AZ Senate President Steve Pierce Endorses Jonathan Paton

April 4, 2012

As Senate President, I’ve worked hard to fight for the needs of rural and Northern Arizona in our Legislature, especially as the federal government continues to pass down policies that hurt our businesses and trample on our 10th Amendment rights.

But there’s only so much we can do here as long as Washington remains out-of-touch.

That’s why today I’m endorsing Jonathan Paton in Arizona’s new Congressional District 1. I hope you will join me in working hard to make sure he’s our next Congressman.

Jonathan is a good friend and a solid conservative, who will be a check-and-balance on Washington’s ways. 

A lot of politicians get elected and forget where they come from. Jonathan won’t.

Please join me in not just supporting Jonathan, but working together to get him elected.

Many thanks,

Steve Pierce
President
Arizona State Senate
(R – Yavapai, Coconino)

AZ House Speaker Andy Tobin Endorses Jonathan Paton

March 27, 2012 

I don’t know about you, but I’m extremely concerned about the direction in which Barack Obama is taking this country.

It seems like everywhere we turn there’s an assault on freedom and American exceptionalism; whether it’s the ObamaCare mandates or the massive debt Washington is laying on our shoulders. 

Arizona needs to send a voice to Washington that will be a check-and-balance. We need someone who is going to take Arizona’s fight to Congress.

I believe my friend Jonathan Paton is that person, and that’s why I’m supporting him for Congress in Arizona’s new First Congressional District.

This new district includes much of the area I have represented here in the state Legislature, and critical parts of my home county, Yavapai County.

Jonathan Paton is the only candidate for those of us who believe that America’s best days are still ahead. I hope you will join me and stand with Jonathan today.

Many thanks,

Andy Tobin
Arizona Speaker of the House

AZ State Representative Brenda Barton Endorses Jonathan Paton

March 30, 2012

Friends,

Eastern Arizona appreciates and deserves a representative in Congress who understands our needs and values. We need a representative in Washington who will fight regulations that keep our economy from growing, and will not run away from his constituents like Ann Kirkpatrick did.

That’s why I’m pleased to support Jonathan Paton as our new representative in Arizona’s First Congressional District.

The people of rural Arizona will be well-served to have Jonathan fighting for us in Washington. Jonathan gets it. He understands, as President Ronald Reagan did, that more government isn’t the solution — it’s the problem.

Please join me in standing with Jonathan.

Sincerely, 

Brenda Barton
State Representative

(R – Graham, Greenlee, Gila, Navajo, Apache)

Senator Sylvia Allen Endorses Jonathan Paton

April 2, 2012

The First Session I served as Senator, Jonathan Paton was one of my fellow Senators and we became good friends. He was conservative and stood firm on strong votes for businesses, and individual rights and protections. He worked hard for his district and was a good example to me a freshman Senator.

There’s an open seat race for Congress in Eastern Arizona – Congressional District 1 – and Jonathan is the candidate that I am supporting because I know that he will serve us well and work to bring back true Federalism and protect State Rights in Washington D.C.

This election is so important. Congress and this President are taking America down a dangerous Socialist/Progressive path, and I feel there is not much time left to repair our failing economy and to address the national debt.

For those of us who believe in the Constitution, secure borders and a free and strong economy, Jonathan is our candidate. Please join me in helping to elect him as our next congressman. 

Sincerely,

Sylvia Allen
 President Pro Tempore

Arizona Senate
(R – Graham, Greenlee, Gila, Navajo, Apache)

Arizona IRC ED Denies Budget Recommendation

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.

Protecting Pinal County’s Property Tax Payers

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.

 

 

We the People Can Do Better

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.

Supervisor Pete Rios’ Popularity Death Spiral

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.”

Pete Rios’ Attempt at Misdirection

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.

Is Supervisor Bryan Martyn Gaffe Prone?

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.

Irresponsible People in Responsible Positions

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.

A Violation of Due Process – Part 2

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.

A Lady and Her Facts

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.

A Violation of Due Process?

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.

What Jesse Kelly Said About Sarah Palin

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.

Nancy Young Wright’s Narrow Viewpoint

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.

 

Cheryl Cage and Her Own Facts

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.