Arizona Republic Editorial Omits Some Facts and Distorts Others

The April 21, 2014, Arizona Republic editorial, “Pinal County holds losing hand vs. ICE,” had omitted key facts and distorted others. Let’s start at the beginning. Former County Manager Stan Griffis, who subsequently spent time in prison on unrelated charges, agreed to the original contract with ICE.  At the time, a cost-benefit analysis was not performed.  Last year, an internal audit discovered the County was losing about $2.6 million annually on the contract.

The County Board of Supervisors, County Manager and Sheriff agreed to renegotiate the contract.  An outside firm was brought in to cost out the contract’s real requirements. ICE agreed to meet and renegotiate, and received approval to do so despite the sequestration in place at the federal government.

The initial proposal by the County called for an increase in the per diem rate from $59 to $79, an increase of 34%, not the 50% cited by the Arizona Republic.

Subsequent counterproposals by ICE called for a staffing increase of 52 by the PCSO Detention Facility. A County counteroffer brought down the staff increase to 14. Additional ICE “preferred” contract provisions increased the cost. As the provisions were “preferred,” PCSO countered with proposed deviations from ICE’s “preferred” provisions, which is part of normal negotiations. The Arizona Republic omitted these facts.

Because ICE will not guarantee a minimum number of detainee beds, the County had only history and current ICE policy on which to calculate per diem pricing. Again, the Arizona Republic omitted these facts.

As a result of the County protecting itself and its taxpayers, the last proposal submitted to ICE calls for a per diem of $87.96, based on ICE “preferred” provisions and an absence of a minimum bed guarantee. This per diem rate is 47% over the existing one, not the 50% cited by the Arizona Republic.

It is perfectly appropriate for the County and ICE to renegotiate the contract. Businesses do so every day.  In this case, it should have been done long ago.  The Arizona Republic’s view is that ICE “has all the leverage.”  PCSO also has “leverage.”  PCSO has the facilities ICE uses. The relationship between ICE and PCSO operation personnel is good. ICE Contracting Officers and Specialists, not operational personnel, are conducting contract negotiations.  The Arizona Republic editorial omitted this fact.

The Arizona Republic editorial implied that ICE was reducing the average detainee population by 35% during the first four months of the year as a result of contract negotiations.  In reality, ICE detainee levels are down due to the Obama administration’s “catch and release” program at the border.  The Arizona Republic editorial omitted this fact.

In fact, last Friday (4/18/2014) ICE sent 42 detainees to the PCSO Detention facility and telephoned later to say another 81 detainees were on the way.  This influx of detainees shows that both PCSO and ICE have need of the other.  The ICE facility is a quarter mile up the road from the PCSO Detention Facility.  Convenience translates into effectiveness and efficiency.

The Republic editorial also managed to report that two watchdog groups labeled the Pinal County Jail as among the worst immigration-detentions facilities in the country. The watchdog groups were anonymous. This was a cheap shot. The Arizona Republic should identify the so-called watchdog groups. If it cannot or will not name the groups, omit the slam. It begs the question about so-called journalistic ethics at the newspaper.

In fact, the PCSO Jail has achieved Level 1 100% compliance with Arizona Jail Guidelines (based on Constitutional and statutory requirements), National Institute of Jail Operations (NIJO) and the National Sheriffs Association. Another fact omitted by the Arizona Republic.

One thing worse than sloppy and inaccurate reporting is sloppy and inaccurate editorials.  The Arizona Republic can have its own opinion but not its own set of facts.




Smith, Leach and Finchem form Conservative Team in LD 11



For more information, call Constantin Querard at (480) 703-8145


Smith, Leach and Finchem

form Conservative Team in LD11

~ Goal is to keep all three seats in conservative hands ~

As expected, a conservative team has come together in LD11. The team consists of State Representative Steve Smith, conservative activist Vince Leach, and former fire/police officer Mark Finchem. Smith, a former State Senator himself, is a candidate for the State Senate that Al Melvin is expected to vacate in order to run for Governor. Leach and Finchem are candidates for the two State House seats.

In 2010, Smith shocked the political world by beating longtime incumbent State Senator Rebecca Rios. In 2012, after the Democrats gerrymandered the districts to force him and fellow State Senator Al Melvin into the same district, Smith switched to the State House in order to preserve party unity and to ensure that conservatives would occupy all three legislative seats. His voting record remains one of the most conservative of any Republican and he continues to look after the best interests of Arizona taxpayers.

Leach is a SaddleBrooke resident and citizen activist who has been involved in GOP and Tea Party groups for years. Leach has also been active at the State Capitol, advocating for conservative bills. His existing relationships with legislators will give him a real advantage over other freshmen legislators, and it has already earned him the endorsement of Senator Al Melvin and former legislators Jonathan Paton and John Fillmore.

Finchem spent 21 years in public safety, first as a firefighter paramedic, later as a police officer. He eventually joined the private sector where he climbed the ranks into management of a large software company. Later, Mark made another career move into the real estate market. Finchem lives in Oro Valley and he and his wife are actively involved with a number of Christian faith organizations including Young Life and Family Life Radio.

The team will continue to build on its geographic and financial strength to prevail in both the primary and general elections.



Who’s Looking Out for Us?

Who looks out for us when the federal government ominously turns against the American people? There is now a deep fissure, it is beyond unease, between the American people and the federal government.  Trust of the federal government is disappearing.

First, true ownership of General Motors was stolen from the rightful owners and given to the United Auto Workers, who neither purchased ownership nor earned it.

Second, a national health care program, written not by Congress but the private socialist Apollo group and supported by only one political party, was rammed down the throats of Americans. The bill was so thick that no member of Congress even read it.

Third, a massive stimulus bill was passed to create private sector jobs, except that all spending was directed toward the public sector and public sector unions to protect union jobs at the expense of private sector jobs.

Fourth, under the guise of “Wall Street Reform,” a massive financial regulation bill was passed, not to improve the financial health of the country but to allow egregious regulations to act as a proxy for socialist domination and control: capitalism has been severely damaged.

Fifth, the “Fast and Furious” ATF cover-up continues. Recently, the Justice Department Inspector general released a report condemning a government leak intended to smear a key ATF whistleblower.  Top administration officials have been caught in multiple lies and Attorney General Eric Holder was found in contempt of Congress over his failure to turn over documents related to the ATF crimes. And, lest we forget, Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was murdered in the line of duty.

Sixth, the Obama administration continues to cover up the egregious actions surrounding the death of four Americans, including our Ambassador, in Benghazi. Witnesses are prevented from testifying before Congress and the Secretary of State shrilly declares, “What difference does it make?” as if the four American deaths were irrelevant.

Seventh, the Internal Revenue Service confessed to its illegal activities against Tea Party and other conservative groups. In fact Obama and several members of Congress wrote the IRS and demanded these investigations. “It is no small exaggeration to conclude that Team Obama’s dead aim is to chill conservative speech and criminalize conservative dissent.” [1]It was also meant to suppress conservative votes and contribution:  the IRS audited many contributors to Mitt Romney’s campaign.

Eighth, we now have the most massive domestic spying program in American history, thanks to big statist socialist president.  The Obama administration has given itself a blank check to access what it wants, whenever it wants without articulated reason and all in violation of the United States Constitution.

In a public filing in the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), the Department of Justice to urged the court to continue to suppress publication of a 2011 FISC opinion that the National Security Agency’s (NSA) surveillance under the FISA Amendments Act to be unconstitutional.[2] In effect, the Department of Justice is covering up through legal maneuver the fact the NSA is engaged in unconstitutional activities against the American people.

“The American idea of freedom and civic involvement is being replaced by a technocratic nightmare in which government bureaucrats and their allies in the corporate sector rig the rules of society in order to protect the power and privilege of a few select politicians and businessmen. All the while, the majority of the American people are kept in check via debt, imprisonment, and a vast surveillance network which keeps us monitored, controlled and marching in lock step with the government’s dictates.”[3] Welcome to the new American order: liberal-fascism.

Who are the liberal-fascist corporations cooperating with the Obama administration: Microsoft (who also supported the administration’s egregious Common Core educational initiative), Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, Apple and Verizon.

This criminal collusion (criminal because this massive spy program is unconstitutional) has enormous privacy implications. Already, the companies I have cited as government partners have lost all credibility. Not one company can state that it values its customers’ privacy.

Article IV of the United States Constitution provides for “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” (emphasis mine).

We now know that the Director of National Intelligence admitted that his agencies engaged in illegal and unconstitutional activities.[4] Yet, rather than stopping these illegal and unconstitutional activities, the Obama administration has doubled-down. Why?  The NSA massive spying program on Americans has nothing to do with protecting America from its enemies; the program is all about controlling the population through intimidation.

The American people no longer have trust in the Obama administration, the National Security Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Justice Department, and Homeland Security among many agencies.

Peggy Noonan recently wrote in an op-ed column for the Wall Street Journal  that, “Our government is not totalitarian. Our leaders, even the worst of them, are not totalitarian. But our technology is totalitarian, or rather it is there and can be used and abused by those whose impulses tend, even unconsciously or unthinkingly, in that direction.”

I disagree with Ms. Noonan. The idea behind the massive spying program is totalitarian: population control.  The authority that approved this massive spying program tilts to one party, oppressive rule and Barack Obama.

The Department heads that report to Obama and support and utilize this massive domestic spying program have bought into the liberal-fascist party line. How else could this massive intrusion into Americans’ privacy be secret from the American public for so long?  Why didn’t one of these people raise the red flag on an activity so obviously unconstitutional and un-American?

In the 1968 presidential election, President Johnson had utilized the FBI, the CIA and the National Security Agency to spy on the Nixon campaign. Protecting the NSA surveillance and code-creaking capabilities was paramount. Johnson’s people were in a quandary: use the intelligence to hurt Nixon but make public the capabilities of the NSA or not use the intelligence.

Dean Rusk supplied the answer: “I do not believe that any president can make any use of interceptions or telephone taps in any way that involves politics. The moment we cross over that divide, we are in a different society.”[5]

Yes, America is now a different society. But has America crossed the Rubicon?



Whereas, the so-called Common Core standards are sets of (currently Mathematics and English) imposed by the Obama administration as a top-down one size fits all curriculum;

Whereas, the so-called Common Core standards violate the United States Constitution, to wit, education is not listed in the enumerated powers of Congress found in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution;

Whereas, the so-called Common Core standards violate the General Education Act provisions, to wit, “No provision of any applicable program shall be construed to authorize any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system, or over the selection of library resources, textbooks, or other printed or published instructional materials by any educational institution or school system, or to require the assignment or transportation of students or teachers in order to overcome racial imbalance;

Whereas, the so-called Common Core standards violate the General Education Act provisions, to wit, “ . . . no funds provided to the Department of Education or to an applicable program, may be used to pilot test, field test, implement, administer or distribute in any way any federally sponsored national test in reading, mathematics, or any other subject that is not specifically and explicitly provided for in authorizing legislation enacted into law;”

Whereas, the so-called Common Core standards violate the provisions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, to wit,  “Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize an officer or employee of the Federal government to mandate, direct, or control a State, local educational agency, or school’s curriculum, program of instruction, or allocation of State or any subdivision thereof to spend any funds or incur any costs not paid for under this Act.

Whereas, the only two standards experts on the Common Core Standards Commission, Dr. Jim Milgram (Mathematics) and Dr. Sandra Stotsky (English), refused to endorse any Common Core standard due to built-in low expectations, lowering of existing school standards and elimination of classic literature in favor of informational texts;

Whereas,  Dr. Jim Milgram stated that, “Realistically, the most likely outcome of the Core Mathematics geometry standards is the complete suppression of the key topics in Euclidean geometry including proofs and deductive reasoning  . . ;”

Whereas, Dr. Sandra Stotsky testified, “The standards which I have analyzed in detail many times over, do not signify readiness or authentic college level work, at best they point to readiness for a high school diploma . . . Professor Milgram says the same thing about the mathematics standards. We’re talking about the Common Core’s standards. Neither of them makes us competitive with other countries that have high expectations for their high school students . . ;

Whereas, The Pioneer Institute wrote, in Controlling Education from the Top, Why Common Core is Bad for America, “The Standards, which are intended to prepare students for nonselective community colleges rather than four-year universities are inferior to those in some states and no better than those of many others . . . their de-emphasis of the study of literature in favor of ‘informational texts’ would abandon the goal of truly educating students, focusing instead on training them for static jobs.”

Whereas, The Pioneer Institute wrote, in Controlling Education from the Top, Why Common Core is Bad for America, “Partnering with the Department of Labor, the Department [of Education] seeks to build a data system that allows tracking of individual students from preschool through the workforce.”  Why the need for population tracking and control?  Already, opponents to data collection, tracking and storage, to include the New York Civil Liberties Union have joined forces to fight this Common Core standard.

And Whereas, The Pioneer Institute wrote, in Controlling Education from the Top, Why Common Core is Bad for America, “The Common Core State Standards . . . and the initiative for their nationwide adoption raise profound questions of federalism, education, content, governance, fiscal responsibility, and student and family privacy.”

Therefore, Be It Resolved, That We, the Precinct Committeemen and Precinct Committeewomen of Legislative District 11, Pima County GOP, unanimously affirm and declare our opposition to the so-called Common Core Standards. 

Resolved, that the State Superintendent of Education and all State Legislators reject and repeal Arizona’s commitment to submit to an unconstitutional and illegal overreach by the federal government.

Resolved, that the proposed tracking of students from preschool through the workforce is another unprecedented intrusion of and violation of personal liberty and confidentiality.

Resolved, that the Common Core standards call into question the very nature of federalism, education, control of curriculum, governance, fiscal responsibility, and student and family privacy.

Richard D. Brinkley

Chair, Legislative District 11


CAC Board of Governors Demonstrate Classic Hubris With a 35% Property Tax Increase

The Central Arizona College (CAC) Board of Governors has approved a tentative budget that will require a 35% in crease in property taxes for Pinal County homeowners. This tax translates to approximately a $100 tax increased per $100,000 assessed valuation on a home. A lot of retirees live in $400,000 homes and a $400 increase in taxes will hit them very hard.

Currently, Pinal County has the second highest primary tax rate in the State at $3.7999.  Pinal County Board of Supervisors reduced the property tax rate by $.10 last year.  The Board of Governor’s property tax increase obliterates the County tax reduction.

What is going on in CAC? Since 2009, the CAC property tax rate has increased by over 72%, while Pinal County’s property tax rate has increased almost 13%.  The CAC property tax rate has grown over 5.5 times faster than the Pinal County tax rate.

The proposed CAC tax rate will make CAC the most expensive community college in Arizona yet CAC serves only 3% of Arizona’s full-time student equivalent (FTSE) in all Arizona community colleges. How can this be? Are salaries excessively high?

The President of CAC, Doris Hemlich, was invited to a meeting of concerned citizens on May 16th.  She was totally unprepared for the reaction of SaddleBrooke residents.  Resident after resident stood up to speak against the egregious tax increase. Dr. Helmich attempted to frame the tax increase issue as critical to building an educated workforce that will attract businesses.

Unfortunately, Dr. Hemlich had it backwards.  Currently, approximately 56% of Pinal County’s work force leave Pinal County daily to go to work. If you look at Maricopa  county , businesses are located along the Pinal County line but very few in Pinal County.  The reason:  Pinal County has the second highest primary property tax rate in the State at $3.7999.  Maricopa County, at $1.2407, ranks 11th.

The CAC proposed primary and secondary property tax rate is over twice that of Maricopa County’s primary rate alone. The CAC Board of Governors, through its egregious tax increase, is, in effect, telling businesses to stay away.

Let me quote a CAC student, who shall remain anonymous to protect the student from any CAC administration retaliation:

“CAC couldn’t fill their existent classrooms when they received money to buy the satellite campus at Trekell and Florence. Next they used our tax dollars to get hold of another satellite facility in the Palm Center mall just off I10 and Florence. I use these two facilities constantly and have observed they have a running ratio of administration to students at roughly 7:1. The classrooms are always empty. At the facility on Trekell, the guy running things has his computer screen facing the door. He spends much of his day of time poking around on the internet  . . .

The computer lab there was being monitored by a student employee. When she had to study for finals, tests, etc. she’d simply close the lab and leave… leaving students who paid money to use those computers nowhere to go other than out to the main campus . . . The computer labs rarely have more than three students (20 computers) at any given time . . .

This college is NOT about education: it is the new WPA and operates without ANY responsible supervision . . .”

The proposed CAC property tax represents 62% of Pinal County’s property tax rate.  The Board of Governors and its decision to increase the CAC property tax by 35% do not pass the proverbial sniff test.  The CAC “truth in taxes” meeting on May 21st should be very interesting, indeed.







April 22nd, 2013

For more information: Constantin Querard – (480) 703-8145


State Senator Al Melvin Forms Exploratory

Committee for 2014 Governor’s Race


PHOENIX – Republican State Senator Al Melvin announced today that he was

forming an Exploratory Committee to explore a campaign for Governor of



The third-term Senator made it clear that his motivation for exploring came from

both his frustration with the lack of progress being made and a genuine optimism

for Arizona’s future.


“We have been blessed with some hard-working reform-minded

legislatures during my time here, but we have failed to make the kind of

progress that the people of Arizona deserve because too many elected

officials are content to think small and act small.”


“Arizona is capable of real greatness if we elect leaders who are willing to

be bold, even if it comes with political risk or at a political cost. We need to

offer real reform, real proposals to create growth on a massive scale, an

impassioned defense of our state’s rights in the face of an everencroaching

federal government, and education reform that finally and

firmly shifts the power away from bureaucracies and into the hands of

parents where it belongs. That is the plan that I will offer and I look forward

to traveling around Arizona and determining what kind of support there is

for a candidate who offers that bold vision.”


Melvin serves as Chairman of the Commerce, Energy and Military Committee

and founded the highly successful Mining Caucus and Tourism Caucus. He has

had a long business career in international trade and transportation, is a

graduate of the US Merchant Marine Academy, Kings Point, NY and received his

MBA degree from Thunderbird-School of Global Management in Glendale, AZ.

Prior to his election to the Senate, he taught college level courses as an adjunct,

in economics, international business and management.


Melvin is a military veteran and graduate of the US Naval War College. He was

awarded the Legion of Merit, a distinguished service medal, for his service as

Commander of COMPSRONTWO, then the largest ship squadron in the US

Navy (14 ships) based at the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. In 1999,

after 30 years in the US Naval Reserve, he retired as a Navy Captain, the

equivalent of a full colonel.


He is a member of the VFW, American Legion, Military Officers of America and

other military related organizations. Sen. Melvin is a life Member of the NRA

(National Rifle Association). He is a member of the Elks, Rotary and Knights of

Columbus, and he remains a proud Eagle Scout (class of ’61).

Al and his wife Kou reside in SaddleBrooke in Pinal County, just north of Tucson

and attend St. Christopher Catholic Church in Marana.


# # #

Paid for by Melvin for Arizona

PCRC Lincoln Day Luncheon

2013 Flyer 1 Sized for Email

Unanimous Resolution of Legislative District 11, Pima County Republican Party Opposing the Governor’s Expansion of Medicaid (AHCCCS)

Governor Jan Brewer demanded the Republican Party leadership from across Arizona, including County and LD Chairmen, support her expansion of Medicaid. She said that if she did not accept the Medicaid funds for Arizona, other states could claim those federal dollars and create jobs that otherwise would be created in Arizona. Therefore, Medicaid expansion is a necessity.

Necessity is not a fact but an interpretation. Brewer’s false assumption that necessity equates to socially accepted norms leads to “an ends justifies the means” reasoning. But even actual necessity does not justify violating ethical values.  Governor Brewer’s demand is nothing less than a violation of Republican values, and a blatant endorsement of Obamacare in exchange for a blundering acceptance of short-term federal dollars.

Whereas, The Voters of Arizona clearly expressed their will to reject implementation of ObamaCare when they voted to amend the Arizona Constitution via Proposition 106 in 2010;

Whereas, The “assessment” on hospitals is in reality just a tax – and worse yet a hidden tax – that will ultimately be passed on to all hospital patients in higher costs; and a tax increase requires super-majority approval in the legislature: labeling it as an “assessment” is a disingenuous attempt to skirt this voting requirement;

Whereas, No government entitlement program has ever effectively been scaled back, or eliminated, or held within its initial cost projections;

Whereas, The long term and evolving costs of the ObamaCare Medicaid Expansion will bankrupt Arizona just as surely as ObamaCare will bankrupt the United States;

Whereas, The US Supreme Court explicitly ruled that each State is free to reject implementation of the ObamaCare Medicaid Expansion and Insurance Exchanges, and these two programs are the cornerstones of the Affordable Care Act;

Whereas, Without implementation of these programs ObamaCare collapses as a practical functioning program; and, ergo, the fastest and most efficient means to end ObamaCare is simply for each State to refuse to do the Feds’ job for them and allow them to fail;

Whereas, Governor Brewer touts AHCCCS as the conservative model for Medicaid and encourages us to expand the program to show the other states how to do it right, we disagree and believe there is no such thing as a conservative model for expanding socialism;

And Whereas, Supporting the big government takeover of our health care system, even for a short-term gift of federal funds, does NOT reflect the values of the Republican Party or the interests of the taxpayers of Arizona;

Therefore, Be It Resolved, That We, the Precinct Committeemen and Precinct Committeewomen of Legislative District 11, Pima County Republican Party, unanimously affirm and declare our opposition to the Governor’s plan to expand Medicaid in support of ObamaCare.

                                                                                    Richard D. Brinkley,  Chairman, LD 11      

Open Letter to Governor Brewer

February 14, 2013

The Honorable Janice K. Brewer
Arizona Governor
Executive Tower
1700 West Washington Street
Phoenix, Arizona  85007

Dear Governor Brewer:

You have approved the expansion of Medicaid within the State of Arizona.  One of your stated reasons for approving Medicaid expansion was based upon the notion that there would be no cost to the General Fund.

You based your reasoning on the fact that the federal government will match 100% for the first three years (2014-2016) and 90% thereafter.  However, the State will have to pay 10%. This will have to come from the general fund.

Further, federal government spending is unsustainable. The federal government does not have the funding required to match 90% of the cost. What happens when the federal government reduces its share to 50%?  The federal government will not allow Arizona to opt out of the Medicare expansion once it opts in. Your egregious decision places Arizona in financial jeopardy.

Notwithstanding the fact that Medicaid is a broken entitlement program with which most physicians refuse to participate, your endorsement of the expansion is a specific policy endorsement of a draconian health care law. Obamacare needs repeal not endorsement.

When Congress passed the Affordable Care Act, health care was instantly rationed. One cannot add 46 million people to the health care mix without adding substantial numbers of physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners and nurses.  It will take decades to produce enough health care personnel to overcome health care rationing. Promoting Medicaid expansion without a proportional increase in all medical personnel just assures that health care will be rationed for Medicaid recipients.

Say “no” to Medicaid expansion.

Richard D. Brinkley

Chair, GOP LD 11

Open letter from Nick Dranias, Compact for America Balanced Budget Amendment, Goldwater Institute 2/2/13 I

I have an eight year old and a six year old. With the latest news of an economy possibly sliding back into recession and projections of the federal debt going to 200% of GDP, I am increasingly fearful of what lies in store for them in ten or twelve years. We have to throttle back the in-creasingly exponential use of debt before we run out of time. 49 states have recognized that the power to borrow must be limited to some extent. It is simply stunning that the federal government stands nearly alone in maintaining unlimited  power to “borrow” resources from voiceless future generations. More than that, the federal government’s lack of constitutional constraint on borrowing presents a looming disaster.

Our national approach to debt reminds me of those movies from Science or Discovery Channel of those beautiful seemingly indestructible suspension bridges that start gyrating because of a     minor tremor or breeze and then because of some failed calculation or screwed up angle in construction, the gyrations build into massive waves, and eventually bring the whole bridge    down. The   Founders did a great job in most respects in designing our Constitution–mixing elements of democracy, aristocracy and monarchy to draw on the strengths of each and counterbalance the flaws of each so that our system could handle a heavy load of misguided majorities or minorities–but they forgot about protecting future generations from current generations’ potential for greed when it comes to easy credit. And they forgot about the unique power debt has to create unsustainable bubbles, not just in the economy, but also in government, because of the natural human incentive to live for the “now” at the expense of the future.

We don’t have much time to correct this tragic system design flaw.

There was a time when principled Americans could unite on common ground to solve common problems. Take for example the Arizona Constitution. Over one hundred years ago it imposed a debt limit, banned subsidies, prohibited the private use of public credit, and barred special privileges and immunities. These reforms represented a historic consensus of the Left, the Right and the Middle of its day. It represented lessons learned after a quarter century of Robber Barons abusing the system to subsidize their risky ventures with taxpayer dollars and credit.

It was good public policy whose time had come. Anyone could see it. Good people united to fix a problem. This story was repeated throughout the American West.

The Compact for America, which has already been introduced in state legislatures across the Nation, presents us with the same opportunity to fix a problem that is many orders of magnitude greater than that faced by Arizona’s founders. With our national debt now in excess of 100% of Gross Domestic Product, and projected to hit 200% soon, itis time to stop pointing fingers at      who is responsible. We owe it to the next generation not to win a debate or an election, but to     stop mortgaging their future. The Compact for America provides a way to fix the debt without requiring anyone to compromise their principles on matters of substantive public policy.

You only have to agree that it is wrong to burden nonvoting future generations with our policy choices.

You only have to agree that, if we have to raise more revenue to pay down the debt we’ve run up,  and then we should do so with a flatter, fairer, less invasive, and more  voluntary tax code.

The Compact for America is designed to find common ground to fix a problem that is almost out     of hand. It is a unique non-partisan effort to organize the states quickly and efficiently around  advancing a powerful Balanced Budget Amendment idea. This Amendment would require Washington to secure approval from a majority of state legislatures for any increase in the      federal debt. It would regulate the use of debt to prevent its abuse by decentralizing Washington’s power  to incur debt. By inviting state legislatures into the role of a national board of directors, the Compact for America would finally give thestates a seat at the table in Washington. At the same time, it would ensure national debt policymakers are more accessible to the people and that any increase in the federal debt reflects a broad national consensus.

Equally important, the Compact for America uses anagreement among the states to generate a  “turn key” approach to originating this powerful Balanced BudgetAmendment. The Compact organizes its member states toapply to Congress for a convention to propose the BBAunder       Article V of the U.S. Constitution; it designates and instructs member state delegates to advance solely the BBA; it specifies the convention location, agenda, committee structure, and rules; it  limits the convention to a single 24 hour session devoted to an up or down vote on the BBA; it prohibits any other agenda and bars every member state from ratifying anything that might be proposed by the convention other than the BBA; and it pre-ratifies the BBA if it is approved by the convention and referred for ratification by Congress. The Compact for America also ensures the convention will be organized only if 38 states join the compact and only if Congress calls the convention in accordance with the Compact. This ensures that nothing happens until both ratification can be achieved without further legislative action and the convention logistics set out  in the Compact obtain the status of both state and federal law and are guaranteed under the Contracts Clause of the  United States Constitution under current U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

In short, with the Compact for America, we finally have a practical, efficient, targeted and undeniably safe vehicle for originating a BBA.

If you have ten minutes to learn more, please watch the overview video at

If you have the time or the financial wherewithal to helpsupport this effort, please let me know.