every 12 miles)
4. Overhaul and add teeth to the “Pursuit and Apprehension” policies for Law Enforcement to assure deterrence and protect U.S. residents and State authorities from potential harm. In the first instance, authorize the U.S. Military, Border Patrol, State and Federal Law Enforcement Agencies to use these beefed up policies to enforce existing laws.
5. Authorize the use of force in the interdiction of vehicles and aircraft illegally crossing the U.S. Mexico Border. Empower the Local Law Enforcement leaders to adjust policies to meet conditions on the ground and not rely only upon inflexible procedures preventing Border Security.
6. Enforce all existing immigration laws without exception. Streamline and expedite deportation of illegal aliens.
7. Add 3,000+ Arizona BP field agents by 2011. Assure additional incremental hardware is part of Field Agent deployment.
8. Increase County Law Enforcement permanent “Stonegarden Funding” for additional deputies and fully equipped 4 x 4 patrol vehicles.
9. Expedite 2010 deployment of new generation digital radio technology to Arizona and New Mexico Border Patrol.
10. Substantially increase Border Patrol Recon 3, MSS/Radar and FLIR mobile surveillance units and operators. Assure additional incremental agents are deployed to operate this hardware and technology.
11. Replace outdated Border Patrol Air & Marine Rotorcraft air support with contemporary rotorcraft and small single engine fixed wing. Deploy air support on/near the U.S. Border.
12. Establish mandatory Cellular coverage for remote non-service areas.
13. Equip Border Patrol and County Law Enforcement with GMRS “Rhino” GPS radios allowing homeowners and ranchers to communicate in remote areas.
14. Establish “No Seam” Wilcox/Douglas, Arizona and Lordsburg New Mexico Border Policy Corridor into its own Border Patrol Sector.
15. Increase and fund additional Arizona Horse Patrol Units.
16. Streamline federal claims process for recovering damages caused by illegal alien burglaries, vandalism and ranch infrastructure/livestock losses to include feed stock losses on both private & public lands (fires).
17. Adequately fund State and Federal Attorneys’ Offices to assure timely prosecutions of Border related offences. Stiffen 9th Circuit Appeals Court immigration and narcotics prosecutorial policies.
18. Measure Border Security success on the community via a monthly disclosure of all crimes, by title and code, committed and suspected to be committed by illegal alien activities which have conducted burglaries, home invasions, and ranching infrastructure/livestock losses. Establish operational transparency for Arizona residents of illegal alien and smuggling activity in their respective Border Patrol Sector and Communities to include County law Enforcement statistics and incidents.”
Brian Miller’s website – “We Arizonans, of all backgrounds, live with the problems of a porous border every day. Many of us have been the victims of violent crime, theft, and home invasions as a direct result of this border problem. We know that more than 90% of people who come to our great nation do so to make their lives better, but that does not excuse us for not addressing this serious problem.
We Americans have a right and responsibility to know and decide who enters our homeland, and I believe a robust immigration policy will aid in the future health and success of America. To do this, the federal government must fulfill its responsibility to secure our international borders and maintain operational control.
Our current situation has encouraged a permanent underclass without equal access to the law. This is dangerous to everyone and promotes continued illegal behavior and increased resentment among citizens, legal non-citizens, and those here illegally. Though it is unlikely we will ever eliminate illegal crossings without eliminating the moral hazards created by our welfare state, we must work toward realistic solutions. Only with a multi-faceted approach will we address the underlying economic dynamics that drive this issue.
We cannot secure our borders until we minimize the illegal immigration problem. To do that, Congress should:
1. Demand the enforcement of existing laws to the maximum extent possible
2. Deny federal welfare for those here illegally, to sanctuary cities, and to nations whose citizens come here illegally
3. Deny “anchor-baby” and chain migration by clarifying the 14th amendment
4. Deny amnesty
5. Create a robust, market-based, legal immigration system
6. Create an accountable, employer-based, temporary worker program
With the illegal immigration problem in hand, the Border Patrol and our court system then have a manageable problem of thousands or hundreds of incursions, not millions. To solve the remaining problem, the federal government should:
1. Provide for strategically placed walls and barriers
2. Provide all required resources to the Border Patrol and local law enforcement
3. Provide for ground-based sensors and airborne assets”
Andy Goss’ website – “We must insist our laws are enforced regarding our borders. People who are here illegally should not be rewarded with any sort of amnesty or benefits or a job. When caught, they should be returned to their country of origin. Those companies that hire illegal aliens should be punished and punished severely. This will result in attrition. If there are no jobs available for the illegals, they will leave on their own. Sanctuary cities like San Francisco and others should lose ALL federal funding. The E-Verify system should be law.”
The problem with our porous southern border is not only Mexico. Terrorists can and have crossed our southern border and this presents a clear danger and unacceptable national security risk. The risks to Americans from drug cartels, grand theft auto, gang violence, identity theft and terrorism should not be tolerated nor should the drain on our nation’s welfare system and hospitals.”
Jesse Kelly’s website – “Our borders must be secured and America needs an increased presence along our borders in order to halt drug trafficking and gang violence. I support a double fence along the border, like the one in San Diego.”
You can draw your own conclusion.
Arizona parents need truth in advertising for schools
April 14, 2010 By 8 Comments
by Matthew Ladner, Ph.D.
Goldwater Institute
Arizona parents need truth in advertising for schools. Senator John Huppenthal is sponsoring Senate Bill 1286 to label public schools with a letter grade of A, B, C, D or F, based on overall AIMS test scores and gains in student learning. The proposal is based on education reforms put in place in Florida a decade ago. There schools with D and F grades have significantly improved when faced with losing students. Arizona schools would do the same.
Dr. David Garcia of Arizona State University’s Morrison Institute recently analyzed school transfer data, and his results reinforce the need to clarify school performance labels. The following table presents Garcia’s research, which shows the variation in year-to-year re-enrollment rates for Arizona elementary schools that use the current state labels under AZLEARNS:
|
Re-enrollment in Elementary Schools by AZLEARNS Label, 2009 |
|
|
Excelling |
91% |
|
Highly Performing |
88% |
|
Performing Plus |
84% |
|
Performing |
82% |
|
Underperforming |
84% |
In 2009, 16 percent of students in underperforming schools did not re-enroll in them if they were eligible to do so. Imagine 100 students start kindergarten at a typical elementary school. A year later, only 84 are still in the school in first grade. The next year, losing another 16 percent leaves 70 students in the second grade. By the time that group of kindergarteners reach sixth grade, there are only 41 of them left. This is not a ringing endorsement of the school.
We do not know how many students transfer due to dissatisfaction with their first school. But we can certainly infer the association is greater among low performing schools. Notice the student loss rate is twice as high in the bogusly labeled “performing schools” compared to excelling schools.
One conclusion of Dr. Garcia’s report is not to expect parental choice to improve Arizona public schools, because people are not moving their kids. Except, of course, they are moving their kids. My sons attend a district elementary school in which 27 percent of the students are out-of-boundary transfers. Many charter schools have long waiting lists.
The Morrison Institute’s report, along with the consistent improvement in Florida school performance, make the case for clear labels and more, rather than less, parental choice options.
Dr. Matthew Ladner is vice president of research for the Goldwater Institute.
