You are here: Home / Archives for RDBrinkley

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: , , ,

Sovereign State Duty to Protect Its People

April 25, 2010 By 43 Comments

Whether you like her or not, Governor Jan Brewer did the right thing by signing Senate Bill 1070, an act strengthening Arizona’s ability to protect itself and its citizens from illegal immigrants.

 Contrary to President Obama’s socialist rhetoric that the act is misguided and would undermine the notions of fairness, the bill does exactly the opposite.  It is not discriminatory . . . except against illegal immigrants.

 What one has to acknowledge is any notion of fairness in this country was discarded when Mr. Obama stripped bondholders of their assets in General Motors and Chrysler and turned ownership over to the United Auto Workers, an organization that certainly did not earn or deserve ownership.

 The Arizona act prevents any city or county or other political subdivision from limiting enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws. The federal government is responsible for border security. However, when the federal government abdicates its responsibility to secure the borders, it is the responsibility of the State to protect its citizens.

 Once the illegal immigrant passes through the border, the illegal immigrant becomes a State issue as well as federal issue. The State of Arizona has a right, an obligation, a duty to protect its citizens, especially when the federal government refuses to do so.

 Mr. Obama now threatens the people of Arizona with his Justice Department by examining the “civil rights and other implications” of the new law. Mr. Obama would be better off to provide comprehensive border security. What about every citizens’ right to be free from harm caused by illegal immigrants?  Too bad Robert Krentz, Arizona rancher, cannot ask this question. He was murdered by an illegal immigrant who was tracked back into Mexico.

 If the federal government refuses to protect the border and attempts to limit the State’s ability to protect itself, in violation of federalism and State sovereignty, each and every border State will seriously have to consider the option of secession. The U.S. Constitution is silent on the subject, meaning the power to secede is reserved to the States or the people through the Tenth Amendment.

 

Filed Under: Border, Constitutional Law, Illegal Aliens, Illegal Immigration Tagged With: , ,

Threats Absent of Any Proof is Political Theater

April 24, 2010 By 5 Comments

In the tradition of Democrat senators and Representatives who challenged the Washington, D.C., Tea Party attendees, walking through the crowds with cam recorders, trying to record epithets and racist comments without avail, Democrat Raul Grijalva claimed victimization from alleged threats and closed his Tuscon and Yuma offices. Yet there is not one scintilla of evidence that a threat was made.

 The one consistency among Democrats claiming victimization is the absence of evidence. Even the broken glass door at Gabrielle Giffords Tucson office is absent of evidence. Who destroyed the door? It could have been Giffords’ staffers at her behest. We’ll never know. There is no evidence. It is simply political theater.

 Now, Grijalva continues to work against the interests of Arizonans. First he called for a business boycott against Arizona, which harms even his own constituency. Now he has called for the federal government to limit cooperation with Arizona officials.

 In both instances, Grijalva has attempted to violate U.S. Constitutional rights of Arizonans by asking the federal government to treat Arizona and all Arizonans in a lesser manner than the federal government treats all other states. By urging a boycott, he is attempting to injure all Arizonans financially.

 By taking these actions Grijalva has violated his oath of office to protect and defend the United States, meaning all states including Arizona. Grijalva has engaged in a premeditated effort to harm all Arizonans. His hatred of Arizonans and Arizona is not political theater.

Filed Under: Conspiracy Theories, Property Rights, Sanctity of Life, State Government, States Rights Tagged With: , ,

Gabrielle Giffords Misleads Her Constituents

April 17, 2010 By 10 Comments

Once again, Gabrielle Giffords misled her constituents, this time in her Health Care Reform statement praising the Affordable Health Care for America Act. Her politically biased, one-sided description speaks volumes about her lack of integrity and how she views seniors in her congressional district . . . with cold-hearted loathing.

 Giffords stated the Act “will provide security for seniors, guarantee access to health insurance coverage for the uninsured and make health care affordable for the middle class . . .” and  that the Act will “[i]mprove Medicare for 135,000 beneficiaries . . .”  What Giffords did not tell her constituents is 279,833 Arizona seniors will lose their Medicare Advantage coverage because Giffords voted to gut Medicare funding by $500 billion. Giffords cannot gut Medicare and simultaneously improve it.

 2010

Giffords announced a number of “benefits” to health reform:

*  New health care plans and select grandfathered plans will allow 57,000 young people in District 8 to remain on their parents’ insurance policy until their 26th birthday.

*  Children with pre-existing conditions can no longer be denied health insurance coverage. The law prohibits that practice for new health plans as well as grandfathered group plans.

 *  Children covered by Medicaid or State Children’s Health Insurance Programs cannot be dropped from the plan.

*  Adults covered by State Medicaid programs cannot be dropped from the plan.

 What she failed to tell her constituents is the federal government will reduce Medicare reimbursements for hospitals who provide seniors with long-term and inpatient and rehabilitation care. Giffords certainly made her seniors feel more secure. First she eliminates their Medicare Advantage coverage then reduces Medicare reimbursements to hospitals.

 2011

Here are Gifford touted benefits of health care reform in 2011. First, Medicare Part D recipients who fall into the “donut hole” will receive a 50 percent discount on their prescriptions. A new, voluntary insurance plan providing modest cash assistance for long-term in-home or nursing home care becomes available.

 Insurance companies will be held accountable for unreasonable rate hikes. The law supports states in requiring that insurance companies submit justification for requested premium increases. Any company with excessive or unjustified premium increases may not be able to participate in new health insurance exchanges.

 Employers will start reporting the value of employees’ health care benefits on their W-2s. Community health centers will get increased funding to treat low-income and underserved individuals.

 What did Giffords fail to tell her constituents?

 *  Medicare Advantage cuts begin.

 *  Seniors will be means tested and forced to pay higher Medicare Part D premiums.

 *  Medicare reimbursements will be reduced for seniors who use MRI and CT scans begin.

 *  Medicare reimbursements for seniors’ use of ambulances and durable medical equipment will be reduced.

 2012

Giffords noted that nonprofit insurance co-ops will be created to compete with for-profit insurance companies. Physicians, hospitals and payers will be encouraged to band together in “accountable care organizations.”

 What did Giffords fail to tell her constituents?

 *  The federal government will cut Medicare reimbursement rates to any hospital with high readmission rates.

 *  The federal government will cut Medicare reimbursement rates for seniors on hospice care.

 *  The federal government will cut Medicare reimbursement rates for seniors on dialysis.

2014

 Giffords stopped describing the “benefits” of the Democrat health care reform act at 2012. Do you wonder why? Here’s the reason.

 The federal government will establish an Independent Payment Advisory Board with powers to make further, draconian cuts in Medicare reimbursements.

 2015

The federal government will cut Medicare reimbursements for seniors who depend on home health care.

 Giffords failed to tell her constituency the truth, the whole unvarnished truth. Giffords has betrayed her senior constituency. She repeatedly failed to inform them of the draconian cuts in reimbursements . . . only in Medicare.

The federal government is not making any cuts in reimbursements for the federal employees’ health plan. Tri-care (for military dependents) reimbursements are not being reduced. Only Medicare reimbursements are being reduced. Only Medicare Advantage health coverage is going to be slashed.

 Giffords and her fellow progressive-socialist Democrats  have targeted seniors for health care coverage reduction, health care reimbursement reduction and health care premium increases.

 Giffords claims to be a fiscally conservative blue dog but she is just a Pelosi lapdog who willingly and knowingly put a knife in the back of every senior in her congressional district.

Thank you to Congressman Mark Kirk, R-ILL, for his permission to use information from his web site. And good luck to the Congressman as he runs for Barack Obama’s old Senate seat.

Filed Under: Health Care Tagged With: ,

Sales Tax Increase? Easy Answer

April 14, 2010 By 31 Comments

Alberta H. Charney, in the Eller College of Management Spring economic report, wrote an  article, “What Will It Cost If Voters Reject the One-Cent Sales Tax Hike?” The article is a textbook piece propaganda.

 Charney stated that passing the sales tax will raise about $1 billion annually (taking it from the private sector) But, she goes on to state, the government spends those dollars, pumping money back into the economy: “That spending by the public sector adds to aggregate demand just as private sector spending does.” 

My analysis: taking money from the private sector to pass through government to prime the pump of the private sector is not only inefficient but also ineffective:  government has to spend part of that tax money on its own operation. For example, the government tax removes $1 billion from the private sector but returns, for example, only $800 million to the private sector. In effect, government is always less efficient because it has to use part of the tax revenue to tax, collect and spend.

 Then she works her way through an analysis that the cost of the sales tax increase will cost Arizona only 7,400 jobs. Failing to approve the sales tax increase will cost Arizona 20,500 jobs. What she doesn’t say is the 7,400 jobs are in the private sector; the 20,500 jobs are in the public sector. Ergo, approving the sales tax increase will save over 13,000 jobs.

 As I read it, saying no to a sales tax increase reduces the size of government not the private sector. Saying yes to the sales tax increase reduces the size of the private sector by eliminating 7,400 private sector jobs, saves 13,000 plus public sector jobs, does not reduce the size of government and increases taxes by $1 billion during a recession.

 I know how I’m voting.

 

Filed Under: Economics, Government, State Budget, State Economy, Taxation Tagged With: ,

Republican Candidates’ Positions on the Border

April 14, 2010 By 25 Comments

It is interesting and revealing to compare each of the candidates’ positions on the “Border.” It is easily determined which candidates have actually given serious thought to the issue as opposed to a “sound bite.”

The candidates that gave serious thought to their positions have some similarities: they are Commissioned Officers in the Reserve (one in the Army, one in the Air Force); both are combat veterans; both are college graduates; and both have traveled abroad outside of the military.

Their positions, as posted on their websites, on the Border follow. 

Jonathan Paton’s website – “Jonathan Paton endorsed an 18-point border security plan released today by the Arizona Cattle Growers’ Association, stressing the urgent need for immediate action to end lawlessness along the border.

And Paton – who attended the press conference in Phoenix today where the plan was released – called on Gabrielle Giffords to finally listen to her constituents and adopt the group’s recommendations.

Paton also continued his call for U.S. troops to be sent to the border – No. 2 on the “Restore Our Border Security Plan” – as a mechanism to add security and reduce violence immediately.

“I applaud the cattle growers’ multifaceted plan to bring security immediately and will continue to work to bring action to this national security threat,” Paton said. ”This is not a new problem. Sadly, the ranchers and citizens living along the border know that better than anyone. Still, our politicians have continuously ignored the violence and mayhem in Southern Arizona. Gabrielle Giffords has dithered on this issue and ignored the people in her own district for too long. She’s talked tough in TV ads here at home, but gone to Washington and voted to weaken our security. That’s unacceptable.”

Many of the provisions in the plan are things that Jonathan has long supported, both as a state lawmaker and a candidate for Congress. Those include: sending troops to the border, making it a felony to enter the country illegally, writing the state’s human smuggling law and increasing funding to catch and prosecute those who break our immigration laws. Paton also opposes amnesty or a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

Giffords, however, has said one thing in Arizona – but done another in Washington.

She was a co-sponsor of the STRIVE ACT, which provided a path to citizenship for illegal aliens. The bill also included the DREAM ACT, which would provide education benefits for illegal aliens as well as permanent residency. (HR 1645, 2007)

And she voted against funding the construction of at least two layers of reinforced fencing, and the installation of additional physical barriers, roads, lighting and cameras along the border (RC 490, HR 2638, 6/15/2007).

“We need real action, not just election year rhetoric,” Paton said. “I’m confident that enacting this plan by the cattle growers will finally bring us closer to securing our border and reducing the violence that is plaguing our community.”

  The 18-point plan:

1.  The judicial and law enforcement systems, which handle prosecution of these criminal activities, shall recognize and apply an enforcement mechanism that provides for the prosecution of illegally crossing into the U.S. over the Border, for the first time, as a felony barring any person from ever working or receiving residency visa status in the U.S.  No exceptions.

2.  Immediately deploy operational units of the U.S. Military to the Arizona/Mexico Border. Station overwhelming Border Patrol/Military blocking force denying illegal entry at the Border. 

 3.  Establish permanent Forward Operating Bases (FOB) immediately adjacent to the U.S. border with Mexico.  (Suggesting at least one FOB every 12 miles)  

 4.  Overhaul and add teeth to the “Pursuit and Apprehension” policies for Law Enforcement to assure deterrence and protect U.S. residents and State authorities from potential harm.  In the first instance, authorize the U.S. Military, Border Patrol, State and Federal Law Enforcement Agencies to use these beefed up policies to enforce existing laws.

 5.  Authorize the use of force in the interdiction of vehicles and aircraft illegally crossing the U.S. Mexico Border. Empower the Local Law Enforcement leaders to adjust policies to meet conditions on the ground and not rely only upon inflexible procedures preventing Border Security.

 6.  Enforce all existing immigration laws without exception.  Streamline and expedite deportation of illegal aliens.

 7.  Add 3,000+ Arizona BP field agents by 2011.  Assure additional incremental hardware is part of Field Agent deployment.

 8.  Increase County Law Enforcement permanent “Stonegarden Funding” for additional deputies and fully equipped 4 x 4 patrol vehicles.

 9.  Expedite 2010 deployment of new generation digital radio technology to Arizona and New Mexico Border Patrol.

10.  Substantially increase Border Patrol Recon 3, MSS/Radar and FLIR mobile surveillance units and operators.  Assure additional incremental agents are deployed to operate this hardware and technology.

11.  Replace outdated Border Patrol Air & Marine Rotorcraft air support with contemporary rotorcraft and small single engine fixed wing.  Deploy air support on/near the U.S. Border.

12.  Establish mandatory Cellular coverage for remote non-service areas.

13.  Equip Border Patrol and County Law Enforcement with GMRS “Rhino” GPS radios allowing homeowners and ranchers to communicate in remote areas.

14.  Establish “No Seam”  Wilcox/Douglas, Arizona and Lordsburg New Mexico Border Policy Corridor into its own Border Patrol Sector.

15.  Increase and fund additional Arizona Horse Patrol Units.

 16.  Streamline federal claims process for recovering damages caused by illegal alien burglaries, vandalism and ranch infrastructure/livestock losses to include feed stock losses on both private & public lands (fires).

 17.  Adequately fund State and Federal Attorneys’ Offices to assure timely prosecutions of Border related offences.  Stiffen 9th Circuit Appeals Court immigration and narcotics prosecutorial policies.

 18.  Measure Border Security success on the community via a monthly disclosure of all crimes, by title and code, committed and suspected to be committed by illegal alien activities which have conducted burglaries, home invasions, and ranching infrastructure/livestock losses. Establish operational transparency for Arizona residents of illegal alien and smuggling activity in their respective Border Patrol Sector and Communities to include County law Enforcement statistics and incidents.”

 Brian Miller’s website – “We Arizonans, of all backgrounds, live with the problems of a porous border every day. Many of us have been the victims of violent crime, theft, and home invasions as a direct result of this border problem. We know that more than 90% of people who come to our great nation do so to make their lives better, but that does not excuse us for not addressing this serious problem.

 We Americans have a right and responsibility to know and decide who enters our homeland, and I believe a robust immigration policy will aid in the future health and success of America. To do this, the federal government must fulfill its responsibility to secure our international borders and maintain operational control.

 Our current situation has encouraged a permanent underclass without equal access to the law. This is dangerous to everyone and promotes continued illegal behavior and increased resentment among citizens, legal non-citizens, and those here illegally. Though it is unlikely we will ever eliminate illegal crossings without eliminating the moral hazards created by our welfare state, we must work toward realistic solutions. Only with a multi-faceted approach will we address the underlying economic dynamics that drive this issue.

We cannot secure our borders until we minimize the illegal immigration problem. To do that, Congress should:

 1.  Demand the enforcement of existing laws to the maximum extent possible

2.  Deny federal welfare for those here illegally, to sanctuary cities, and to nations whose citizens come here illegally

3.  Deny “anchor-baby” and chain migration by clarifying the 14th amendment

4.  Deny amnesty

5.  Create a robust, market-based, legal immigration system

6.  Create an accountable, employer-based, temporary worker program

 With the illegal immigration problem in hand, the Border Patrol and our court system then have a manageable problem of thousands or hundreds of incursions, not millions. To solve the remaining problem, the federal government should:

1.  Provide for strategically placed walls and barriers

2.  Provide all required resources to the Border Patrol and local law enforcement

3.  Provide for ground-based sensors and airborne assets”

 Andy Goss’ website – “We must insist our laws are enforced regarding our borders. People who are here illegally should not be rewarded with any sort of amnesty or benefits or a job. When caught, they should be returned to their country of origin. Those companies that hire illegal aliens should be punished and punished severely. This will result in attrition. If there are no jobs available for the illegals, they will leave on their own. Sanctuary cities like San Francisco and others should lose ALL federal funding. The E-Verify system should be law.”

The problem with our porous southern border is not only Mexico. Terrorists can and have crossed our southern border and this presents a clear danger and unacceptable national security risk. The risks to Americans from drug cartels, grand theft auto, gang violence, identity theft and terrorism should not be tolerated nor should the drain on our nation’s welfare system and hospitals.”

 Jesse Kelly’s website – “Our borders must be secured and America needs an increased presence along our borders in order to halt drug trafficking and gang violence. I support a double fence along the border, like the one in San Diego.”

 You can draw your own conclusion.

Filed Under: Border, Campaigns & Elections Tagged With: ,

Stick to the Facts and Take the High Road 3

April 11, 2010 By 21 Comments

Democracy is noisy and messy. We see it every day. To quote Winston Churchill: “Where there is a great deal of free speech, there is always a certain amount of foolish speech.”

We have qualified candidates competing in the Republican primary. Casting accusations, mis-truths, exaggerations and false-hoods does not raise the ethical bar. Everyone has a favorite they should be promoting based on facts not vitriol.

Sticking to the facts and taking the high road is an absolute requirement for Republican candidates. Why? Because we can defeat Giffords on the facts:

 *      Gabrielle Giffords consistently voted with Nancy Pelosi, a progressive socialist, on every critical bill, e.g., the so-called $862 billion stimulus bill (without reading it), the so-called S-CHIP $33 billion expansion of government, “Cap and Trade” bill supporting the largest tax increase on the American people, the $1 trillion Affordable Health Care for America Act (also without reading it), the $200 billion Medicare Physician Payment Reform Act (removing it from the health care bill to lower costs), and the 45% inheritance tax on estates larger than $3.5 million.

 *      In an August 11, 2009 Arizona Daily Star interview, in answer to Star question, “Why is health care such a volatile issue?”

 Gifford replied: “What I’ve seen in the last couple of weeks is that people want to have created for them a forum where they can be disruptive rather than actually providing me with information in a way that is going to give me their personal perspective and educating me on their point of view . . .It’s been a little troubling.”

 Giffords statement that people want a forum where they can be disruptive is a “straw man.”  Which people want to be disruptive? People are angry because they cannot get a straight answer from their politicians, whether in a town hall or in an interview. Dissent is patriotic. Remember Hillary Clinton’s shrill statement that dissent is patriotic? Giffords says her position is to listen to her constituents but her behavior contradicts her words.

 *      Giffords consistently claims to be a fiscally conservative blue dog Democrat but her votes on the stimulus, health care reform and “Cap and Trade” define her a progressive-socialist fully supportive of Obama’s draconian agenda.

 *      With regard to “Cap and Trade,” Giffords claimed that the bill would reduce household energy costs by 7%. In an article, “Giffords Voting Record Will Hurt Her in the 2010 Election,” published on the Sonoran Alliance (2/19/2010), I refuted her claim and demonstrated that the bill would actually increase household energy costs by 77%.

 *      This brings us to the topic of ethics: honesty and truthfulness, in this case. Gabrielle Giffords misrepresented herself to her constituents as a fiscal conservative when she revealed herself to be just another progressive-socialist.

 *      In 2003, our intelligence Chief and the Attorney General both testified that the failure of the House of Representatives to pass FISA reauthorization has left the United States and her citizens exposed. Yet Giffords voted against FISA reauthorization, potentially endangering the United States.

 *      In March 2010, Gabrielle Giffords called for a Constitutional amendment to balance the budget . . . in 2020. Her call was disingenuous. During the past year she voted for hundreds of billions of dollars in spending, driving the economy further in debt and betraying her constituents who voted for a fiscal conservative.

 Most of you are familiar with the Misery Index, which is a combination of the unemployment and inflation rates. Recently, I created the Ultimate Misery Index (UMI) that adds tax revenue and national debt as a percent of GDP. The reasons for creating the UMI were simply the rates of inflation (flat today) and unemployment do not adequately describe today’s misery.

Adding tax revenue and national debt as a percent of GDP incorporates the excessive taxation and onerous debt load we, our children and our grandchildren must carry, courtesy of President Obama, Gabrielle Giffords and the progressive-socialists in the Democratic Party.

 The average UMI for Bush I’s four year term is 86.86%. Clinton’s average UMI for his two terms in office is 90.78. Bush II’s UMI average for his two terms in office is 88.17%. President Obama, in fourteen months, has achieved a draconian UMI  of 114.13%. What is astounding is Obama has increased the UMI over the average for all three previous presidents by a whopping 28% in this short period.

This is what President Obama, Gabrielle Giffords and the rest of the progressive-socialists of the Democratic Party have done to all Americans. And this is why Republicans can beat Giffords . . .  as long as we stick to the facts and take the high road with each other.

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

Stick to the Facts and Take the High Road 2

April 6, 2010 By 20 Comments

It seems that the pressure is on the Republican candidates in CD8. 

 Jesse Kelly once again stumbled over the facts in a Tucson Weekly interview, accusing Jonathan Paton of being pro-open borders and pro-amnesty: “When the establishment, open-borders, amnesty crowd gets behind a candidate like Jonathan Paton, that candidate is normally very well funded,” Kelly says. “But it should tell the public something that Jeff Flake and Dick Armey and Jim Kolbe will stand with Jonathan Paton and Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Duncan Hunter and Trent Franks stand with me.” 

 Paton’s record is clearly not pro-open borders or pro-amnesty. Paton is endorsed by border hawks Sheriff Paul Babue, Andy Thomas and Russell Pearce. Babue pulled his support for Jesse Kelly after Jonathan Paton entered the race.

 Brian Miller also stumbled. The Tucson Weekly reported that Miller only raised $60,000 compared to Paton’s $500,000, causing Miller to exclaim  that Paton had raised $100,000 in one home and $500,000 in nine weeks. Miller then allegedly asked if America was a democracy or another elitist attempt to decide the election [I use the term “allegedly” because the Tucson weekly did not use quotes].

 In any case, I think it high time to invoke Ronald Reagan’s eleventh commandment: “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.”  Each candidate can make his points by sticking to the facts and taking the high road.

Filed Under: Campaign Finance, Campaigns & Elections

Jonathan Paton reports more than 1,000 donors, $500,000 raised

April 5, 2010 By 42 Comments

Jonathan Paton’s press release showed impressive fund raising. The other candidates have yet to release their respective reports. Unless the other candidates are equally as impressive in fund raising, we could see one or two candidates folding in the next month or so.

The strategies each of the candidates are employing could become very interesting as the primary plays out..

Payton’s press release follows.

 

Jonathan Paton reports more than 1,000 donors, $500,000 raised

Impressive 9-week tally shows strong in-state support for defeating Gabrielle Giffords

 

In his first nine weeks as a candidate, Jonathan Paton has already topped an impressive $500,000 in contributions from more than 1,000 individual donors – a total that is expected to place Paton among the top Republican challengers in the country.

Paton announced today that he will report $500,715 in first quarter contributions – more than twice his original first quarter goal. He credited the total to hard work and strong support in Arizona for defeating Gabrielle Giffords this November.

The figure, a reflection of the energy behind Paton’s candidacy, promises that this exciting Southern Arizona race will remain in the national spotlight.

“Such overwhelming support for our movement is testament to how anxious Southern Arizonans are for new representation,” Paton said. “Defeating Gabrielle Giffords’ political machine, which is relying on the likes Nancy Pelosi, will take a great amount of money and effort. Such early and strong support for our campaign will send a loud message to Washington that we take this fight seriously.”

More than 90 percent of Paton’s contributions came from Arizonans, while only 53 percent of Giffords’ contributions this cycle are even from individual donors. In fact, between his fundraising launch on January 26 and March 31, Paton received more than 1,100 individual contributions. Less than one percent of his money came from Political Action Committees – whereas Giffords has received a whopping 36 percent of her money raised this cycle from PACs, according to her last available report.

Paton raised an average of more than $7,700 per day – $55,600 per week. For comparison, in her first race in 2006, it took Giffords 16 weeks to top $500,000, raising an average of $35,600 per week during that time frame.

Paton, a native Tucsonan and graduate of the University of Arizona, is known for never forgetting where he came from. An Army Captain, in 2006, Paton voluntarily enlisted for service in Iraq during the darkest days of the war. As our state senator, Paton was known as a reformer, who continuously went head-to-head with former Gov. Janet Napolitano and state bureaucrats.

Paton’s message of limited government, fiscal discipline and economic freedom is a stark contrast to Giffords’ votes for the stimulus, cap-and-trade and government health care.

“We’re just getting started,” said Paton. “Between resources, grassroots support and help from residents all across Southern Arizona, I’m more confident than ever that we’ll see success in November.”

For interviews or more information, contact Daniel Scarpinato at 520-668-7518 or daniel@patonforcongress.com

 
Filed Under: Campaign Finance, Campaigns & Elections

Stick to the Facts and Take the High Road

March 27, 2010 By 66 Comments

It seems Jesse Kelly is nervous about Jonathon Paton’s entry in the CD8 race. On March 24th, Kelly’s web site blasted Paton: “Our public servants must be held accountable for their actions. It is a red flag when a career politician who voted for Janet Napolitano’s billion dollar spending increase hedges on future tax votes . . . “

 Kelly needs to check his facts. Paton opposed Napolitano’s budget and joined with Republicans in forcing her to accept the Republican compromise, which included tax cuts.

 This is not the first time Kelly has exaggerated. He was one of three candidates invited to a Q&A” at Saddlebrooke in early January 2010. Shortly after the event, Kelly advertised on his web site that he had won the debate. When a Vice-President of the Saddlebrooke Republican Club asked Kelly’s campaign manager to make a correction, he refused, allowing false information to remain on the site.

 I wrote an analysis of the “Q&A”  for the Saddlebrooke Republican Club blog on January 8th. There were seventeen responses to the article, including all three candidates who thought the analysis fair. No one thought there was a debate or a winner. Review the blog and responses and draw your own conclusion.

 As soon as Paton entered the race the Democratic machine focused on him by sending a records request on Jonathon Paton, looking for anything and everything. The Democrats even filed a bogus complaint with the Federal Elections Commission: all standard operating procedure for the Democrat’s Dirty Tricks Division.  Jesse Kelly has been “campaigning” for 12-18 months and the Democratic machine ignored him.

 As soon as Paton entered the race, the Cook Political Report changed its rating of CD8 from “solidly Democratic” to “likely Democratic.”  Jesse Kelly should be concerned. Paton is shaking up the race and even the Democrats are concerned and reacting . . . to Paton’s presence. 

 Jesse Kelly entered the race early and as a potential favorite. However, it seems he has factually “stumbled” a number of times. Facts are stubborn things, as someone once said. Misstating the facts, intentionally or otherwise, will always come back to haunt you.

 Stick to the facts and take the high road.

Filed Under: Campaigns & Elections, Ethics

Gifford’s Voting Record Will Hurt Her in the 2010 Election

February 19, 2010 By 5 Comments

Gabrielle Giffords voted for approval of the $787 billion stimulus bill without reading it beforehand. The consequence of this omission is Giffords could not have known that the stimulus bill was back-loaded for 2010 and beyond. Only 30% of the stimulus bill was spent during 2009, the year we needed to see at least 70% of it spent.

 Giffords also voted for the so-called “cap and trade” bill, also without reading it or the related amendment. In her letter to constituents, Giffords proudly claimed that the bill will actually reduce the average household utility bill by seven percent.

 Energy rates are projected to increase by 90%. Even President Obama admits that energy prices will “skyrocket” under “cap and trade.” On average, the cost for electricity for my residence is about $200 per month for electricity.  Under ACES, the acronym for the “cap and trade” bill, my monthly rate will increase to $380. Gifford claimed that rates will decrease by 7% by 2020. 

 Although the rate will be much higher than $380 per month in 2020, let’s use $380 as our example. A 7% decrease in 2020 translates to a monthly rate of $353.40 or a 77% increase over today’s rate. I don’t know what kind of math Gifford used but it does not add up. There is no 7% decrease, only a 77% increase. Experts agree that rates for electricity, gas, and natural gas will almost double across the board under this bill. ACES is a massive tax increase on the American people and Giffords has participated in one of the largest hoaxes in this nation’s history.

 In the July 16, 2009, edition of Arizona Capitol Times, Giffords was interviewed. In the interview she claimed that 50 million people did not have access to health care and another 20 million are underinsured. The numbers are estimates not facts. Further Giffords claim that 50 million people do not have access to health care is palpably false.  What these people do not have is health care insurance but they do have access to health care.

 Additionally, Giffords has followed Nancy Pelosi’s orders on not only the stimulus and “cap and trade” bills but also the so-called S-CHIP $33 billion expansion of government health care, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (a sop to trial lawyers), the Stupak antiabortion amendment compromise to the health care bill, the Affordable Health Care for America Act adding $2 trillion to the deficit, the Medicare Physician Payment Reform adding more than $200 billion to the deficit, and the Permanent Estate Tax Act increasing inheritance taxes to 45% on estates larger than $3.5 million.

 In one of Giffords’ emails to her constituents, she wrote:

 ”I always appreciate hearing from constituents, like you, who are informed and interested in the important issues affecting Arizona and the nation.  My job as your representative is to help you connect with federal agencies, access services and get your questions answered thoroughly.  Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if you require assistance.”

 Giffords failed to mention that her most important responsibility is to represent her constituents. Gabrielle Giffords is not a Blue Dog. She’s Nancy Pelosi’s lap dog. So far, it appears that she has been doing Nancy Pelosi’s business rather than the people’s business: not a very good track record to run on in the next election.

Filed Under: Campaigns & Elections, Economics, Federal Budget Tagged With: , ,

Gabrielle Giffords is Nancy Pelsoi

February 1, 2010 By 3 Comments

Gabrielle Giffords likes to portray herself as a Blue Dog Democrat. Her voting record belies her Blue Dog claims. Giffords is a Nancy Pelosi clone: a radical far left liberal who voted the way Nancy Pelosi wanted her to vote. Let’s review the facts.

 The so-called $787 billion “Stimulus Bill,” which not one member of the House of Representative read because major parts were not even printed, was approved by the House on February 13, 2009. Approximately 30% of the money was spent in 2009 providing no stimulus and no jobs. Unemployment climbed past 10% even though President Obama claimed it would keep unemployment below 8%. Gabrielle Giffords voted for the bill without reading.

 The so-called S-CHIP $33 billion explosion of government run health care was originally designed to cover poor children. The Congressional Budget Office stated this bill opens coverage to higher income children and opens the program to adults for the first time. Gabrielle Giffords voted for the bill because Nancy Pelosi demanded her vote. The bill passed on January 14, 2009.

 The so-called Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is anything but fair. It is a sop to the trial attorneys that allows alleged pay discrimination lawsuits to proceed years after any alleged discrimination took place. This bill increases the legal costs of businesses, which will contribute to higher prices to consumers. The bill is without value but passed the House on January 9, 2009. Gabrielle Giffords voted for the bill because Nancy Pelosi demanded her vote.

The American Clean Energy and Security Act, the so-called “Cap and Trade” bill is the largest tax increase in American history. The bill is based not even on “settled science” but plain bad science, with data intentionally manipulated by politically drive and corrupt scientists. The House passed this bill on June 26, 2009. Gabrielle Giffords voted for the bill because Nancy Pelosi told her so.

 The Stupak Anti-Abortion Amendment, which passed the House on November 7, 2009, was added to the so-called Affordable Health Care Act for America Act to prevent federal funds from being used for abortions. Pelosi actually fought against passage of this amendment but lost. Pelosi allowed the Amendment to be offered in the House as a compromise toward passage of the Health Care bill. Gabrielle Giffords voted for passage of the Stupak Amendment.

 The Affordable Health Care for America Act, which in the final analysis was found unaffordable by Massachusetts voters, was passed on November 7, 2009. This bill added over $1 trillion to the deficit because certain costs were stripped from the bill to artificially lower the cost. Even the Obama administration stated the bill would add to the deficit. Gabrielle Giffords voted for a bad bill because Nancy Pelosi told her so.

 The Medicare Physician Payment reform Act, passed by the House on December 19, 2009, was the legislation stripped from the Health Care bill above to artificially lower the bill’s cost. This bill adds more than $200 billion to the cost of health care and is an example of the dishonesty of House Democrats. Gabrielle Giffords voted for this bill because Nancy Pelosi said so.

 The so-called Permanent Estate Tax Act of 2009 was passed by the House on December 3, 2009.  The bill provides for a 45% inheritance tax on estates larger than $3.5 million. It cancels a one year repeal of the tax schedule for 2010. The tax is not indexed for inflation, which like the Alternative Minimum Tax, will continue to increasingly tax more and more income from taxpayers. It is a bad bill that taxes money already taxed. Gabrielle Giffords voted for this bill. Why? You already know.

 Gabrielle Giffords has not been doing the people’s work. She has been doing Nancy Pelosi’s bidding. Giffords voted eight out of eight times for bad bills. She even voted for at least one bill without reading it. She cannot deny it. She has betrayed her constituents. She has betrayed her oath. She has betrayed her country.

 The shame of it. She should resign.

Filed Under: Federal Budget, Government, Health Care, Political Parties
Newer Posts »