3 Republican legislators vote to continue corporate subsidies to newspapers

by Rachel Alexander

I couldn’t believe what I watched yesterday. Three Republican legislators – who all hold themselves out as conservatives – voted in a committee hearing to continue granting print newspapers an exclusive monopoly on public notices. Reps Carl Seel, Jeff Dial, and Terri Proud all voted against HB 2403, which would have brought us into the modern era and permitted public notices to be posted on the internet instead of print newspapers, including on government websites, saving taxpayers lots of money and increasing transparency. Websites like Sonoran Alliance and my IC Arizona would be able to post public notices at a  more competitive cost.

I wrote an article fully explaining the depths of this problem here. I received this email today about it: “I work for a newspaper and you’re 100 percent right … but I can’t say anything. Not only does the public pay to put notices in the paper, the law requires purchasing the paper to get the notices. They get you coming and going.”

It may not be too late to revive this bill. Please contact the three Republican legislators who voted against it and express your disappointment. Kudos to the Republican legislators who supported it, Sen. Andy Biggs, Rep. David Stevens and Rep. Justin Pierce.

Carl Seel – cseel@azleg.gov 926-3018
Jeff Dial – jdial@azleg.gov 926-5550
Terri Proud – tproud@azleg.gov 926-3398

Lynne LaMaster: Pass the Online Arizona Public Notices Bill HB 2403

The following testimony is by Lynne LaMaster, Editor of eNewsAZ regarding the shenanigans being played out by the Arizona Newspaper Association and its allies in opposition to HB 2403. (Sonoran Alliance supports this legislation.)

This entire experience has been very enlightening to me. I have learned far more than I ever imagined.

One of the most fascinating items I learned, is that according to the Newspaper organizations, this really isn’t about the money. It’s about their duty as “watchdogs” to protect the public interest by publishing Public Notices in their respective newspapers.

Therefore, if this measure doesn’t pass, may I suggest that an alternate piece of legislation be considered. This would be:

  • A law that would require newspapers to publish public notices in the same font and using the same white space as is on their home page featured story, at no additional charge beyond current prices to either the submitter or the subscriber.
  • A law that would require them to offer translations into Spanish or other common languages of the community when appropriate, publishing in both English and the other language at no additional charge beyond the current prices.
  • A law that would require better formatting, links that are easily pulled out of the content maps and photos where appropriate at no additional charge beyond the current prices.
  • A law that require them to publish public notices and take them to every home in the community whether or not the resident subscribes to the paper at no additional charge beyond the current prices.
  • A law that would require their database to be indexed and searchable by Google and the other search engines, completely open to the public, and advertised via Google Ad Words and other online measures, and this cost should not be passed on to member organizations, subscribers or submitters.

I’d be willing to bet that if you were to consider a law such as the one I just outlined, you’d find the newspapers even more vociferously and vehemently opposed to that law than the one you’re considering here right now. Because we all know that it IS about the money and protecting their monopoly and power.

Of course, if you were to allow online publications to publish public notices, we could do all these things automatically. Because we are more than a simply a newspaper online. We know the Internet and its capabilities and we know how to use it properly, efficiently and effectively.

Lynne LaMaster
Editor, eNewsAZ.com

UPDATE on HB 2403 Committee Vote Outcome.

State Representatives Jeff Dial, Terri Proud and Carl Seel were the only Republicans who voted against this bill.

State Rep. Terri Proud: Where’s the Money Huck?

What did you get for 1.5 billion dollars?

The Arizona legislature is considering a bill, HB2565, which will protect the citizens of Pima County from the bait-and-switch bond tactics which have been perpetrated for years by County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry and the 3-vote majority on the Board of Supervisors.

Pima County alone has almost $1.5 billion in bond debt, more than two and a half times all the other counties in Arizona – COMBINED. Tucson ranks among the worst in the nation for foreclosures yet has the highest property taxes in the state.

Citizens of Pima County are losing jobs while struggling to pay off government debt. Meanwhile, Huckelberry is interfering with job growth but presiding over a bloated bureaucracy. Taxpayers are losing their homes but Huckelberry is keeping property taxes sky-high. He is taking money from honest, hard-working families while creating more debt on projects that after 14 years are still not completed.

During FY 2011-2012, the Pima County Board of Supervisors, with Huckelberry’s approval, created a communications department, allocating a half million dollars for a staff of 12 people. Their graphic services design department, which was already established, paid out $530,129 in FY 2009/2010, $460,849 in 2010/2011 and $358,153 in 2011/2012. So with the creation of the communication department, “communication” costs total nearly 1 MILLION dollars for FY2011/2012.

For their next step, they raised YOUR property taxes and blamed the state for lack of money. For what? So Huck can send out “educational” pamphlets to everyone within Pima County with misinformation about your representatives, about the state, and about whatever else he wants you to think.

So while he’s sitting like a fat cat on your tax dollars telling you how much more bonding we need because the nearly 1.5 BILLION dollars you are already in debt … AND STILL PAYING FOR … isn’t enough, I’m out here fighting for you so your taxes can go down, and so you can stay in your homes.

He’s now using Raytheon as a selling point for his “new” bond. We’ll, Raytheon is only getting 10% of that money for the land next to Davis Monthan that they’re protecting. It’s another sweet deal for Huckelberry and his good friend Don Diamond, because Diamond owns the land.

Yes, I predict something will happen shortly after that and not far behind will be the Pima County Bond Program designed to offer first-time homebuyers a mortgage loan with YOUR tax money.

So, here are the facts to counteract Huck’s propaganda and fight over HB2565:

  • Since he’s repeatedly taken bond money and spent it on projects other than what voters intended, it’s only fair to have those who he’s taking it from be fairly represented by the people they have elected.
  • Nothing in this bill eliminates his advisory committee. Nothing in this bill is going to cancel established projects. Nothing in this bill is going to stop bonds from ever happening. All it’s doing is allowing the elected officials in the surrounding towns to fairly represent their taxpayers. Why should Huck have a problem with that?
  • The bond problem has been an issue for years in Pima County, so this is nothing new.
  • This is a local control issue. All it’s doing is giving power to the government closest to the people: the surrounding towns.

Get the Facts. Read the bill yourself. Go to www.azleg.gov and enter HB2565. Fight back and stop the misuse of YOUR taxes. Support HB2565. We need your voice!

The Politics of Polling in Arizona’s CD-8

How Jesse Kelly costs Republicans Congressional District 8 (Again)

Recently, there was a press release from the Jesse Kelly campaign that showed the results of a polling survey that was conducted by TeleOpinion. While Kelly attempted to tout the poll as having overwhelming support, Kelly himself was only able to garner 35%. This is after Kelly had been the GOP nominee in 2010 and had several million dollars spent by both his campaign and independent expenditure groups on his behalf. Sure, he lost by about 4400 votes, but that was 2010 – the best Republican year in over a generation. Congressional District 8  by enrollment numbers, is a Republican district. While he was running against an entrenched Democrat incumbent, so were many other Republicans throughout the nation in 2010. A comparison of those races show that Jesse Kelly was the only Republican candidate to lose in a Republican district anywhere in the country in 2010.

In his present poll, Kelly’s level of support reveals that 65% of likely primary voters prefer either another candidate or are undecided about the race. This does not bode well for Jesse Kelly. In fact, given the dynamics of this race and the fact that Kelly had run for this very high-profile, high-dollar race before, Kelly has most likely peaked at this point and his poll numbers have nowhere to go but down.

How does Kelly try and remain competitive in this race? His only option is to go negative. Watch for Team Kelly to start launching negative (in many cases unsubstantiated) attacks against both State Senator Frank Antenori and Dave Sitton. Kelly will try to tear his opponents down because that’s his only option to move the needle.

Unfortunately, this will also have the effect of turning off many potential voters to Jesse Kelly and will further spirally his support numbers downward. The question that Jesse now has to answer is: Is he willing to mortally wound fellow Republicans that have an opportunity to win CD-8 back? Or, will he cost Republicans in Arizona and across the nation an additional seat in Congress by continuing a quixotic campaign?

Governor Brewer today proclaimed April 17th as the date for the special congressional election in District 8. Let the games begin!

President’s Rhetoric Doesn’t Match His Actions

By: J. Charles Coughlin

The closing remarks of the President’s State of the Union address the other night were moving. He spoke of the teamwork necessary to accomplish incredibly difficult and complex missions. He spoke of members of a team having each other’s backs. He said that the way in which those members of our armed forces conducted themselves spoke exactly to the way in which elected officials should conduct the public’s business – selflessly serving the public good.

Unfortunately, our President words don’t match his deeds. On far too many occasions as it relates to his administration’s relationship towards Arizona, this President has let us down, time and again.

Rather than respond thoughtfully to the public outrage over illegal immigration, he played the race card, implying that “people could get arrested for going out for Ice cream.” Rather than owning the debacle that has become the Fast & Furious gun walking fiasco, his Justice Department is laying the blame at the feet of Arizonans – both Democrat and Republican who know full well that the program was fully authorized at the highest levels of the Justice Department. When the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas blew up, Janet Reno had the class to own it. This Justice Department hasn’t met a problem it can’t deny.

Don’t forget that Holder didn’t even read the 1070 legislation before commenting on it. They sued the state without so much as considering how to work with us and continue to fail to understand the root problem of the immigration crisis to begin with: Mexico. Rather than deal with the problem, they continue to play politics.

American reaction to the immigration crisis will continue to focus on the tail; immigration, rather than the dog; Mexico, until a Presidential Administration steps up and begins to redefine our nation’s relationship with our fourth largest trading partner and Arizona’s largest trading partner.

The President of the United States knows this and continues to use this issue as a political cudgel rallying the troops on the left to fight the troops on the right. That is why President Obama opted to confront Governor Brewer about her book yesterday instead of discussing with her how she has been able to start the “Arizona Comeback.” The President obviously can talk a good game about leadership, selflessness, and teamwork, but when it comes down to it his actions – picking a fight about a book, playing the race card on immigration, or owning his administration’s failure to let guns walk into Mexico – he is incapable of living up to his own rhetoric.

When President Obama uses stirring references like the one he used earlier this week in his speech, I just don’t believe him, and I don’t trust him and neither do a majority of the American people.

After his defeat of Senator McCain in 2008, I really wanted him to succeed; now I just want him to go.

J. Charles “Chuck” Coughlin is the Founder & President of Highground.

Open Public Notices to the Public

By Lynne LaMaster

Why shouldn’t Public Notices be online? 

The Arizona Newspaper industry is in a panic.

Why? Because the Arizona State Legislature is considering a bill that would allow public notices to be published online.

Public notices, also known as legal notices, are the columns of government-required announcements one sees in printed newspapers usually placed near the classified section, set in very small type. It contains information about legal issues such as trustee sales, articles of incorporation, foreclosures, delinquent tax lists and domestic relations, just to name a few.

Right now, an old Arizona State law requires that public notices be published in a printed newspaper. But, HB 2403, which is being considered by the House Committee on Technology and Infrastructure would allow public notices to be published either in a newspaper or online.

According to the House website, HB 2403 states, “…that if there is a statutory requirement for a publication of a notice in a newspaper, the person responsible for the publication may publish in the newspaper or may provide notice at a designated site on a worldwide public network of interconnected computers, for at least the specified number of times as prescribed by law.”

Newspapers do not support this proposed law because they would lose a great deal of income if it passes. FundingtheNews.com states on their homepage, “At a time when the financial model for news is facing the greatest crisis in decades, the level of government funding for news organizations has been declining sharply…”

Again from FundingtheNews.com, “Historically, these fine-print notices have been a lucrative business for newspaper publishers, and have touched off heated bidding wars for government contracts… While other forms of advertising have plummeted, public notices have been a bright spot for publishers.”

The question is, why should the government fund news organizations, anyway?

Arguments in Favor of Online Public Notices

The purpose of public notices is for public notification. What’s more public than the Internet? If placed properly online, the information can be searchable and indexed by search engines.

Public notices can be enhanced much more easily online. No more squint-to-read text. Online, it would be easy to add color if necessary, and photos when appropriate. If links to other information would be helpful, they can be added and made clickable. They can be formatted, headlines can be added easily and the content can become comprehensible with a decent layout. Public notices can even be placed in audio files for the disabled, if appropriate.

Public notices can be placed online at a much lower cost than in a newspaper. No ink, paper or distribution costs to pay for. Less waste to the environment.

Our local paper charges the City of Prescott $11 per column inch. Assuming that inch takes about 30 seconds to type in, it adds up to $1320 per hour.

Additionally, the public won’t have to purchase a newspaper to see the notification.

Government agencies and municipalities will save money if they can place their public notices online. Saved money just might end up being saved jobs.

The newspapers shouldn’t be given a free ride. Let them compete. Competition is good, it makes everyone better. Allowing online publication of public notices will simply level the playing field.

It’s time to level out the playing field. The Internet is the future. And that future is now. Nobody’s saying that one shouldn’t be able to publish in a newspaper, just that alternative options should be available.

So, now you understand why the newspapers are writing editorials and placing ads that read, “The fox shouldn’t guard the henhouse. Keep public notices in your local community newspaper,” or, “Don’t let government remove public notices from Arizona Newspapers… public notices need to be public.” After all, newspaper organizations have a monopoly to protect.

In conclusion, online public notices just make sense for almost everyone – except the newspapers. As one city official stated, “Online is easier, cheaper, greener and better. What’s not to like?”

Editor’s note: A hearing will be held on this matter tomorrow at 9 AM at the Capitol before the Committee on Technology and Infrastructure. Representative David W. Stevens is the Chair of the Committee. View the agenda.

Lynne LaMaster is the Editor for Prescott eNews.

Matt Salmon: Stop the Congressional Insider Trading, NOW!

By Matt Salmon

With Congress’ approval ratings in single digits, many are asking why I want to return to Washington. It is, after all, one of the most unpopular jobs in America. The fact is, Congress has rightfully earned its unpopular reputation. But instead of ignoring it, I am running to do something about it.

We must take real action to begin to restore the confidence of the American people in the belief that Congress is an institution serving the public interest, not self-interest.

In November, 60 Minutes aired an alarming story about members in Congress who were allegedly using insider information to trade stocks. The program listed members from both parties – including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi – who were accused of enriching themselves or their spouses using knowledge they were privy to on Capitol Hill.

The 60 Minutes piece is just the tip of the iceberg. If you really want to lose a few nights sleep, take three hours to read the 176 page book by Peter Schweizer of the Hoover Institution, ‘Throw Them All Out: How Politicians and their Friends Get Rich Off Insider Stock Tips, Land Deals and Cronyism That would Send the Rest of Us to Prison!’

Essentially, Congress has exempted itself from insider trading rules, and the SEC doesn’t have the courage (or the backing of the insider dominated Obama administration) to go after the people writing the laws. It has to start now, and with us.

The real nexus of influence peddling and festering corruption in Washington is not in campaign contributions, it is insider trading by members of Congress and this Administration, elected to serve the public but choosing to serve themselves. True free market conservatives must act now to preserve whatever integrity is left in the “free markets” we love to preach about.

Here’s my proposal for Congress: ban individual stock trading for all members of Congress and their spouses, and punish those who don’t comply with jail.

For newly elected members of Congress, the first day in Washington can be much like the first day at a new school. You learn quickly that you are never supposed to challenge your leadership. Instead, you are supposed to find the go-along, get-along path to making friends and staying popular in the Washington crowd.

After my first term in Congress, I grew disheartened with many of my colleagues and my own party leadership for their failure to focus on cutting spending and reducing our national debt. Swept up in the booming economy, these Republicans didn’t make balancing the budget a top priority.

That was when I knew I was going to have to say enough is enough and stand up for the public interest over self-interest. In only my second term, I went on national television and demanded that my leader, the Speaker of the House, relinquish his position. Soon after, Speaker Gingrich announced his retirement.

Joining me in the unpopular crowd were around a dozen other courageous members – including NFL Hall of Famer and former Congressman Steve Largent (R-OK), former Congressman Joe Scarborough (R-FL), and former Congressman and current Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK).

We set about doing the hard work. We said enough is enough to the out of control spending and by the time I left Congress, America had its first balanced budget in over 50 years and , in fact, a surplus of more than $230 billion.

All the way until the end, I was committed to keeping my word of doing the right thing. When three terms were completed, I honored my pledge and left Congress – something that others chose not to do.

Certainly not every member of Congress is guilty of the insider trading taking place on Capitol Hill. But, as is often the case, it only takes a few to destroy the reputation of the many. We cannot afford to delay any longer as the integrity of our nation’s governing institutions is at stake. We must not waiver, we must not blink, we must act and we must act now.

If elected, I will return with my same commitment of doing the right thing. That is why I pledge to introduce legislation that bans members and their spouses from trading stocks and bonds, and bans family members of elected Senators and Representatives from lobbying or trading on insider information provided to members of Congress.

I pledge to the people of Arizona that before I am sworn in I will place all assets that my wife or I own in a blind trust that will be managed without my knowledge during my entire term in Congress and for four years after I leave Congress.

Just like before, I’m not looking to become the most popular member, or the richest in Congress. But hopefully I’ll make a few friends who will stand with me and demand that Congress start putting the public interest over self-interest. Through small steps such as these we can begin to restore the confidence of the American people in their governing institutions.

Download this editorial.

Have Your Voice Heard and Your Vote Count!

By A.J. LaFaro

The Republican Presidential Preference Election is just around the corner. On February 28th, registered Republicans throughout Arizona will be going to the polls to vote for the person who may face Barack Hussein Obama for the next President of the United States of America.

The election is a closed primary and only voters who are registered or reregistered Republican on or before January 30th midnight will be allowed to vote in this historic event.

During Obama’s administration, our Country has faced monumental challenges – continued high unemployment, millions losing their homes, a reduced standard of living, a $15 trillion dollar increasing national debt and the first downgrade to America’s credit rating ever.

We’ve become a second rate nation in three short years and a sense of deep pessimism has gripped Americans with little hope for the future and little change in their pockets. Obama’s social and political experiments have failed miserably.

Considering the liberal Democrats, progressive socialists and organized labor, I seriously question if America’s enemies are really overseas.

If you are an Independent voter who wants to have their voice heard and their vote count, then take a few minutes and reregister Republican by January 30th midnight.

It’s convenient and easy to do online at www.azgop.org or www.servicearizona.com/webapp/evoter/selectLanguage

I look forward to seeing you at the polls on February 28th!

A. J. LaFaro
Chairman, AZGOP Statewide Voter Registration
Arizona Republican Party

A.J. LaFaro also serves as the Chairman of Legislative District 17 Republicans.

Representative David Schweikert: Why I Am Pro-Life

A true story on the anniversary of Roe v Wade

The year was 1962, and in Southern California, a pregnant teenager was facing a difficult decision. As a young, unwed girl, Mary Lynn Sheridan wasn’t sure she was ready for a child.

How would she tell her family? If she was going to keep the baby, how would she care for it?

She drove with two friends to an abortion clinic over the Mexican border.

However, while on the drive to the clinic, Mary Lynn had a change of heart. The young mother decided against the plan, and sometime later gave birth to a healthy baby boy at an unwed mother’s home in Los Angeles. She gave the baby up for adoption. Six weeks later, a wonderful couple brought him home and into a loving family.

Thirty-six years later, that boy, through an accident, found the contact information for his birth mother. After a family discussion, he sent a handwritten note to Mary Lynn Sheridan. After 10 days, he received a joyful call from Mary Lynn, and through the tears, she managed to ask how he was doing and if he was healthy.

She told him about the hope and pain she felt every year on his birthday and that she prayed for him daily.

I was that adopted boy and Mary Lynn Sheridan is my birth mother.

I am Congressman David Schweikert, and I am here because of a young woman’s commitment to life in spite of overwhelming difficulties.

People often ask me why I am pro-life. I tell them my story and about the wonderful love I experienced from not only my adopted mother, but my birth mother as well. If anyone has a compelling reason to support life, it would be me.

Ronald Reagan made a great observation when he said, “Abortion is advocated only by persons who have themselves been born.”

My life hung in the balance on a car ride to an abortion clinic 49 years ago. I take very seriously my responsibility to defend the lives of those unborn children who may be in the same situation as I was. My fight is for those unborn and innocent babies who cannot yet defend themselves.

I am a firm believer that life begins at conception.

Any attempt to take a human life in the womb is morally unconscionable. Just like our Founding Fathers did, we must acknowledge that every American, born and unborn, has the God-given right to liberty, the pursuit of happiness and, most importantly, life.

I always have and always will support the interests of organizations that provide encouragement and resources to women with crisis pregnancies. I believe this is a very necessary contribution we must make.

However, I will never support a “medical procedure” that is administered with the intent of purposefully terminating a life. It is time we end a medical practice that not only takes the lives of innocent children, but scars the women who go through it.

As someone who was fortunate to have a mother who chose adoption over abortion, I will always be pro-life. Mary Lynn Sheridan summoned the courage to bring me into this world, and I will always honor her and the choice she made by defending the sanctity of life.

David Schweikert represents Arizona’s 5th Congressional District.

Wendy Rogers: Arizona Needs & Supports the F-35

Wendy RogersBack in November, the East Valley Tribune and Ahwatukee Foothill News published an op-ed that I wrote in support of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. In that op-ed, I noted the critical importance the F-35 program plays to the national security of the United States. After meeting with Arizonians who are involved in the F-35’s development, I learned of their concern over program cuts and the unforeseen consequences that may result from debate over program reductions. For the sake of our national and economic security, these conversations need to stop.

The F-35 is America’s next fifth-generation, multi-role fighter that our military leaders have designated to replace our military’s current arsenal of ageing F-16 and F-18 fighters. The F-35 is a pragmatic approach to modernizing America’s air superiority by using the same platform to serve the Air Force, Navy, and Marines. The highly advanced capabilities of the F-35 will provide out troops in the air, sea and land with the technology and situational awareness to get the job done and safely return home.

A recent program update proves that 2011 was a banner year for the program. Of the 872 test flights and 6,622 test points the F-35 was to endure in 2011, the program surpassed those goals by flying 972 test flights and completing 7,823 test points. These flights and test points ensure that the plane is strong and reliable through hundreds of challenging scenarios. The results prove that the F-35 program is maturing faster than anticipated – which is a good problem to have when working with advanced military technology.

Despite these overachievements, we have seen a lot of change in America’s political landscape. Most significantly, the deficit reducing “supercommittee” failed, forcing $600 billion in mandatory cuts from Department of Defense programs. During negotiations leading up to the supercommittee, there was a groundswell of support for full program funding and members of the committee were prepared to defend the F-35 because they recognized it’s importance to America.

Unfortunately, because the committee failed, the program is once again under debate. As evidence, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta recently confirmed that he aims to cut Defense Department spending on next generation weapons programs which could include the F-35. While no one believes that the F-35 will be cancelled, small businesses right here in Arizona are watching closely to see if the Pentagon will uphold their commitment to program funding, since the small business community has capitalized their production lines in anticipation of program growth.

The bottom-line is that we cannot allow political expedience to dampen the progress of the F-35. The program is deeply connected to our economy and cuts would send ripple effects across a nation. The programs suppliers, consisting of 1,300 independent companies across the United States and supporting 127,000 jobs, have the most to lose. If those parts are no longer needed in the quantities that were originally requested, then those suppliers will be unable to meet payroll and the rising jobless claim rates in the United States will see a significant uptick.

The security of our nation and the protection of our troops are important to all of us. It is our job to ensure that the men and women in the armed services are armed with globally superior technology and protection. America’s ingenuity and industrial infrastructure can deliver that superiority, and we Americans can make sure that the program and our troops are fully supported. The F-35 is not just a budget line item. It is a line item that represents real people and business, and we need to let our elected officials in Washington know that we support the F-35.

Lt. Col. Wendy Rogers, USAF (retired) was one of the first 100 women pilots in today’s Air Force. In 2010, she ran and narrowly lost a bid for the Arizona State Senate in Democrat-leaning Legislative District 17. She owns and operates a Tempe-based office complex as well as a home inspection business with 10 fulltime employees operating in four counties. Lt Col Rogers and her retired Air Force husband have two adult ASU-grad children and live in Arizona’s brand new Congressional District 9.

A Letter from Arizona House Speaker Andy Tobin

Many people have asked me whether I believe there is a real chance for bi-partisanship, political civility and statesmanship to prevail in our current political climate. They are surprised when I say yes! The majority of legislation passed in every session at the capital is very much a product of bipartisan cooperation. Though said bills may be characterized as non controversial or “simple” they are numerous and have a real impact on people’s lives.

In times past, bipartisanship was only possible when bountiful state budgets provided ample capital with which to negotiate. This used to serve as the basis for bipartisan statesmanship and “compromise”. Regardless of what it is presently called what is obvious is that the elements of the art of statesmanship and compromise have now changed which must now be accomplished without the use of once seemingly limitless budgets.

It is an irrefutable fact that we no longer have discretionary funds. Those funds have been exhausted and we now find ourselves in debt. We could continue to borrow in order to support our operational costs but at some point we must recognize that such practices will cease to be an option.

Despite our circumstances I believe cooperation in our capital is still possible. In the last three years, we addressed the structural deficit through permanent spending reductions and through tough negotiations to only temporarily raise revenues. With these solutions behind us, it is now time to engage in meaningful policymaking. This will require us to put aside partisan bickering in order to concentrate on what is right and necessary for the good of all Arizona’s citizens.

We do also need to examine the hearts and minds of Arizonans to learn about their desires which with this state will move forward. Some desire their state government to secure everyone’s chances to their pursuit of happiness, individual competition as well as charitable opportunity. Others desire the redistribution of private wealth and increased dependency on the public funds of the state. It is time for the people to decide which philosophy will provide them with the best future.

Despite these conflicting ideological differences, I foresee what can hold us together is not unlike what cements the bonds between the men and women of our military. Our armed forces are comprised of Republicans and Democrats alike. They fight as one to defend our nation’s freedom. This serves as a great example of how people whom ascribe to extremely differing philosophies can still fight for a common cause.

Therefore, if we collectively hold a soft, unproductive economy and an insurmountable debt as our common enemy I propose we find the common ground with which to defeat it. If Democrats can’t agree to cut without raising taxes and Republicans won’t vote for increased taxes then let’s cap the budget where it is and dedicate future revenue increases and spending savings to service our debt and emergency contingencies.

So if bipartisanship is to be known as the act of people being intellectually engaged and ready to fight then surely there is room in the legislature for it. No good will be accomplished and our economic woes will never be resolved if the representatives of the people temper their passions and beliefs while trying to combat our common enemy.

We cannot allow for those whom seek to promote infighting in the pursuit of partisan advancement. The people of Arizona sent us 90 leaders to move Arizona forward. I am proud to honor and serve with this talented and resourceful group of public servants. I expect that in our 100th year of statehood we will live up to our obligation to provide for the common good, the security of the American Dream and to authentically come together to fight our common enemies. This is my New Year’s wish for my beloved Arizona.

The Lobby Needs More Room

by Bill Ponath

The history of civilized man has seen a never-ending evolution of what we call a “system of  justice.”  It was not until well after Christ that the concept of a judge and jury was born to enable the accused in criminal matters to be judged by a group of his/her peers.  As a matter of fact; in ancient Rome there was no such thing as a “criminal court.”   If a person were to have been criminally wronged it was his/her responsibility to pursue a civil claim against the accused.  The government took no interest in prosecuting any crimes unless they were against the government itself.  Essentially; a person with no immediate family could be robbed and killed in the middle of the street in broad daylight and there would be no prosecution because no-one had standing to pursue the claim.

My; how things have changed.  In today’s world we are all judges, juries and prosecutioners who look only to the daily news and commentaries to reach judgment.  We assume that everything we see and hear; especially from any source of reasonably reliable information; such as the news media, is the gospel truth.  We feel no responsibility to question the conclusion reached by a public figure.  The problem is; if we are all guilty of everything we are accused of; Satan’s waiting area would simply not be large enough to process all of the new admittees.

Case in point: I enjoy listening to Barry Young every morning on KFYI but I am consistently baffled by his attacks on former Arizona Senate President Russell Pearce.  Mind you; Senator Pearce is a friend of mine and that may appear to suggest bias; but with or without any predilection of opinion concerning anyone’s character I am frustrated by Mr. Young’s assumption that Senator Pearce participated in some sort of conspiracy to plant Olivia Cortes on the ballot for Senator Pearce’s seat in the senate.  Let’s look at the facts:

  1. Senator Pearce is; in no uncertain terms, the “father” of SB 1070; the legislation that adopted already existing federal law into a much less stringent set of Arizona statutes.  This made Senator Pearce a target for the liberal media to effectively “take him down.”
  2. The media fueled a recall effort that was; in no uncertain terms, baseless.
  3. Certain members of a tea party conspired to plant a sham candidate on the ballot in order to dilute Jerry Lewis’ support.
  4. Certain members of Senator Pearce’s political panel; including some of his own relatives, perceived the benefits of this independent candidate without any knowledge or understanding of the basis for her political support and actually assisted in the effort.
  5. Only after it became known that Ms. Cortes was not an actual candidate was any assistance and support withdrawn from her campaign.

Under no circumstances is there any shred of evidence that Senator Pearce, his campaign staff, or his relatives had any knowledge of the sham while they were taking advantage of it.  Nevertheless; they are duly tried, prosecuted, and convicted by Mr. Young and the rest of the media for a crime they did not commit.  The sad truth of this is that the State of Arizona has now been robbed of a man of unblemished character who has served us in law enforcement for many years, has been shot and wounded by criminals, and has almost lost his own son in the same fashion.  Yet he is a very happy man when he observes large groups of newly naturalized citizens of the United States; primarily Hispanics, as they are sworn in near the State’s Capital.  I have yet to see any of the liberal media; or even Barry Young, comment on this.  I must assume that this revelation of the actual truth may serve to confuse and mislead the propagandized readers and electorate and it therefore would be nonsensical to acknowledge this reality.  It is therefore best that the media let the sleeping dog lie and allow the general public to have grossly distorted opinions of one of their greatest heroes.  Sounds fair to me.

Senator Pearce; as I am certain we are all aware is not the only victim of the distortion of the truth.  I do not personally know former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas any more than occasional meetings and I therefore can make no comment concerning his matters before the Court.  I am nevertheless honored to claim that Rachel Alexander is a close friend who is also the victim of; sadly enough, malicious prosecution simply because she was doing her job.  Unfortunately; when doing one’s job may interfere with the goals of someone in power, somebody has to take the fall.

Let me put this in perspective:  Ms. Alexander has not discussed with me any of the behind-the-scenes details of what led to her being accused of these compromises in ethical duties.  She was working at her post as Assistant Maricopa County Prosecutor.  Her boss; Mr. Thomas, assigned to her the prosecution of certain elected officials.  She was presented with facts and evidence that clearly raised reasonable suspicion concerning wrongs committed by these individuals.  It was therefore her duty to proceed with levying charges against them.  UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE DID SHE DO ANYTHING WRONG.  Nevertheless; exposure of these facts concerning these elected officials meant that they needed to fight back.  Please notice that there has never been a shred of allegation that Ms. Alexander did anything unethical in the rest of her life.  The ONLY claim that can be made may be that she was working very hard to do her job.

Ms. Alexander’s need to answer her accusers is entirely political.  It is work to take the attention off of the accused and shift it to the accuser.  It has thus far been successful; which raises the point, why continue to accuse Ms. Alexander of any wrong-doing when there is no shred of evidence that she was not simply doing her job? . . . . . Because somebody has to take the fall to save these politicos from personal humiliation.

It is an unfortunate circumstance of life that we are all wrongly accused of indiscretions throughout our existence.  It began in childhood with finger pointing at our siblings and even the family pet.  Even I must confess to having been prosecuted by the State Bar Association in the early 90’s similarly to Ms. Alexander.  I therefore understand the burden that she will carry whether she is completely acquitted or whether they determine that she deserves the least available public admonishment of a censure; which is a published reprimand without any suspension of her license.

Let me tell you why I was censured.  The facts are that I never did anything wrong but I nevertheless failed to oversee what my employees were doing and therefore my trust account didn’t balance.  The reason I didn’t see what was wrong with the account was that certain employees were scheming to embezzle money from the firm.  They put up smoke screens and hid from me what they were doing.  I nevertheless confessed to this and I simply made sure that the final reports specifically stated that I did nothing wrong, but that the errors were based on“negligence.”

The problem with this is that most people who see that I was censured ASSUME that I did something dastardly wrong and that I am a hardened criminal.  The worse problem is that I am in fact responsible for the errors made by my employees but that Senator Pearce and Ms. Alexander did absolutely nothing wrong.  They never had ill intent, they never consciously acted to wrong anyone.  They were simply doing their jobs and they were doing them quite well; only to be dragged into “politically necessary” damage control by their opponents fueled by the almighty left-wing media.

I beg of any who read this: do not rush to conclusions until you know and understand the facts.  That is a patent expression of “innocent until proven guilty” but it is painfully obvious that the media do not grasp the significance of those words.  Let me put it this way: Senator Pearce and Rachel Alexander both knew by virtue of considerable experience with politics and the media that any misstep would be attacked without mercy.  Do you really believe that either of them would have even contemplated doing anything like what they accused of?  If so; they are not the real victims of medial prosecution, you the general public are.  You are hypnotized into believing trumped up exaggerations produced by those who resist the good of what these people are doing for justice.  It is a baffling quandary that the very system we fight to defend is the very same thing that fights to defeat us.

Justice will begin to be served when Senator Pearce is back in office and when all charges against Rachel Alexander are summarily dropped.  That service will only end when every person acknowledges that these dedicated individuals are in fact innocent of any wrongdoing.

Please tell Satan to cancel the remodeling.

Rep Jeff Flake: Why should politicians use taxpayer funds to get their name to pop up in Google searches?

Reposted from the Wall Street Journal.

By Congressman Jeff Flake

Some would say it’s Grinch-like that members of Congress cannot send any mail pieces from their offices wishing constituents a “Merry Christmas.” But read a little deeper into this issue, and chances are you’ll be siding with the bah-humbug crowd.

Members of Congress can, of course, extend any holiday wishes they desire on a personal basis: Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Blessed Kwanzaa or even, with a nod to George Costanza, Happy Festivus. Members of Congress just can’t use taxpayer dollars to send these season’s greetings if extending such greetings “is the primary purpose of the communication.”

This is a good thing. Do you really need to pay for Congressman X’s awkward family photo featuring a dozen grandchildren and the family dog in matching sweaters with the U.S. Capitol photoshopped into the background?

While we’re on the subject of taxpayer-funded salutations, you may be interested to know that Congress is moving beyond the standard campaign-esque glossy mailers. Elected officials have begun touting their feats of strength on the right-hand column of your Facebook page and Google searches—and you’re paying for it!

Since members seeking to pay for these Internet advertisements with taxpayer-funded office budgets are required to file such advertisements with the House Franking Office, my staff and I examined a few of them. What we found may surprise you—or, given Congress’s 9% approval rating, perhaps not.

“Congressman X is Fighting the Madness,” screams one Facebook ad, “Fighting Plans to End Medicare, Government Shutdown, Giveaways to Big Oil.” “Rep. X is working to lower gas prices by increasing American energy production. Find out more and like my page today!” says another. “Congressman X is Committed to Creating Jobs, Driving Down Spending and Shrinking the Size of the Federal Government.” Well, apparently not all spending.

Each click on these ads costs taxpayers additional money, as each click-through drives up a member’s ad bill.

Members of Congress can also use taxpayer funds to make sure their name pops up when someone does a Google search. As a general example, clicking on the member’s name that was primed to pop up with a Google search for the phrase “raising debt ceiling” would cost taxpayers approximately $4.70 per click. Ouch.

Then there are the political hijinks that members of Congress can play using taxpayer dollars. A member trying to lure conservation voters can use taxpayer funds to buy ads on conservation-themed websites. A member with an eye on a governor’s mansion can use taxpayer money to purchase ads that will pop up when a person in the member’s state searches for “governor” on Google.

So what do all of these ads cost taxpayers every year? The truth is, we don’t yet know. The current practice of the House is to shield the actual cost of these ads from public view. And this practice probably won’t change any time soon: Both parties engage in this ad buying, so both parties tend to look the other way when it comes to policing the practice.

Sitting members of Congress have abundant opportunities for earned media and press secretaries to ensure that our accomplishments, such as they are, are trumpeted far and wide. Social media have become a useful tool to promote ideas and policies, and many such media are free—or at least don’t cost the public anything. Why, then, should members be able to use taxpayer funds to purchase additional name ID for themselves?

Mr. Flake, a Republican, is a congressman from Arizona.

It’s Beginning to Look a Lot Like … A Change for the Worse: ESI vs. Walgreens

Submitted by US Navy Veteran

If you like the quality of pharmacy service and choices that TRICARE provides to veterans, don’t get too comfortable with it. It’s beginning to look like that will all change at the start of the year – and not for the better.

Through the end of 2011, Walgreens will provide pharmacy services as part of DOD’s TRICARE pharmacy program. But come January 1st, that will disappear because Express Scripts, Inc. (ESI), the company that manages the service, has a contract dispute with Walgreens and will not negotiate a settlement.

Actually, they will negotiate: my-way-or-the-highway is basically their position.

Walgreens is the largest pharmacy chain in the country. They serve 40 million consumers every week through nearly 8,000 stores nationwide. They have more stores that are open 24 – 7 than any other pharmacy network. And 70% of the U.S. population lives within five miles of a Walgreens.

However, after the first of the year, we won’t have access to that network or services.

Because ESI manages the Defense Department’s TRICARE pharmacy benefit, Walgreens offered a separate contract guaranteeing its prices would match or beat the average costs per prescription with all other retail pharmacies. The company has also committed to keeping the cost per Medicare prescription flat for the next four years. Such cost containment measures could be a real boon to the Federal government, as well as control the prices consumers pay.

Unfortunately, not only has ESI ignored or rejected these proposals, but it has also demanded unacceptable rates and terms from Walgreens. For example, they have demanded rates that are below the average industry cost to fill prescriptions. They also want to dictate which drugs are generic and which are not.

ESI has claimed Walgreens wants to increase prescription reimbursement costs by 20 percent. That is pure malarkey. Walgreens has offered ESI a number of cost-savings that would, in effect, hold the average prescription reimbursement cost increases to less than two percent annually over the course of the three year contract.

In an open letter to vets and active duty military, Walgreens’ CEO said, “We do not wish for military beneficiaries to be ‘in the middle’ of this issue.” Well, we are. Meanwhile, Express Scripts has rejected all efforts to reach an agreement that would keep Walgreens in the TRICARE network of pharmacies.

What can we do about this? Make noise. Register an opinion. Let DOD and Express Scripts know how you feel. Here’s a link to a page where you can sign a petition to do just that:

http://www.ichoosewalgreens.com/tricare-plans/

You can also send a letter to your Senator and Member of Congress, letting them know you value the convenience of having a Walgreens nearby. Another point to make is that Walgreens is working to keep prices as low as possible. With Walgreens gone, Express Scripts will be much freer to set prices that benefit them, not us.

Walgreens is doing all it can to keep serving us as customers. It only seems right that we return the favor.

Jeff Flake: Payroll-tax gimmicks hinder serious reform

By Jeff Flake (reposted from The Arizona Republic)

House Republicans have worked hard this year to prove to Americans that we recognize the extent of our fiscal crisis. With tremendous political risk, Republicans passed a budget crafted by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan that made tough, but necessary, decisions to corral out-of-control federal spending and bring about much-needed reforms to entitlement programs.

So after leading by example by embracing the Ryan budget, why are Republicans ending this year’s congressional session by passing another “now-you-see-it, now-you-don’t” temporary payroll-tax holiday? Because politics is dictating policy.

A year ago, Americans were told that a temporary reduction in payroll taxes would jump-start economic growth, improve the economy and put people back to work. This was misguided from the beginning. To begin with, temporary tax reductions don’t improve economic conditions. And make no mistake, this temporary reduction was always sold as a 12-month tax holiday. When short-term tax cuts expire, taxes go back up and the net result is effectively a non-stimulus. Don’t just take my word for it. Economic growth has been hovering between an anemic 1 and 2 percent.

How the payroll-tax holiday is “paid for” is another example in the art of congressional budgeting. Senate Democrats favored raising taxes on high-income earners as a spending offset. But they couldn’t get 60 votes in the Senate to pass it (thank goodness). House Republicans, on the other hand, opted for subterfuge, telling Americans that budget cuts will pay for a new payroll-tax holiday. Non-binding budget cuts that is, spread out over 10 years. That’s right, Congress is proposing to pay for one year’s worth of non-stimulative tax cuts with 10 years’ worth of budget cuts. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for budget cuts. But budget cuts that kick in years from now aren’t really budget cuts. We’ve been down that road before.

Because payroll taxes fund the Social Security Trust Fund, another short-term tax holiday exacerbates the insolvency of the fund. It is pretty remarkable to see Democrats, self-proclaimed protectors of Social Security, so forcefully embrace blowing a huge hole in the Trust Fund, and Republicans, fierce critics of deficit spending (at least rhetorically), so willing to resort to gimmicks to mask larger deficits.

More than anything, the economy needs serious tax and regulatory reform, reform that would result in a permanent reduction in marginal rates for all income earners brought about by removing credits, deductions, loopholes and tax expenditures (like that envisioned by the Simpson-Bowles Commission). Ideally, capital-gains taxes would be eliminated for everyone, but at a minimum, the tax rates cannot increase.

America’s corporate-tax rate, currently the second-highest in the world, should immediately be reduced to 25 percent. Permanent reforms like these would unleash a torrent of economic activity and move the economy and unemployment rate in positive directions. Another round of a nickel-and-dime “now-you-see-it, now-you-don’t” tax holiday is misguided.

Jeff Flake is the U.S. representative for Congressional District 6, which includes parts of Mesa and Chandler and all of Gilbert, Queen Creek and Apache Junction.

Jerry Lewis Won a Republican Primary

By Tyler Montague

A Response to Senator Steve Smith

In his comments about recall elections the other day, Senator Steve Smith said, “We just witnessed how the radical left has used the recall system to defeat an opponent they could not and would not have been able to defeat in a standard election.”

The publicly-funded, freshman Senator from Pinal County may have some useful ideas for reforming the recall process.  (I feel we should get rid of paid petition circulators for recall elections!)  But Smith’s reference to the Pearce/Lewis election demonstrates a lack of understanding of what happened on the ground in Mesa.  More harmful to Republicans is that perpetuation of the “leftist takeover” narrative by Smith and others prevents some of the analysis and valuable learning that should be happening as a result of Lewis’ victory. Neither a “flawed recall process” nor “the radical left” caused Senator Pearce’s defeat.

Lewis won by a 12-point margin.  The financials, the polls, and the final vote tallies stubbornly support the case that Lewis would have won if this election had been a Republican primary.

The numbers
Registered Democrats comprise only 26% of LD18; which means they can’t impose their will on anyone.  They accounted for 28% of the vote total in the recall election, and of those, it is estimated that 36% of Democrats voted for Russell Pearce.  Republicans have many more LD18 voters, who further amplify their influence with a tendency to vote at a much greater rate.    Republicans formed 49% of the vote.  Republicans and Independents did the heavy lifting to get to the 55%-43% final margin of victory.

The Arizona Capitol Times conducted a poll the week before the election and found that 36.4% of Democrats were planning to vote for Russell Pearce.  If you start with that assumption, then assume Independents voted roughly in proportion to the final totals, Republicans ended up voting 51%-49% in favor of Lewis.  The actual votes by party are not published, so we must use polling.  The 36% Democratic vote for Pearce, and the slight Republican advantage for Lewis are both consistent with the Capitol Times poll and internal polling conducted by the Lewis campaign.  It is possible that Lewis performed better than the polls said among Democrats or Independents, which would lower his percentage among Republicans.  But one has to remember that Independents are allowed to vote in a primary of their choice, so Lewis would still win in a hypothetical “primary” vote created by removing all Democratic votes from the total.

Poll-based assumptions, fitted to the official vote tally

Party

Pearce

Lewis

Cortes

 

Total

Pearce

Lewis

Cortes

DEM

36%

61%

2.42%

 

6472

2356

3959

157

GRN

10%

90%

   

36

4

32

0

LBT

50%

50%

   

147

73

73

0

OTH

41%

56%

2.36%

 

5097

2107

2870

120

REP

49%

51%

   

11459

5582

5878

0

                 

23210

10121

12812

277

Total

23210

10121

12812

277

It is impossible to know for certain how Lewis would have fared in a regular primary without the media attention, efforts by independent groups on either side, and without some of the trickery that ultimately backfired on Pearce.  The recall scenario didn’t break all in Lewis’ favor.  We know the special circumstances of the recall may have persuaded large numbers of Republicans to vote for Pearce, when they might have chosen another candidate in a normal primary.  They bought into the Pearce Campaign’s relentless arguments that the recall was a left-wing attack against the Republican Party, and that it was time for people to choose teams rather than evaluate candidates on merit.  It was a tactical error of the Lewis team to not counter by pointing out that Pearce himself had supported a recall effort against Sheriff Dupnik earlier in 2011 and said that the threshold for recalls was appropriately high.  We also could have reminded people that Pearce ally, EV Tea Party Chairman Greg Western, initiated a recall against fellow Republican Rich Crandall the year before.  Pearce’s hypocrisy, along with information like the ruling by the Arizona Supreme Court, which reaffirmed Constitutional language stating that recall elections do not require allegations of wrongdoing by elected officials, may have swayed some of those Republicans to drop their anti-recall-based support of Pearce. 

So what does it mean?
Many lessons of this election are portable.  The first point:  Pay attention to your constituents.  Pearce’s statewide and national list of endorsements was impressive, but Lewis lined up the majority of the leaders in Mesa, and voters trusted the people they know personally.  If donations were an indication of support, Lewis did a good job getting people in his district to invest in his campaign, and a review of Lewis’s donor list, debunks the “outside leftist radicals” story very nicely.  Lewis got 67% of his money from Mesa, 43% came from LD18, and only 2% from outside the state.  Even though he massively outspent Lewis, Pearce only got 4% of his money from LD18.  It doesn’t matter as much how popular you are beyond your constituency—they can’t vote for you.

The second point:  Priorities.  Voters felt that more attention needed to go to the economy and jobs and education.  Over and over again in meetings with small groups, voters said they felt like their priorities were taking a backseat to ideological hobbies.

A third point:  Voters said yet again in this election that they do not like dirty campaigning or angry politics.  The candidates at the top of the campaign can do a lot to set the tone, and can control their followers to a large degree.  The well-documented language and tactics used in this election may have made the final difference in the outcome.  You cannot take someone like Jerry Lewis, a highly respected, longstanding moral leader in the community, who as a seminary teacher had taught hundreds of students from hundreds of families throughout the district, and make scurrilous claims that “he steals from homeless children,” without being punished by voters for such offensive, unfounded, and overreaching slander.  Future candidates for office should look closely at this election and think long and hard about hiring consultants who promote such tactics.

Finally, any election involving Russell Pearce is also an election about immigration, and there are several things to learn here.  First is that people who oppose illegal immigration and support SB1070 and other tough laws, are not a mutually exclusive group separate from those who want solutions that would keep families together and let people rectify themselves with the law without necessarily deporting them.  There is significant overlap.  Dr. Bruce Merrill and the Morrison Institute for Public Policy released a survey last month of Arizonans that indicated 78% of heads of households favored, “…legislation that would allow these people to be put on a path to becoming American citizens if they have no criminal record either where they came from or here in Arizona if they pay a fine for coming into the country illegally, get a taxpayer I.D. number and demonstrate they can speak English.”  Republicans favored such measures by 69%.  Pearce and allies tout 70% support for SB1070, but then make the mistake of deriding those who oppose mass roundups or the equivalent of starve-outs as “open-border anarchists opposed to the rule of law.”  This alienates people, particularly those in the religious and business communities who feel we could tackle immigration problems in a way that solves the problem, helps the economy, and honors our Judeo-Christian values, without necessarily handing citizenship to millions who didn’t come here the right way.

Pearce’s tone on immigration alienates Hispanics.  Latinos favored Lewis by more than 3:1 according to polls.  That number alone should spark discussion about the way the Republican Party approaches the immigration issue.  Anyone looking at projected growth rates from the U.S. Census will see Hispanics’ rapidly growing role in American politics.  Many Hispanics are social conservatives with a tradition of working hard and wanting to keep the fruits of their labor—in other words, many Latinos should resonate to core messages of the Republican Party.  Yet they are put off by the angry rhetoric surrounding the immigration debate.  Arguments to secure the border and to deport felons or freeloaders make sense to most of us; but leaders who point to criminals as justification to round up farm workers and dishwashers present a non-sequitur that makes more sense to Hispanics when explained by xenophobia or racism.  While some Latinos support the approach championed by Pearce, one out of four Hispanic votes will not win the elections of the future for the Republican Party.  The approach championed by Pearce is politically short-sighted.  The Republican Party needs better leadership on the issue of immigration.

Spending too much time fretting over the recall provision in the Arizona Constitution will prevent conservatives from making the adjustments the Pearce recall should catalyze.

Tyler Montague is a lifelong Mesa resident who helped recruit and campaign for Jerry Lewis.  He currently serves as a vice-chair of the LD18 Republicans.

Senator Steve Smith on Future Recall Elections

By Senator Steve Smith

The following opinion piece appeared in the Arizona Republic on December 19th:

The Republican state senator talks about his plan to make it tougher to recall Arizona legislators.

Why do you want to make it more difficult to recall a state lawmaker? 

We just witnessed how the radical left has used the recall system to defeat an opponent they could not and would not have been able to defeat in a standard election. I believe this is a gross misuse of our recall system. I believe one should be recalled because of an egregious act committed or a proven inability to be effective in one’s job.

Do you expect the successful Pearce recall to open the floodgates of more recalls? 

Based on what has been said recently, this is clearly what the radical left wing is trying to do. They went after Russell Pearce and now they stated they are going after Governor Brewer, Sheriff Arpaio, and have threatened to do the same to other Republicans.

Do you think state government was harmed by losing Russell Pearce from the Legislature? 

Absolutely. Russell Pearce is an honest and fair man, and quite frankly, one of the best legislators this state has ever had. Under his leadership last session alone, we now have a jobs bill that will put more Arizonans back to work, a legitimately balanced budget for the first time in years, pension reform and much more.

You want to require signatures from a majority of voters in the district before a recall can be triggered. Why this approach? 

I believe the majority of the people (50 percent plus 1) should decide if an elected official should be recalled or not. Currently, 25 percent of the electorate is needed to initiate a recall, which means typically any political demographic can initiate the recall. The recall process should be a nonpartisan movement in which the majority of the people unify in response to an egregious act by the elected official.

Democrat attorney Paul Eckstein says lawmakers proposing this simply want to protect themselves from recall. Is this your motivation? 

I believe that if the right wing started using the recall system as the left wing has done and continues to do, Democrats like Paul Eckstein would soon agree with my position. Again, although a recall can be initiated for any reason, it should only be used when the majority of the people want it to occur.

Do you think the Pearce recall will soften the Legislature’s approach to immigration? 

No and nor should it. Remember, the people of Arizona have spoken time and again at the ballot box about this issue. Each time there has been a proposition relating to cracking down on illegal aliens, Arizonans by very wide margins (over 70 percent in most instances) have voted in favor of doing so.

Do you think your caucus will be able to work with recall winner Jerry Lewis? 

The Republican caucus is a strong and mighty force with many moral, constitutionally sound, and patriotic leaders. Although Russell Pearce will be greatly missed, I believe the Republican caucus will continue to effectively lead Arizona.

What do you think will be the important consequences of the Pearce recall? 

The biggest consequence of course is the loss of Russell Pearce for this upcoming session. Beyond that, other consequences would be that maybe others will decide to play dirty like the Democrats did and will initiate recalls.