You are here: Home / Archives for RDBrinkley

Arizona IRC ED Denies Budget Recommendation

August 16, 2011 By 2 Comments

It was at the Independent Redistricting Commission hearing that SaddleBrooke resident Vince Leach rose to speak before the Commission. Leach spoke to the cover-ups and legal battles in which the Commission is currently engaged (as reported by numerous news media). Leach urged the Commission to be transparent and focus on the real issue: redistricting.

Leach mentioned to the Commissioners that the Commission’s budget, for the ten year cycle, is $10 million as recommended by the Department of Administration and reported by the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC). Leach was concerned that the last Commission cycle budget was $6 million but had to be increased to $9.5 million due to lawsuits filed against the Commission’s redistricting. Would this year’s budget also see a 58% increase, to $15.8 million, due to lawsuits filed against Commission decisions and backroom machinations?

After concluding his remarks, Leach returned to his seat in the “overflow” room. Before he could sit down, Ray Bladine, Executive Director of the Commission, confronted Leach, accusing him of providing false numbers. Leach provided a copy of the JLBC report, verifying the Department of Administration ten year $10.2 million budget recommendation.

Bladine, in spite of having seen the JLBC report, countered that the numbers were false. He accused Leach of presenting misleading material, which Leach denied. Bladine then stated, “Now I know what I am dealing with,” or words to that effect. When Leach asked Bladine to explain his comment, Bladine refused, repeating, “Now I know what I am dealing with.”

Bladine then placed his hand against Leach’s shoulder not once but twice. Leach told Bladine to take his hand off Leach’s shoulder, his voice loud enough to draw attention and witnesses to the confrontation.

Bladine was interviewed regarding the incident. He denied any confrontation with Mr. Leach but admitted putting his hand against Leach’s shoulder. Bladine further stated that this year’s budget appropriation was $3.5 million. He neither acknowledged that Leach was discussing the 10 year cycle not just a single fiscal year nor admitted that the Department of Administration had made a budget recommendation for $10 million.

It seems unusual that an Executive Director of the IRC would not know that the Department of Administration had recommended a budget of $10.2 million budget for the ten year redistricting cycle. This is public information.

Filed Under: Arizona Politics, Ethics, Public Relations Tagged With: , ,

Protecting Pinal County’s Property Tax Payers

July 31, 2011 By 6 Comments

Over the years, covering multiple Boards of Supervisors andCountyManagers,PinalCountyentered into numerous agreements waiving impact fees. These are fees used to cover the cost of expanding the water supply and other necessary services as required byArizonalaw. The waiving of impact fees literally means property taxpayers must make up the loss of revenue to the County.

 In October 2006, the Pinal County Board of Supervisors passed and adopted Ordinance No. 101806-DF, which established a development fee schedule forPinalCounty. The purpose of the ordinance is to require new developments to pay for their proportionate share of capital costs associated with providing public safety, streets, and parks facilities.

 In November 2000, Pinal County and Johnson Ranch/Centex Homes amended a November 1997 agreement waiving development impact fees for ten years with an option to renew for an additional ten years. The 1997 agreement expired in November 2007. When Johnson Ranch/Centex Homes requested another ten year waiver of development impact fees, the Board of Supervisors denied the request.

 One of the primary reasons the Board of Supervisors denied the extension was based on a vastly different set of facts facing the Board of Supervisors in 2007 versus the Board of Supervisors in 1997. In 1997, the population of San Tan Valley was estimated at 2000 residents. In 2007, the population was estimated at 40,000 residents. Today, the population is over 80,000 residents, a forty fold increase.

 Growth of this magnitude places a draconian strain on County resources, e.g., the Sheriff’s Department, Public Works, and Public Health, to mention a few. IfPinalCountyviewed County government capitulated to developer demands to waive impact development fees, the lost revenue would be made up in property taxes during a recessionary period.

 Johnson Ranch/Centex Homes developed 4,880 lots with 808 lots remaining to be developed at the time. The build out of 4,880 lots outstripped the infrastructure agreed to in the original development agreement. The exponential population growth inPinalCountywas not foreseen in 1997, lending credibility to the idea that theArizonalegislature should redefine a phased development from ten to five years,

 As a result of the County’s denial of extension of waiver of impact development fees, Johnson Ranch/Centex homes decided to litigate the matter. At approximately the same time, an Arizona State Representative, on behalf of an anonymous developer, attempted to sponsor a bill (HB 2578) freezing all development impact fees. Members of the Pinal County Citizens for Excellence in Government, a non-partisan organization, managed to convince the Representative that his bill was not friendly to property tax payers. The bill was withdrawn.

 The importance of this litigation is evidenced in the 21 development impact fee agreements inPinalCounty. The potential for property tax payers to incur $500 million in new taxes is real. Two developers opted for litigation: Johnson Ranch/Centex Homes and Grosvenor Holdings (Entrada del Oro). Centex Homes prevailed in Superior Court.

 The County appealed on the basis of the Arizona Gift Clause, where the State Constitution prohibits the County from giving or loaning its credit in the aid of any individual or corporation by donation, grant, subsidy or others (Article 9, Section7), public policy consideration, changed circumstances unforeseen at the time of the original agreement, and the best interests of the public.

 In December 2010, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the ruling of the Superior Court finding improper the grant of summary judgment in favor of Centex Homes. The Court of Appeals found ambiguity in the Development Agreement and directed that the matter could not be settled by summary judgment; it had to be heard by the “trier-of-fact.”

 Centex Homes filed a Petition for Review with the Arizona Supreme Court. The Petition for Review was denied in May 2011. In June 2011, the Court of Appeals issued a Mandate commanding the Superior Court to conduct such proceedings as are required to comply with the Appellate Court decision. Centex Homes has yet to initiate any proceeding in Superior Court.

 Pinal County Management and the Board of Supervisors were right in refusing to extend the development impact fee agreement and it is right in defending its decision in court. The case is not yet closed but every Pinal County property tax payer should stand up and cheer the position Pinal County Government has taken in this matter.

 Development impact fees are assessed subject to the doctrine that new growth should pay for its own costs; property tax payers should not subsidize homebuilders and new residents.

 

 

Filed Under: County Government, Taxation Tagged With:

We the People Can Do Better

June 26, 2011 By 7 Comments

A United States Representative sends lewd pictures of himself to six females, and then brazenly lies to the press and his peers about his actions. An Arizona State senator has a public brawl with his girl friend in the middle of a public road and tells police he cannot be arrested because he is a sitting senator. A Pinal County supervisor disrespects his constituents by describing his constituents’ questions and statements as “moronic.” 

What is the common thread in the behavior of these politicians? Hubris: an unbridled arrogance, an excess of ambition and pride. Another common thread is a total detachment from the reality of the electorate who elected these people into office, only to discover these politicians are not representative of the electorate but are self-representative.

 Are politicians arrogant before they are elected to office or do they become arrogant as a result of being elected into office?  How does political arrogance begin? Is political arrogance a façade covering up a lack of self confidence? Why are politicians more prone to lack of humility and lack of civility? These are the people who should be looking out for us. Instead, they seem to be looking out for themselves.

 We see the same arrogance at the federal and state levels, only to a much worse degree. It is not ordinary political arrogance, it is more, as described in the opening paragraph. It is a general break-down of our ethics, where immoral acts are condoned as long as the act does not violate some statute, where politicians use their positions of power to indulge and cheat. It is a corrupt philosophy of “the ends justifies the means.”

 Surely, we “the People” can do a better job of selecting our representatives.

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Supervisor Pete Rios’ Popularity Death Spiral

May 30, 2011 By 10 Comments

At the close of the Board Meeting last week, a Pinal County citizen stood to address the Board of Supervisors. As usual, Supervisor Rios told the citizen that he had only three minutes.

 The Pinal County citizen began by mentioning that over a year ago, State budget cuts and cost shifts could be anticipated. The citizen continued to respectfully address the Board of Supervisors. Suddenly, Pete Rios and fellow Supervisor David Snider started laughing and smiling at some inside joke, totally ignoring the citizen speaker. It was a display of utter contempt to and for a citizen of Pinal County.

Finally, the Pinal County citizen addressed Supervisor Rios directly: “Supervisor Rios, do you want to share with us what is so funny?”

Pete Rios immediately grabbed the gavel, pounding it furiously on the desk, yelling,” You’re out of order,” repeatedly. Spittle could be seen on Supervisor Rios’ quivering lips. Rios lost control. His behavior was bizarre and reflected badly on himself, the Board of Supervisors and Pinal County.

The Pinal County citizen stood his ground proudly. He had not disrespected the Mr. Rios or the Board. It was Pete Rios who brought disgrace upon himself and his fellow Board Supervisors.

Almost immediately, the Board of Supervisors meeting degenerated to a close and fellow citizens rush to congratulate not Pete Rios but Vince Leach, the honest citizen who called Pete Rios on his disrespectful behavior.

Leaving the Supervisors’ meeting room, I overheard a disgruntled citizen commenting about Pete Rios and his behavior, ‘These guys think they walk on water . . . until you flush it.”

Filed Under: County Government, Elected Officials, Liberals Tagged With: , , ,

Pete Rios’ Attempt at Misdirection

March 18, 2011 By 2 Comments

An anonymous complaint was filed with the Pinal County Sheriff and County Attorny’s Office on January 24, 2011. This complaint was forwarded to the Arizona State Attorney General on February 9, 2011.

The complaint alleges that Mr. Rios, current Chair and Supervisor of Pinal County’s Board of Supervisors, does not reside within the boundaries of his supervisory district and that he has submitted fraudulent travel vouchers.

Apparently, Mr. Rios resides in Apache Junction but owns additional properties in Dudleyville and Superior. The complaint alleges that Mr. Rios has claimed mileage reimbursement from his home to work. County policy allows Supervisors to claim mileage for work purposes but not from home to work and back. The IRS does not allow mileage reimbursement from home to work and back.

In initial investigation by Arizona Republic Staff Writer Lindsey Collom showed that he starts his day in either Dudleyville or Superior, and that Rios was reimbursed over $8,000 in 2010.

So, assuming that Mr. Rios is innocent of the allegations why doesn’t he just answer the allegations? Instead, he launched a vicious attack on Sheriff Paul Babeu, his staff and “cronies.”  The question is, why is Mr. Rios attempting to misdirect the questioning and focus away from the allegations and, instead, attack a popular Sheriff?

So let’s begin asking the right questions. Mr. Rios has three properties. Which property is his primary residence? Is that residence in District One?

Mr. Rios claims he won a Superior Court case regarding his residency and claims the court ruling shows Dudleyville as his primary residence. However, just because a Judge ruled Dudleyville as Rios’ primary residence 30 years ago does not mean Dudleyville is Rios’ primary residence today.

For Mr. Rios to hang his hat on a 30 year old case is weak.  Where does Mr. Rios spend the preponderance of his time? Where does Mrs. Rios live? Let’s interview the neighbors.

Mr. Rios accused Sheriff Babeu of attempting to silence board members in Pinal County. Anybody who has attended a Board meeting in Pinal County knows Mr. Rios cannot be silenced. He is the kingfish of Pinal County. Mr. Rios’ comments are simply misdirection to remove the spotlight from him; his misdirection is not working.

Mr. Rios accused Sheriff Babeu of attempting to get control of his budget, saying the Sheriff doesn’t want to come to the board to obtain expenditure approval. What’s wrong with an elected official controlling his or her own budget? These people are not political appointees. They are elected officials accountable to the people, not to Pete Rios.

Yet, Mr. Rios continues to obfuscate with his attempted misdirection. If Mr. Rios has done nothing wrong, then make all travel expense reimbursement vouchers available to the public.

If Mr. Rios has done noting wrong, then let him identify his primary residence as the residence he lives in the most. It may have been Dudleyville 30 years ago. It may be Dudleyville today. Or it may not.

Answer the questions, Mr. Rios. Let’s clear the air. Your attempts at misdirection are already making people question your motives.

Filed Under: County Government, Elected Officials, Ethics Tagged With:

Is Supervisor Bryan Martyn Gaffe Prone?

March 17, 2011 By 4 Comments

On March 15, 2011, Bryan Martyn co-authored a letter to the Arizona State legislature, in general, not to anyone specifically. In the first paragraph of the letter Supervisor Martyn wrote:

 “Tough times demand bold and innovative solutions to problems that face us as a nation, state and county. We in Pinal County have implemented both bold and innovative solutions to our current budgetary crisis. We continue to streamline processes, enhance our partnerships, cut or reduce programs and eliminate personnel and implement a pay freeze. We have effectively reduced the size and cost of county government over the past two years (emphasis mine).”

From FY 2009-2010 to FY 2010-2011, the annual budget increased from $400.2 million to $429.9 million, or 7.4%. The General Fund portion of the budget increased by $12.3 million or 6.7%.

 Property taxes also increased with the FY2010-2011 tax rate increasing from $3.36 to $3.99, $.63 or 18.7%. Even with excluding the so-called cost-shift from the State of $.28, the Pinal County tax rate still increased by $.36 or almost 19%.

Supervisor Martyn must be using “new math” in support of his claim of reducing the size and cost of government. By all traditional measures Pinal County government grew larger and more expensive.

On the same day, during a Board of Supervisor meeting, Supervisor Martyn, in response to concerns voiced by a citizen regarding matching federal funds, overly emoted “Praise the Lord,” numerous times in having $1,5 million in matching funds for Hunt Highway improvements. The Supervisor Martyn snarled at the audience that the $1.5 million was not “your money.” Well, Supervisor Martyn, if it is not “our” tax dollars then whose tax dollars are the $1.5 million?

Supervisor Martyn seems to have forgotten, as most hyperbole-prone politicians, that all tax dollars are local whether gift-wrapped in federal, state, county or city colors. When Supervisor Martyn uttered his faux pas, members of the audience started coming out of their seats. He quickly closed by saying, “We’ll talk off-line.” Smart move.

Rumor has it that Supervisor Martyn wants to make a career in politics by running in the new Congressional District in 2012. With two enormous gaffes in one day, he’s off to a fine start.

Filed Under: County Government, Elected Officials Tagged With: ,

Irresponsible People in Responsible Positions

January 9, 2011 By 14 Comments

Moments after the tragic shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords, Arizona State Senator Linda Lopez blamed members of the Tea Party for the tragedy. What proof? What evidence? Senator Lopez had not one shred of evidence yet, she, nevertheless, irrationally blamed amorphous members of the Tea Party.

 Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, who should have known better, displayed his lack of professionalism by deploring that Arizona had become “a mecca for prejudice and bigotry.”  What proof? What evidence?

 A deranged twenty-two year old male committed a horrendous act, killing and wounding innocent people. Was there proof of a conspiracy?  Among the assailants favorite books is the Communist Manifesto. It doesn’t sound like a Tea Party member to me.

 The actions and comments of Sheriff Dupnik and Senator Linda Lopez were plain stupid. But, here we have a case where Dupnik may be correct: Arizona may be a mecca for prejudice and bigotry . . . of irresponsible people in responsible positions.

 It would be in the best interest of Arizona for Sheriff Dupnik and Senator Lopez to resign their offices in shame.

Filed Under: Ethics Tagged With:

A Violation of Due Process – Part 2

December 27, 2010 By 14 Comments

The Pinal County Board of Supervisors has possibly exposed taxpayers to a major lawsuit over how the County pays overtime to its Deputy Sheriffs. In the original article exposing the arbitrary limits and policy manipulations by the County, the following questions were posed:

 On what authority can the County deprive a deputy of property rights obtained through honest labor?

 On what authority can the County manipulate internal policy to force its Deputies to not only work for “free” (unpaid “comp” time) but also sacrifice their earned vacation time (vested property right) as a result of the County’s manipulation of policy?

 Now it comes out that the County, when confronted with a Deputy’s need for overtime money to pay for essentials at home, the County refuses to pay overtime owed until the Deputy can show that he truly needs the money by showing financial statements, bills and other documentation. On what Constitutional authority does the County rely upon for this egregious invasion of privacy?

 Pinal County may have legal exposure at this moment. Nothing the County is doing with regard to its overtime policy for Deputies is ethical or legal: it is as politically motivated and as corrupt as it gets.

 Members of the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office have made formal demands for overtime payment of overtime earned. One employee of the Sheriff’s Office made a request on November 19th. On November 30th, the Pinal County Human Resources Department acknowledged receiving the request.

 On December 14th, the Human Resource Director punted the problem down the road, saying he had just sent out a new policy for comments and he will be using the new policy, if approved, for cash payouts. But until it is approved, he will not process cash payments for overtime.

 Initially, Ms. Brandi Clark, Human Resources Manager, wrote the employee that the process will take one to two weeks, which puts the request for payment into mid-December, a full four weeks after the request was made. It looks like the County is stalling until January.

 Apparently, the Deputy Association’s attorney has already sent the County a “cease and desist” letter regarding the intrusive and invasive process the County established for payment of overtime. It is my understanding the Association’s attorney is ready to take the next step.

 In the course of correspondence with Supervisor Rios, he made the following post script on December 22nd:

 “PS…We are working on OT pay…Most will more than likely be very satisfied with the solution……..” I hope so, for it is not only a matter of correcting the current process but also repairing past damages.

 The Pinal County Citizens for Excellence in Government await the County’s resolution to this harmful and morale destroying issue.

Filed Under: Constitutional Law, County Government Tagged With:

A Lady and Her Facts

October 31, 2010 By 2 Comments

I was struck by the glaring differences between the candidates as they answered questions at the Basis School debate. Cheryl Cage answered in sound bites and generalities. Al Melvin answered with sources and facts.

 Ms. Cage repeatedly talked of closing $10 billion in tax credits and loopholes. After the debate, I asked Ms. Cage for a list of these tax credits and loopholes. After all, since she knew the amount she should have a tabulated list. Apparently not:  Ms.Cage refused my request.

 On the topic of “all day kindergarten,” Ms. Cage lamented that all day kindergarten was not compulsory and that children were suffering, a typical progressive-socialist lament. She failed to state that there is credible research on both sides of the topic. It seemed as if she wanted her own opinion and her own facts. Sorry, Ms. Cage, you can have your opinion but you cannot have your own set of facts.

 In addition, Ms. Cage resorted to meaningless statistics in her answers. For example, she lamented that Arizona was last in per pupil funding at $9,200. This statistic is meaningless without framing it with qualitative data. At $9,200 per pupil, Arizona graduates 70% of its students on time.

  America’s Promise Alliance, in its study “Cities in Crises: Closing the Graduation Rate,” found that in the country’s 50 largest cities, which all fund students at higher levels than Arizona, the graduation rates are 53%. Arizona’s graduation rate of 70% is at the national average. The obvious conclusion is Arizona is more effective and efficient in graduating students on time. We can do better but it is not the doom and gloom picture painted by Ms. Cage.

 Ms. Cage, in attempting to explain away the doubling of the State General Fund budget from $5.5 billion to $11 billion under Governor Napolitano (2002-2008), flippantly responded that the reason the budget exploded was Arizona experienced 40% growth in its population. Not true. The United States Census Bureau shows that between 2000 and 2009, Arizona’s population grew by 28.6%, or 11.4% percent less than Ms. Cage’s 40% even adding three additional years. My analysis shows growth between 2002 and 2008 to be just under 19%.  Once again, Ms. Cage is devoid of any facts.

 Regarding solar energy, Ms. Cage has stated that, “Studies have shown for every $1 million dollars invested in solar will provide 13.5 jobs to the nuclear industries 4.5 jobs.” I am a proponent of solar. I have solar on my house. What I am not a proponent of is mass solar installations that misuse the environment. Spain attempted to “go green” several years ago with dismal results.

 “For every new position that depends on energy price supports, at least 2.2 jobs in other industries will disappear, according to a study from King Juan Carlos University in Madrid . . .The premiums paid for solar, biomass, wave and wind power—which are charged to consumers in their bill – translated into a $774,000 cost for each Spanish ‘green job’ created since 2000, said Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at the university and author of the report . . . The loss of jobs could be greater if you account for the amount of lost industry that moves out of the country due to higher energy prices . . .”  I asked Ms. Cage on more than one occasion how she rationalized net job losses? She has yet to provide an answer.

 I firmly believe Ms. Cage is a nice lady but she cannot run on soap opera dramatics. Proposed policies must be based on facts not feelings. This is Ms. Cage’s weakness: she prefers her opinion over objective facts. I think this will be the cause of her loss to Senator Al Melvin.

Filed Under: Campaigns & Elections, State Government Tagged With:

A Violation of Due Process?

September 17, 2010 By 5 Comments

The Pinal County Board of Supervisors appears to be facing significant resentment from the men and women of the Pinal County Sheriff’s Department. About two years ago, in an effort to control cost, the County arbitrarily limited overtime on a quarterly basis. When that limit is met, the County forces deputies to work overtime for unpaid compensation, which is essentially time off. However, the County appears to be illegally making money in the process.

 The legal perspective is quite interesting. Once a Deputy has worked overtime, the County incurs an accounting liability for the value of the overtime worked. The Deputy has an inherent interest in this value as a property value. It is the Deputy’s property.

 When the County placed an arbitrary limit on the overtime the Sheriff’s Office could work, it replaced overtime payment with unpaid “comp time.”  However, the County also stated that the Deputy had to take “comp” time off first before vacation time. As a result of the accumulated “comp” time, the Deputy was unable to access his vacation time.

 So we have a case of the County Government arbitrarily restricting overtime payment for work received from the Deputy. In addition, the County forces the Deputy to accept unpaid “comp” time in return for overtime worked.

 Unfortunately, the PCSO is understaffed due to hiring restrictions placed on it by the County. The understaffing creates a situation where the PCSO is forced to work overtime to meet minimum staffing levels that prevent the deputy from using up previously earned “comp” time. Some beats go unmanned due to understaffing. Because the Deputy cannot use up his earned “comp” time, the County prohibits him/her from using earned vacation time. At the end of the County’s Fiscal Year, any unused vacation is erased off the books.

 The Deputy has a property interest in his/her earned vacation time. The County recognizes this property interest as a liability to the County: they owe the Deputy the value of the vacation earned. When the County unilaterally took the earned vacation away from the Deputy, the County deprived the Deputy of his property interest without due process of law (5th and 14th Amendments) at a minimum.

 On what authority can the County deprive a Deputy of property rights obtained through honest labor? On what authority can the County manipulate internal policy to force its Deputies to not only work for “free” (unpaid “comp” time) but also sacrifice their earned vacation time (vested property right) due to the County’s own manipulation of policy?

 This issue has been referred by the Board of Supervisors to a work group to meet in October. This will be an interesting meeting as the two Democrat Supervisors do not like the Republican Sheriff. This issue is not only a morale and safety issue for the deputies but a potential legal issue for the County Supervisors.

Filed Under: County Government, Property Rights Tagged With: ,

What Jesse Kelly Said About Sarah Palin

August 17, 2010 By 60 Comments

Why is Jesse Kelly so disrespectful and disparaging toward Sarah Palin?

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQwhGJFpBJo

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FGBU2cXD34

 What has she done to him?

 It seems that bashing Republicans is a Kelly habit.

Filed Under: Campaigns & Elections, Endorsements Tagged With:

Nancy Young Wright’s Narrow Viewpoint

June 26, 2010 By 10 Comments

A review of Nancy Young Wright’s website is very revealing. She lists ten issues and here is the gist of what she says:

 Budget:  “. . . She will push to protect funding for education . . .Businesses want a strong educational system . . .We must plan and provide for schools, parks and other infrastructure . . “

 From FY 2000 to FY 2009 (est), total Federal, state, County and local spending on K-12 has increased 88%, or an average of 8.8% per year, about twice the rate of inflation. The data source is the Joint Legislative Budget Committee. Per pupil funding has increased 49% or about 4.9% annually, or about 1.5 times the rate of inflation. It appears that, contrary to Nancy Wright Young’s position, the schools are adequately funded. The problem is the school administrators are not using the funds properly.

 Economic Development:  “Nancy believes that the key to improving Arizona’s economy lies in investing in our public schools and universities . . .”

 As stated above, the Legislature is adequately funding the schools. School administration is the problem. In 2009, only 56.9% of the school dollar reached the classroom. The Office of the Auditor general found that declining classroom dollar percentages indicated supplanting, which means that schools administrators are shifting Classroom Site Fund (CSF) monies from the classroom to non-classroom purposes: a violation of State statute. 

 Education:  “. . . Nancy will fight to restore our public schools . . .She will push for higher salaries . . . Once we have rebuilt our schools to an adequate level of funding . . .”

Instead of voting for higher taxes and more money for schools, Nancy Young Wright should be actively looking at where the problem lies: school district administrators. Shifting CSF funds to transportation and other non-classroom categories directly harms the students. The Auditor General has found a clear association between classroom dollars and student achievement. Districts with higher classroom dollar percentages appear to have higher percentages of students who met or exceeded AIMS Math, Reading and Writing Assessments. This association holds true even after controlling for the effects of poverty.

 Energy:  “. . . She supports incentives for solar energy and research for clean alternatives. She supports Green construction . . .”

 Nancy Young Wright’s counterpart, Cheryl Cage, who is running against Al Melvin for State Senate, supports solar.  Ms. Cage stated in an Op-Ed that, “Studies have shown for every $1 million dollars [sic] invested in solar will provide 13.5 jobs to the nuclear industries 4.5 jobs.” What Ms. Cage did not say is the solar jobs will be low paying while the nuclear jobs will be high paying. Also, for every solar 13.5 jobs created other industries will lose 30 jobs.  It’s obvious that neither lady has really thought about solar energy and its impact on our economy.

 Environment:  “. . . She will advocate for clean air and water for our state. . .” 

 Well, that’s nice. I bet everyone reading this article will advocate for clean air and water. The question is how do we meet the challenge? How will it be funded? It will have to be executed on a State and Regional basis. How to get there? Nancy Wright Young did not say.

 Health care:  “Nancy supports programs to attract and retain the health care professionals we desperately need.”

 Well, this is nice too. When the Obama health bill passed, 46 million uninsured were added to Medicaid and other government programs. At that moment, the United States suddenly had a physician shortage (“Physician Shortages: How’s That for Hope and Change,” 10/09) of over 54,000 primary care physicians. Training physician takes time and money. So does training Nurse Practitioners and Physician assistants in the numbers now required.

She also failed to discuss health care rationing taking place since ObamaCare was signed into law. Arizona’s AHCCCS is slashing benefits to enrollees over age 21.  Physicians are already refusing new Medicare patients and dropping existing patients due to low reimbursement rates. Medicare Advantage patients will lose their Medicare Advantage benefits due to reduction in Medicare funding by Nancy Wright Young’s Democratic Party. Nancy Wright Young failed to comment on the depth of the problem or propose any solutions. 

 Open Government:  “”Nancy is a strong advocate for citizen participation and will fight to preserve our right to the initiative and referendum process . . .”

 This is a daring stand. Unless I missed something, no one has advocated taking the initiative and referendum away from the people.

 Taxes:  “Nancy believes that Arizona’s entire tax structure must be examined for fairness and stability. Our current budget crises in Arizona can be traced to too much dependency on sales tax and on a lack of diversification in our economy . . . She supports impact fees for the costs of new infrastructure such as roads, sewers, parks and schools to lessen the tax bill to existing residents.”

 Arizona got into trouble with increased spending under Governor Janet Napolitano. I agree with Ms. Wright’s statement that our entire tax structure must be examined for fairness and stability.  States like Texas, Nevada and Florida prosper without an income tax. Why can’t Arizona?

 I also disagree with implementing new impact fees (increased taxes) for costs of new infrastructure. The fees will be passed on to the consumer in the price of the product or commodity. Taxes are too high now.

 Transportation:  “. . . Nancy supports statewide cooperation on a transportation plan that includes alternative transportation, impact  fees for roads, and local control . . . She strongly supports the rail system connecting Tucson and Phoenix and the provision of bio-diesel and alternative fuel stations for the general public.”

 Again, a nice sentiment but clearly not thought out. The increase in ethanol production has caused the price of corn to sky rocket. Tortillas in Mexico almost doubled in price. Bio-diesel and alternative fuels are exotic subjects for which there is no mass of customers. What is needed is serious discussion on what our communities need versus what they can afford. Nancy Young Wright offers no serious discussion.

 Veterans:  “Our veterans deserve our support and adequate resources for medical care, education and continued care . . .”

 Thank God she got this one right.

 Of the ten issues she listed on her web site, Nancy Young Wright had one answer for Budgets, Economic Development and Education: pour more money into public schools.  This is after the Auditor General has found school districts are mismanaging the money they already have. To provide additional money to school districts to mismanage is insane.

 Nancy Young Wright supports solar energy, which will destroy more jobs than it creates. Clearly, she has not seriously thought about the long term effects of alternative energy impacts on our economy.

 She took a breath-taking stand for clean air and water without providing any policy details.

She repeated the problem of physician shortages without stating how many physicians we’re going to need, how we’re going to find them, how we’re going to fund them . . . obviously she has no clue. That’s why she could only state the obvious problem.

 Nancy Young Wright’s position on open government was vacuous. Her response on taxes was higher taxes in the form of impact fees. Her comments on transportation were superficial.

 We want our representatives in Phoenix to think. Where are Nancy Young Wright’s ideas? Where is her ability to think outside the proverbial box and create new solutions?  Higher taxes and pouring more money into education as school administrators mismanage their spending is outrageous.

 Serious issues demand serious thinking by our elected representatives. Nancy Young Wright has demonstrated she is not serious. She is a blinded shallow thinker, narrowly focused on pouring money into public education without accountability, without checks and balances but with sheer abandon.

 Nancy Young Wright is not a serious thinker. The Democratic Party can do better than Nancy Young Wright.

 

Filed Under: Economic Development, Economics, Energy, Government, Health Care Tagged With: , ,

Cheryl Cage and Her Own Facts

June 21, 2010 By 4 Comments

Cheryl Cage has been issuing questionable press releases attacking her opponent, Senator Al Melvin, with manufactured and unsupported charges. She is entitled to her own opinion but not to her own facts.

 In a June 16th Op-Ed column in the Explorer, Cheryl Cage stated, “In his op-ed (Arizona should consider atomic energy 6/9) Mr. Melvin manipulates the facts to support his push for Arizona to become a nuclear waste destination so we can become ‘very rich.’”

 So what did Senator Melvin really say? “Any practical plan for our future must include alternate energy sources, and any alternate energy plan must include atomic energy. In truth, Arizona can be a very rich and prosperous state with plentiful and affordable electricity through atomic power, and we can also have plentiful and affordable water through desalinization.

 “ . . . The Electric Power Research Institute states that by 2030, states with atomic reactors will see their electric rates rise by 45% and states with no atomic reactors will see their electric rates rise over 265%. When one looks at the cost to produce electricity per kilowatt-hour, atomic energy is 2.5 cents compared to solar and wind up to 14 to 17 cents. Coal and natural gas are 4 to 7 cents, yet over time these costs are bound to increase . . .”

 Ms. Cage, attempts to deceive the reader by stating, “He states that nuclear energy costs 2.5 cents per kilowatt hour compared to solar and wind (notice he lumps solar and wind together) at around 14 to 17 cents per kilowatt-hour. What he doesn’t tell you is that the stated 2.5 cents per kilowatt-hour does not include capital costs (which make up 80% of the energy production cost) or costs of transmission . . .”

 What Ms. Cage failed to tell the reader is the costs for coal and natural gas, and solar and wind, also do not include capital costs. So Senator Melvin is comparing apples to apples.

If Ms. Cage takes exception to this comparison, let’s talk about the billions of dollars being wasted by the government on doubling our nation’s use of solar and wind: doubling moves usage from 1% to 2% of all energy used in this country, a very inefficient use of taxpayer dollars.

Ms. Cage then stated that, “Studies have shown for every $1 million dollars [sic] invested in solar will provide 13.5 jobs to the nuclear industries 4.5 jobs.” What Ms. Cage doesn’t say is the solar jobs will be low paying while the nuclear jobs will be high paying. Also, for every 13.5 jobs created other industries will lose 30 jobs.

 For those of you who want evidence, just look at Spain. “For every new position that depends on energy price supports, at least 2.2 jobs in other industries will disappear, according to a study from King Juan Carlos University in Madrid . . .The premiums paid for solar, biomass, wave and wind power—which are charged to consumers in their bill –translated into a $774,000 cost for each Spanish ‘green job’ created since 2000, said Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at the university and author of the report . . . The loss of jobs could be greater if you account for the amount of lost industry that moves out of the country due to higher energy prices . . .”

 Ms. Cage continues with her misinformation: “His comparison about the ‘footprints’ of solar versus nuclear is equally disingenuous. He refuses to acknowledge solar panels would not just be sitting in a large field; they would be placed throughout a community (top of homes and businesses, parking lots and infill areas). He states that Palo Verde’s footprint is only 6.3 miles because he chooses to ignore the impact of mining uranium.”

 This is what Senator Melvin said in this Op-Ed” “To have a photovoltaic facility that produces the same daylight electricity as the Palo Verde Nuclear facility in Phoenix, it would take solar panels 250 miles long (almost the distance from Tucson to San Diego) and one mile wide with a footprint of 250 square miles, compared with Palo Verde’s footprint of 6.3 square miles. There is definitely a role for solar to play in fulfilling Arizona’s energy needs, but the base load of 80 percent of all our energy needs could and should be met by atomic energy. . .”

 Ms. Cage’s statement that, “He refuses to acknowledge solar panels would not just be sitting in a large field . . .” is disingenuous at best. Senator Melvin was making a comparison. Of course, we could put all those solar panels on buildings instead of a field, which some companies are doing, but the footprint would probably double to 500 square miles.

 Her comment about uranium mining is simply a distraction. Solar and wind can and do have large footprints. Every time I drive through Palm Springs I see miles and miles of windmills, the majority not moving. Why? Ms. Cage has not yet found a way to manage the wind but she has found a way to create her own wind and her own facts.

 Being the progressive-socialist she is, Ms. Cage is against nuclear power. She is adamantly against reprocessing nuclear waste, which France has been doing for years. In fact, 80% of France’s electricity comes from nuclear reactors. You would think the Ms. Cage, as a lover of European style socialism, would embrace nuclear energy.

Unfortunately, Ms. Cage comes across as a left-wing ideologue willing to distort known facts, conjure up her own facts and then irresponsibly attack others based on knowingly false information.

 Character and integrity?  Draw your own conclusion.

Filed Under: Campaigns & Elections, Ethics, Political Correctness Tagged With: , ,

Interview With Terri Proud, Candidate for LD 26 House Representative

June 1, 2010 By 4 Comments

RDB:    Terri, Welcome. Thanks for doing this interview.

 Proud:  Thank you. I’m glad to be here.

 RDB:   What considerations factored into your decision to run against Nancy Young   Wright?

 Proud:  There were quite a few actually. One of the biggest issues for me was the health care bill. When President Obama started to present the health care bill and I knew what it all entailed, having a friend in Canada, having a friend who recently came over here to become a citizen, him and his wife from Ireland, living in a socialist government and knowing what their health care system was, I didn’t want to see that here in our country.

 I learned that Nancy Young Wright was going around doing coffee events trying to get people to support the health care bill. That concerned me because I didn’t want to see our country go down that road. The more I began to investigate her voting record and understanding the platform she stood on, it concerned me because that type of mentality is a progressive-socialist mentality and I didn’t want to see our State turn into that. That’s one of the major decisions as to why I’m running:  we need to return to what our founding fathers intended for each individual – our right to choose – that’s part of freedom and liberty

 RDB:  Since immigration seems to be in the forefront of topics today, what is your position on SB 1070?

Proud: I love it (laughter). Absolutely love it. I think we should have done this years ago.

RDB:    According to Project Vote Smart, since 2008, there have been six house and Senate bills concerning immigration. On five of the bills, your opponent voted against passage. In each instance, the bill passed. In the sixth, most recent bill, SB 1070, Nancy Young Wright didn’t even bother to show up to vote. It seems, with 70% of Arizonans in favor of this law that Nancy Wright is on the wrong side of the immigration issue. Your view?

 Proud:  My view is you’re absolutely correct. She is on the wrong side. As a legislator, there are times when we need to do what’s best for the constituents and not have our own personal views in there. When we have illegal immigration that is costing our State billions of dollars and we are in the deficit we are in, you would think as a State Legislator that we would sit down and say ‘we need to start looking at what’s best for our State fiscally.

 We have immigrants coming over here illegally, costing tax payers billions of dollars. We have illegal immigrants working and receiving State benefits, and we have Phoenix legislators up there saying, “oh, but that’s okay”. It’s not okay. If people are breaking the law, we need to stop that. I think it gives a false message to our kids that it’s ok to break our laws. If people are breaking the law, they need to be punished. They need to do things the right way.

 I don’t have a problem with legal immigration. If immigrants want to come over here, do it the right way. I don’t have a problem with the worker program that they want to implement but I do have a problem with people coming over here and not taking the proper steps and proper channels to enter our country legally.

 RDB:  As Dennis Miller once said, “I don’t mind them coming over, just sign the guest book on the way in.”

 Proud: Absolutely.

 RDB:    Rasmussen Polling shows 63% of the American people want to repeal Obamacare. To that end, approximately 15 to 18 states have joined in a lawsuit against the United States government. Recently, Arizona SB 1001 was passed authorizing the Governor to Challenge the federal Health Care bill, since the State’s Attorney general, a progressive-socialist Democrat, refused to do so. Your opponent, Nancy Wright, voted against SB 1001, which passed by overwhelming margins. It seems that in addition to immigration, your opponent, Nancy Wright, is on the wrong side of the health care issue. Would you agree?

 Proud: I would absolutely agree. Again, here it is, she’s not listening to the majority of the people. Again, this is what’s happening with this socialist mentality.  Politicians at the federal government don’t want to listen to the majority of the people. We have that same mentality in our State.  

 RDB:   How would you have voted on SB 1001 and for what reasons?

Proud:  How would I have voted on it (laughter)?  I would have said one word: YES. (laughter) Absolutely. We’ve got to have freedom, here, in our country. I look at Greece today, at Greece’s financial problems, all caused by a socialist mentality.  

 Ronald Reagan said, in his “Time for Choosing” speech: “The Founding Fathers knew a government can’t control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that; it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose.” President Obama’s 16,000 additional IRS agents for his health care law have nothing to do with health care; it has everything to do with force and coercion.

 This is what I see happening. This is all about controlling people. The health care law isn’t about providing health care to people. We have a health care system in our country. To replace the one we currently have is unwarranted. Why not just improve what we already have?  There are other avenues for health care. So, this is not about health care.

 Back in the 70’s when they were starting this welfare program, Ronald Reagan, in his speech, “A Time for Choosing,” said we have accepted the purpose of Social Security but:

 “. . . we’re against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those people who depend on them for a livelihood. They’ve called it “insurance” to us in a hundred million pieces of literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified it was a welfare program. They only use the term “insurance” to sell it to the people.”

 I have another quote, this one from Representative John Dingell, D-MI, who spilled the beans when he admitted, “Let me remind you this (Americans allegedly dying because of lack of universal health care) has been going on for years. We are bringing it to a halt. The harsh fact of the matter is when you’re going to pass legislation that will cover 300 [million] American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.”  To control the people . . . the admission is stunning.

 RDB:   Nancy Young Wright is a member of the Arizona House Education Committee. She voted against HB 2713 that prohibited a public educational institution from discriminating against students or parents on the basis of a religious viewpoint or expression. She voted against HB 2001 that granted tax credits for school tuition organizations that sponsor disabled or displaced students who wish to enroll in private schools. She also voted against HB 2281 that banned ethnic study curriculums that advocated the overthrow of the United States Government, that promoted resentment against a race or class of people and that were racially divisive. All these bills passed. What do you think are the most critical education issues facing Arizona today?

 Proud:  For someone, and when I say someone I mean Nancy Young Wright, to stand on a platform of education and say she is pro-education, Then you see her record of voting against bills like these. This is the type of individual we need to vote out of office. We need our representatives to be honest, to let us know where you stand, to be true to where you stand and do what you say you’re going to do.

 I was at a Legislative update at the Northwest YMCA a few months ago. I heard Nancy Young Wright talk about the separation of Church and State and why religion shouldn’t be in public education. Here’s my take on the issue: Thomas Jefferson wrote the words “Separation of Church and State” in a personal letter not a legal document. It wasn’t separation of God and State; that’s why you see God on our money, on our coins, and on our Supreme Court walls. The real issue is the prevention of government from establishing a State religion and forcing individuals to tithe that State established religion. Freedom of Religion ensures that individuals may worship the God of their choice in the church, synagogue or mosque of their choice. In my opinion, history is being falsified and taught to our children so that truth will not be known. Knowing our true History means knowing the truth

Education is a huge problem that we’re facing right now in the State of Arizona. My sense of what’s going on in our educational system is that we are feeding our kids information but we’re not educating them. We’re feeding them information but starving them of knowledge. I think if we get back to the simple concepts of reading, writing, arithmetic and true history you’re going to find that our kids are going to be educated and have a sense of purpose. We have temporally lost that.

 The progressive-socialist Democrats think we need to socialize our kids more, that they need to learn more about social issues like – sex education. There was a bill they tried to pass where they wanted to teach age appropriate sex education to kindergarteners. This is the priority of the Democrats up in the House. Let’s teach our kids, kindergarteners, sex education, age appropriate, but they don’t want to focus on reading, writing and arithmetic. When we have kids that are in schools for six hours a day for twelve years and they can’t pass an AIMS test, a test we have to “dumb down,” an AIMS test . . . we have problems. We know we’re not educating our kids. It’s not about more money. It doesn’t matter how much money the schools have, if they don’t get to the basic core of what education is our kids are not going to be educated.

 RDB:  The current teacher certification process is cumbersome, time-consuming, and does not ensure selection of competent teachers. Seniors do a lot of volunteering and, for the most part, are well-educated. Would you favor a program of having qualified seniors teaching at local schools on a volunteer basis without having to undergo the current certification process?

 Proud:  Absolutely. Absolutely. We have many people who are very qualified to teach our children properly.  I think that’s been proven with homeschooling.

 RDB:  Staying with the education topic, a lot of people believe education to be the next big civil rights issue. In Washington, D.C., the Bush Administration sponsored a scholarship program for 1,700 low income students who were predominately black. The program was successful and the students were doing much better in private schools. However, President Obama signed a Democrat sponsored bill canceling the scholarship program at the behest of the teachers’ unions. What is your position on using public funds to place students in poorly performing public schools into high achievement private schools, magnet schools and even secular schools sponsored by religious groups? To put it another way, if President Obama can place his kids in private schools because these schools are better than some public schools, why can’t the children of low-income parents access the same schools and receive a quality education?

 Proud:  Every child learns differently. That’s why some children do better in charter schools, some children do better in public schools, and some children do better in private schools. Is it a parent choice? Absolutely. Every child learns differently.

 It is the parents who are also paying with their tax dollars, and parents should be able to choose whatever school they want.  It’s about parental choice.

 My opponent voted against a bill to strengthen parental rights.  The bill, SB 1309 ensured that in our state law parents have the right “to direct the upbringing and education of their child.” It also required that children not be taught sex-related curriculum in public schools without parental consent. It just confirmed even more that she wants to take away our freedoms and liberties as parents, as a people, and that is unacceptable to me.

 We, as parents, know what’s best for our kids. We have that right to make these choices as to where we want our children to go. You would think someone who stands so strongly on educational issues would want children to be educated in the best environment that is best suited for that child.  Again, this is another example of the socialist mentality of “I know what’s best for you, not you.”

RDB:  With regard to gun issues, it is quite clear Nancy Wright is a big time progressive-socialist. Project Vote Smart records Wright as voting against any liberalization of Arizona gun laws even though the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled the Second Amendment applies at an individual level. What is your position on the “right to bear arms?”

Proud: I was the Arizona State Coordinator for the Second Amendment March.  Someone once stated that a society that is without arms is a vulnerable society. I become involved with the gun issue when  Obama was first elected because I knew he was anti-gun.  In a gunless society, women are the first to be victimized. That’s just a fact. Nancy Young Wright voted against that. I have two daughters and I want them to have that right, to carry a gun. I’m a huge advocate.

 RDB:  Let’s talk about the State budget. The legislature has been cutting spending and the budget. Recently, voters approved a temporary sales tax increase of one percent that is expected to bring in close to $1 billion a year. Future cuts are necessary. As an Arizona State Representative, what areas of our budget would you look at for reductions in spending?

 Proud: There are two areas. Number one is the Department of Economic Security. According to the Goldwater Institute, we currently spend over  $85 million in the Department of Economic Security for people who are not working. They get a government check, they have kids, and DES was supposed to actively help these people look for a job. DES has not. People come in, they apply for these programs and they sign them up. They qualify them. Off they go.

I personally would like to see a change, a total reform, in the welfare program, and for it to look like this: DES is a temp agency.  It’s a working temp agency. When we have help wanted signs in MacDonalds and we have these help wanted signs in all these other places, and you look in the newspaper and you see janitorial help wanted and we’re spending over a $85 million  because people don’t want to work, we have a problem.

 I think what I would like to see, again, is DES become a temp agency. If you’re receiving a government check, you’d better be actively looking for a job. They need to show that they are actively looking for a job because when you’re unemployed, your job for 35 or 40 hours a week is to look for a job. Period. If you cannot provide any type of documentation or proof that you were out looking for a job, you don’t get a check. Period.

 We need to eliminate this “we’re going to support you attitude” because we don’t teach that to our own kids. We teach our kids, if you want something you need to work for it. You need to earn that. That’s how we teach our kids. What are we telling our kids today when we’re say, ‘okay, you know what, you don’t have to work. You just go fill out a form saying you can’t find work and we’ll give you a check and we’ll support you.’ It’s a spoiled mentality. It’s a lazy mentality. That’s one of the things I would like to do, to totally reform how DES works.

 Benjamin Franklin once observed, “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. . .”  

 Look at where we are today with 50% of the American public not paying any taxes and Obama promising the largesse of our treasury to these people. It’s frightening.

 RDB:  How would you have voted on the one percent temporary tax increase?

 Proud: I voted against it and I’ll tell you why. I downloaded this list this morning. It’s a list of ballot propositions going back to 1912.  Four or five years ago we did a tax increase again for education programs. It was a .6% tax increase that we voted on for 20 years because this was going to help educate our children. Then there was another bill in here where it allocated the tobacco taxes to go towards education. When we have over half our budget going to education and they still need more money, money is not the problem. It’s just a band-aid. The core issue is what we are teaching our kids.

 RDB:  It has been proven time and again that government stimulus packages do not create private sector jobs and are a complete waste of taxpayer dollars. What specific policy initiatives do you favor for private sector job creation?

 Proud:  I think the government just needs to get out of the way. Let the people create jobs. We have a lot of restrictions. Here, just in Pima County, I know people who have tried to open up a business, who have opened up a business, and the red tape they have to go through is ridiculous. By the time half of them are half way into it they’re just ready to say forget it. But they can’t. They’ve invested too much time; they’ve invested too much money.

 The process of starting a business here is ridiculous. There’s so much red tape in it. It’s getting to a point where we need to start looking at why we are this way? Why are we in so much red tape?  Is it about just money? Is it about accumulating more money? We need to become more business friendly and let people open up their businesses easily.

 RDB:  There are reports that average federal government salary and benefits exceed average private sector salary and benefits by a significant factor. This may be true for Arizona too. We all know this relationship is not sustainable. Would you favor a policy that stated average public sector salary plus benefits cannot exceed X percent of average private sector salary plus benefits?

Proud: Yes.

RDB:  As a follow-up, would you, when elected, would you favor Arizona State government would complete an annual or periodic survey comparing public sector compensation and benefits with the private sector in order to prevent an imbalance like the one at the federal level?

 Proud:  Yes. Yes, I would. Absolutely.

 RDB:  Regarding your opponent, Nancy Wright, the Arizona Federation of Taxpayers rated her a 6 out of 100 points on budget and spending; the Goldwater Institute gave her an F for her progressive-socialist politics; The Center for Arizona Policy gave Wright a 7 out of 100 on family and children issues; and the National Rifle Association gave her a F on gun rights. What other weaknesses do you see in your opponent?

 Proud: (Laughing) The fact that she got an F from the Goldwater Institute when she is co-hosting a conservative Goldwater film (more laughter) the other night. And she wouldn’t identify herself as the progressive –socialist Democrat she is. That baffles me.

 Yes, she has a lot of weaknesses. The fact . . . this mentality we have in the federal government, this socialist mentality, we have this same concept in our State. That’s why State races are so important. Number one, we live here. I don’t plan on moving. We can have a conservative federal government and still have a very liberal State. That’s kind of where we’re headed right now. We have a socialist mentality in the federal government and we have people who are sitting in the Arizona House who have that same mentality. We need to get our State back to a conservative basis, back to conservative values, and if you don’t plan on moving, you need to get involved in these State races. This is where it’s going to affect the majority of the people.

RDB:  Terri, we’ve covered a lot of ground. Is there anything else you would like our SaddleBrooke residents to know about you or your positions?

 Proud:  Yes. If there is a position that somebody wants to know where I stand on, I actively encourage people to contact me. I get phone calls randomly . . . people wanting to know . . . especially when Proposition 100 was on the ballot . . .  quite a few people asked me how I was going to stand on that issue. 

 I stand strong on my issues. I don’t apologize for where I stand. If I don’t agree with a certain thing I would definitely say so. I would encourage anybody to give me a call and ask me where I stood on a particular issue, if I haven’t covered it or they haven’t seen it on my web site.

RDB:  Thank you very much for doing this interview.

 Proud:  Thank you.

 

Filed Under: Campaigns & Elections, Government, State Government Tagged With: , ,

Unfit for Public Office?

May 30, 2010 By 2 Comments

On Friday, May 21st, two Democrats hosted a film documentary on Senator Barry Goldwater by his grand-daughter. Current State Representative Nancy Young Wright and Senatorial candidate Cheryl Cage neither spoke at the event nor identified themselves as progressive-socialist Democrats. Both attempted to engage attendees in conversation after the film.

To the surprise and chagrin of Wright and Cage, two Republican candidates attended the event: candidate for State Representative Terri Proud and candidate for State Treasurer Barbara Leff. The SaddleBrooke Republican Club asked both candidates to comment on the bizarre behavior of Nancy Young Wright and Cheryl Cage.

 In part, Terri Proud stated, “. . . we must never lose our vigilance and get distracted by liberals or moderates who dress up in conservative values and sound bites . . . Nancy Young Wright and Cheryl Cage, both very liberal Democrats running for State office, held an event where they brought the grand-daughter of Barry Goldwater to show how conservative they are, in an attempt to appeal to a demographic they have both scorned before . . .”

 “Barry Goldwater left a legacy of true conservatism of limited government, lower taxation, and individual rights in which Nancy Young Wright and Cheryl Cage both oppose as outspoken supporters of Obama and Giffords. We must watch to make sure that those people we vote into office actually believe in his legacy as opposed to just using the sound bites and trading in on his good name.”

 Barbara Leff commented, “I thought it was odd that two Democrats, who did not live in SaddleBrooke, put on an event and did not advertise it as a Democrat event. I spoke to several attendees, telling them I was visiting SaddleBrooke, and wondered who was sponsoring the event. They all said Nancy Young Wright and Cheryl Cage. . .”

“It seemed that Nancy and Cheryl were trying to position themselves as moderates, hoping to attract a variety of people to their event by using Goldwater . . . Not mentioning that they were the Democratic candidates seemed less than honest . . . Nancy and Cheryl were not happy to see Terri [Proud] there. It was fun to see Cheryl’s face when Terri introduced herself . . . Next time they should just be honest and call it a Democrat event   . . .”

Let’s see. President Obama campaigned in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts and lost two governorships and one Senate seat.

 Seeing the proverbial handwriting on the wall with adverse poll results and angry constituents, at least four Democrat Senators and ten Democrat Representatives have announced they are not running for office in the next election.

 Now we have the likes of Nancy Young Wright and Cheryl Cage slinking in a darkened room showing a Goldwater documentary, not acknowledging their affiliation with the Democratic Party and attempting to convince attendees they are something they are not by name association. Their behavior can only be described as disingenuous and deceptive.

Filed Under: Campaigns & Elections, Ethics, Special Event Tagged With: , ,

The Arizona Immigration Debate

May 5, 2010 By 20 Comments

The killing of Arizona Rancher Robert Krentz and the wounding of Pinal County Deputy Sheriff Lou Puroll, at the hands if illegal immigrants, has put a laser like focus on the reaction of Hispanic citizens who profess their rights are being violated by Arizona’s new law (the law does not take effect until July).

 There is no doubt that there are those race exploiters who are taking advantage of the situation and inflaming passions. People like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Raul Grijalda, and President Obama come to mind. But, this is in keeping with the history, traditions, and practices of the progressive-socialist Democratic Party since its inception: the Democratic Party can never escape its racist heritage.

 Hispanic writers like Ernest Portillo Jr, in the Arizona Daily Star (5/2/2010), quoted legal immigrants saying that the intensity of anti-immigrant sentiment is growing. The intensity of anti-illegal immigrant is growing but just about everyone I’ve talked to is very positively pro-immigration as long as you follow the rules. As Dennis Miller once said, “We don’t mind you visiting us, just sign the guest book.”

 The biggest issue with those who disagree with the new law is that Hispanics will have to have identification to show law enforcement. If anyone is stopped by a law enforcement official for a violation of motor vehicle law, he or she has to provide a driver’s license. Federal law requires any foreigner to carry identification. Why are illegal Hispanic immigrants not protesting federal law? Ignorance and misinformation are the tools of the progressive-socialist radicals managing the protest.

If I write a check for groceries, the vendor always asks to see identification. I leased a sump pump from Home Depot the other day and was asked for my driver’s license and a credit card. What’s the big deal about showing identification?

 The big deal is that illegal immigrants cannot show they are in the country legally. The big deal is Hispanics traditionally vote with Democrats even though, like Blacks, the Democratic Party, treats Hispanics badly. The Democratic Party would like nothing better than to have illegal immigrants voting Democratic. This was proven by the use of ACORN activists by the Democratic Party during the presidential election in numerous instances of fraud.

 The Wall Street Journal article, “Killing Stokes Immigration Debate,”(5/2/2010) described a young 20 year community college student living in Mesa who was protesting the law because his family had been living illegally in Arizona for ten years. The student claimed his family will have to leave Arizona. Probably so, as he self-identified and admitted his family was here illegally. The student talked about moving to California or New Mexico. What he did not talk about was correcting the problem.

Hispanic immigrants who came to the United States legally have nothing to worry about. Only those Hispanic immigrants who came here illegally should be worried. Since there are anywhere from 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants in the United States, I’m not surprised that they are reacting.

 The repeated failure of the federal government to secure our borders makes the federal government complicit and responsible for the death of Robert Krentz and the wounding of Deputy Sheriff Lou Puroll.

 The Arizona law mirrors federal law. Why didn’t Hispanic activists react to the federal law? Primarily because the federal government did not enforce it. Arizona intends to enforce the law: thus, the reaction primarily by radical progressive-socialists and illegal immigrants.

 President Obama has called the Arizona law misguided. Does he also call the federal law misguided? Is this why his administration refuses to enforce it? Then, again, Mr. Obama has an aunt living in this country illegally.

 American citizens of Hispanic descent have started voicing their disapproval of the race exploitative reaction to the law by illegal immigrants and progressive-socialist radicals. They or their ancestors came to the United States legally and they think illegal immigrants should follow the same rules. My mother immigrated to the United States over sixty years ago. My wife immigrated to the United States over forty years ago. They followed the rules. So must Hispanic immigrants in this country illegally.

 There are two Hispanic communities in this country: the legal community and the illegal community. The legal Hispanic community must not allow itself to be emotionally swept up by race exploiters.

 As Americans, we must stand for border security and promote legal immigration. As Americans, we cannot tolerate murders or shootings of innocent people by illegal immigrants. As Americans, we must eliminate the illegal immigrant issue, thoughtfully and legally. The Arizona law is a sensible first step in the process.

Filed Under: Border, Culture, Illegal Immigration Tagged With: , ,

Stick to the Facts and Take the High Road 3

April 30, 2010 By 37 Comments

Ronald Reagan said, “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.” Yet Jesse Kelly, in his April 29th press release, attacked Republican Jeff Flake, comparing him to Congressman Charlie Rangel, who is finally sinking in a sea of ethics charges. Here is part of Kelly’s press release:

 “Tucson, AZ  On April 22nd, Jonathan Paton attacked Representative Gabrielle Giffords for supporting the STRIVE Act. Paton benefactor and patron, Representative Jeff Flake is also a major sponsor of the STRIVE Act. How can Paton attack Giffords over this issue when one of his major supporters sponsored the very same bill? Worse yet, part of the money that Paton raised out of Maricopa County came from Jeff Flake’s campaign, no doubt given by people who supported Flake’s open endorsement of Amnesty! Just as Giffords returned the tainted donations from Representative Charles Rangel, Paton should return the Flake Amnesty funds.”

 Does this mean that the money Jesse Kelly received from a fundraiser with Tom Tancredo, who has said SB1070 goes too far, should be returned to the people in that fundraiser?  “People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones,” as the old adage goes.

 What makes this interesting, though, is that Jesse Kelly apparently sought Jeff Flake’s endorsement but did not receive it. The Tucson Weekly  also revealed that Jesse Kelly sought John McCain’s endorsement but Kelly was rebuffed.

 Then Kelly denied he had asked for the endorsement but the Tucson Weekly quoted the Kelly campaign’s email asking for the endorsement. When Kelly did not receive McCain’s endorsement he endorsed J.D. Hayworth.

 History appears to be repeating itself with Jeff Flake. Kelly’s request for endorsement is denied, now he attacks Jeff Flake, comparing him to Charlie Rangel?

 The Arizona Daily Star also reported, “Republican Jesse Kelly in Congressional District 8 has been touting the support of U.S. Rep. Mike Pence, rumored as a possible future House speaker or 2012 presidential wannabe. So it drew some interest when the Indiana politician’s name disappeared from a list of endorsements on Kelly’s website. ‘The congressman has made no endorsement in that congressional race,’ said Bill Smith, Pence’s chief of staff, adding that his office asked that the Pence’s name be removed.”  Will Jesse Kelly next attack Mike Pence on some goofy charge?

 All Republican candidates in CD8 should stick to the facts, take the high road and observe Ronald Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment.

Filed Under: Campaign Finance, Campaigns & Elections Tagged With: , , ,
« Older Posts