You are here: Home / Archives for Guest Opinion

APS Stock Price, Profits Should Be Secondary to Arizona Solar Energy Consumer Choice

May 17, 2013 by Leave a Comment

During their last earnings call, as reported in the Arizona Republic, Arizona Public Service (APS) CEO Don Brandt was asked about the financial impact rooftop solar could have on APS if solar’s popularity continued to soar.

RooftopSolarJust like the public education monopoly, the APS utility monopoly is concerned that more energy efficiency and choice, specifically more rooftop solar, is starting to eat into its profits and revenue growth.  APS clearly disclosed this to its investors when it revealed that between now and 2015, it expects its electricity sales to grow by less than 1% even though its customer base will grow 2% annually. The reason? APS customers are investing in more energy efficiency with rooftop solar being the primary technology of choice.

Frankly, how APS addresses this with investors is no concern of mine. And neither should it concern the Arizona Corporation Commission.  A more innovative future with more energy choices for Arizona consumers should not and must not be dictated by the utility’s bottom line. By that same logic, we would have harnessed the Internet because of the challenge it posed to newspapers and many other technologies.

I would think by now that any astute energy consumer would recognize that APS’s sudden concern about the proliferation of rooftop solar in Arizona has nothing to do with empathy for Arizona ratepayers.  It has everything to do with curbing a disruptive technology growing quickly in their existing marketplace. As one pollster has opined, allowing APS to do this would be “political malpractice.”

But there appears to be a far greater threat to APS’ stock price (PNW) on the horizon and that, fortunately for consumers, is a healthy competitive change.  Because of their blatantly naked attempts to kill independent solar in Arizona, along with other reasons, the Arizona Corporation Commission is rightfully looking at opening up more utility competition in Arizona.  In fact, they took the first step down this path last week. Kudos to Chairman Bob Stump and Commissioners Gary Pierce, Brenda Burns, Susan Bitter Smith and Bob Burns for their actions. Clearly, APS’ effort to thwart more solar choice in Arizona is exactly why we need more competition in Arizona.

Choice and competition – these are concepts all conservatives can rally behind.  And it is one all Wall Street stock investors will surely be watching.  The bottom line for consumers is we simply cannot have a better energy future in Arizona if the primary focus is on APS profits rather than innovation and competition that always best serves the marketplace.

Filed Under: Energy, Guest Opinion, Regulations, Small Business, Technology, Utilities Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

Latinos/Hispanics and Republicans

April 29, 2013 by Leave a Comment

By Aaron Borders

I want to start this article with this thought in mind. Republicans don’t need to change their platform to bring in Latinos/ Hispanics to the GOP, they need to get their message to the Latino/ Hispanics people. I base that comment on my MANY conversations with Hispanic and Latino Arizonans. It seems that when I approach a Hispanic or Latino Voter I ask them what they think about the Republican Party. I usually get one of these two answers or both. “Republicans are racist and they hate Latinos/Hispanics”, or I get this,” you’re the first person that’s asked, I don’t even know what the Republicans believe”.

I grew up in a generation that didn’t see race as an issue at all. When I was a boy, Michael Jordan was the biggest basketball star, Tiger Woods was the biggest talent in golf, and Emmitt Smith was the best running back in the NFL. As I got older and I learned more about politics, I learned that Democrats opposed EVERY piece of civil rights legislation that our Congress has passed. Now I know you are reading this and thinking, ‘what do Latinos/ Hispanics have to do with the African- American Civil rights movement?’ Very simple, the same way the Democrats have sucked in the same people they fought to enslave (remember Lincoln was a Republican) and through big Government programs, they have destroyed their culture and family values. This is their plan for the Latino/ Hispanics population as well.

In the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s the African-American people were fighting for their civil rights and liberties. By in large, they were religious folks following Dr. Martin Luther King (Republican) and his quest for equality for his people. The African-American community had tight family bonds and values. ALL they wanted was to get equal pay and equal opportunity. So, with MUCH rejection from the “Dixiecrats” which were a proud group of Democrat segregationist and their supporters that had assumed control of the state Democratic parties in part or in full. They also opposed racial integration and wanted to retain Jim Crow laws and white supremacy. With great pressure from the Civil Rights Movement and the Republicans in Congress, a lot of civil rights legislation was passed into law. President Lyndon B. Johnson only went along because he saw the “voter loyalty” that came with it.

The Democrat Party continues to get the African-American vote solely out of loyalty to a Democratic President who signed Republican Civil Rights bills, they consistently vote against their own interest with blind loyalty. THIS is how African-Americans relate to Latinos/ Hispanics. With the Latinos/ Hispanics, however, it is just getting started. Here are a few examples.

Proposition 8 in California was a great illustration of what I am referring to. The LA Times recorded this, “California’s black and Latino voters, who turned out in droves for Barack Obama, also provided key support in favor of the state’s same-sex marriage ban. Seven in 10 black voters backed a successful ballot measure to overturn the California Supreme Court’s May decision allowing same-sex marriage, according to exit polls for The Associated Press. More than half of Latino voters supported Proposition 8.” It’s Amazing that something that is a core belief issue to African-Americans and Latinos who felt so strongly about same-sex marriage they, “turned out in droves” on an non presidential election year to oppose it, but; blindly voted for a party that openly supports it.

Here is another example, According to a Reuters report, “U.S. Hispanics — traditionally an anti-abortion group influenced by their predominant Roman Catholic faith. A 2007 joint survey by the respected Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life and the Pew Hispanic Center shows that 65 % of first-generation U.S. Hispanics believe abortion should be illegal.” However, according to the New York Times, Nationwide Hispanics voted 67% in favor of Obama. Such a solid disconnect. An anti-abortion position is an unwavering position because there is a belief that legalized murder is taking place. Yet once again, the party that openly supports abortion and late term abortion was the party that got the anti-abortion Hispanic/Latino vote. Not to mention President Obama who openly supported infanticide as an Illinois State Senator.

I will give you one more example before I share with you what I feel the Republicans can do to fix this problem.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the number of Hispanic-owned businesses in the United States increased by 43.7% to 2.3 million, more than twice the national rate of 18% between 2002 and 2007. About 45.8% of all Hispanic-owned businesses were owned by people of Mexican origin. Hispanic-owned businesses generated $345.2 billion in sales in 2007, up 55.5% compared with 2002. The number of Hispanic-owned businesses with receipts of $1 million or more increased 51.6%— from 29,168 to 44,206 businesses between 2002 and 2007.These new data come from the Survey of Business Owners: Hispanic-Owned Businesses: 2007. Once again common reasoning would tell you these folks would vote for Pro-Growth Candidates and support Pro-Small Business policies. Unfortunately as I previously stated, President Obama, who is certainly not Pro-Growth (unless you’re talking about Gov. Regulation) or Pro-Small Business, got 67% of the Hispanic vote.

So what does this all boil down to? I refer to the second comment I get from Hispanics and Latinos when I ask them their thoughts about Republican Party.

First the Democrats have told the lie that Republicans are racist. Republicans know that’s not true but we haven’t adequately reached out to the Hispanic Voters and explained our history of, NOT being racist. The truth is that the Republicans want a secure border. Not only to keep U.S. commerce in the U.S. to grow our economy, but for the security of our Nation. We MUST explain that there is proof that Hezbollah and Hamas have infiltrated the Mexican drug cartels and a dirty bomb from them will not discriminate between Republicans or Democrats. Hispanic and Latino Voters MUST see these lies as a ploy to pit them against Republicans; at the risk of their families’ security.

Second, the Republican Party must work harder to explain their platform to Hispanics and Latinos. I don’t want to discount the work that the Arizona Latino Republican local groups have done, but as a party we must do more. As I have illustrated, there is a huge voter base that agrees with the Conservative Republican platform, they just haven’t been told by us what we believe. The Democrats tell them what we believe and most of the time the Democrats are the only one talking to them. So in essence, they only hear lies about how we are racist, then we don’t reach out to them for their vote, and that further solidifies the lie in their mind.

As a current candidate for the LD-29 Arizona State House, I have been blown away when I speak to Hispanic and Latinos Voters. For some of these folks I am the first Republican that has ever talked to them. Furthermore, when I explain our platform to them they almost ALL look at me confounded and say, “I didn’t even know I was a Republican.”

As Republicans, we had better wake up as a party and invest in our message to the Hispanic and Latino Voters because they are us, they just don’t know it.

Aaron Borders is a Republican candidate for the Arizona Legislature in Legislative District 29. You can find out more about Aaron at his website at www.AaronBorders4AZ.com. You can also follow Aaron on Twitter and Facebook.

Filed Under: Arizona Politics, Campaigns & Elections, Conservatives, Demographics, Guest Opinion, Latinos, Political Parties, Political Science Tagged With: , , , , , ,

The Obamacare Girls: Brewer & Pelosi

April 27, 2013 by Leave a Comment

Governor Brewer continues to galvanize the Republican Party with her stubborn refusal to face the fact that Arizonans reject Obrewercare. After her unsuccessful attempt to apply the intimidation techniques acquired in the ObamaCampaignTactics101 she now reaches deep into the Nancy Pelosi bag of tricks and pulls out a parliamentary stunt to get her way.

Stop OBrewercare in Arizona!

Stop OBrewercare in Arizona!

Getting her way is what this is all about – right? This week the Ohio Legislators stood up to their Governor and offered a budget minus the expansion.  The U.S. Congress Democrats are so concerned about the political price they will pay in 2014 they are pleading to postpone the implementation of Obamacare!

But Governor Brewer doesn’t care about the Republican majority in Arizona. Governor Brewer doesn’t care if she is hurting the political future of the republican legislators. Governor Brewer definitely does not care about the Arizona Republican Party because every republican legislative district (minus 2) and county openly opposes Obrewercare and yet she pushes on.

So now the Republican Governor is using the exact same maneuver to bring Obrewercare to Arizona that Nancy Pelosi used to bring us Obamacare - just to get her way.  The AZ Senate is considering forcing a vote on the floor.

NO public input.   NO committee debate.   NO expert testimony.  NO doctors – NO nurses – NO homecare providers telling the impact on their lives.

The Lobbyists are in control because our Republican Governor is handing our health care to them on a silver platter.

For a complete list of the Legislators supporting Obrewercare : http://fragaz.org/obamacare-girls-brewer-pelosi/

 

Filed Under: Arizona Politics, Blogs, Guest Opinion, Health Care

Phoenix Business Owner Says Mayor Needs To Keep Campaign Promise Regarding Food Tax

April 25, 2013 by Leave a Comment

(Phoenix, AZ) It seems there were a lot of questions directed at Mayor Stanton at a community meeting held at the Mayo Clinic on April 23rd. But it wasn’t zoning laws or the need to fix our streets that was on most people’s minds, it was the food tax. In fact some of the residents that attended wanted to know why Mayor Stanton isn’t keeping his campaign promise that he made to repeal it like he did during his campaign. While Mayor Stanton continued to tell residents that the tax is needed to keep fire and police services operating, Phoenix business owner and city resident Nohl Rosen reminded him that he needs to keep his promise to the people.

“As a business owner when I make a promise to a customer, I honor it as that is what your supposed to do because it’s good service. I simply reminded the Mayor that he made a promise to the citizens of Phoenix and that he needs to keep it,” Rosen said.

However, during the meeting which was also attended by City Council members Jim Waring and Bill Gates, it was revealed that the food tax was used to give pay raises to city employees and also fund golf courses.

“When the food tax was put into affect 3 years ago, the citizens were told that it was to keep fire and police services going. Now we find out that the money wasn’t used for its intended purpose. Still, Mayor Stanton during his campaign said he would repeal the food tax and hasn’t done it. That would be the honorable thing to do and also sets things right. Just what is the Mayor waiting for?” Rosen further asked.

Rosen says he’s considering doing more of his shopping in Scottsdale and other neighboring cities to fulfill regular household needs until the food tax is repealed and encouraging others to do the same.

Filed Under: City Government, Economic Development, Economics, Food, Guest Opinion, Press Release, Taxation Tagged With: , ,

Consultant Legislators: A conflict of interest?

April 24, 2013 by Leave a Comment

In the most general of terms, a conflict of interest is “a set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgment or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest.”

In Arizona, there really are no rules governing legislative conflict of interest statutes.  Essentially, as long as at least 10 people benefit from a piece of legislation, there is no conflict of interest.  Should allegations of conflicts of interest arise, there’s really nothing anyone can do about it.  Arizona is one of only nine states without an independent organization to oversee ethics comp

ethicsIt is not uncommon for legislators to sponsor or vote on bills that affect their personal career industry.  When you have a “citizen legislature” it’s impossible to not vote on bills that relate to education, doctors, lawyers, real-estate agents, landlords, etc.  But what about political consultants?  Does that pass the “citizen legislature” smell test?

The Arizona Republic pointed out earlier this year that there are a number of lawmakers who run or work for consulting firms whose scope of work remains unclear.  The campaign disclosure forms do not require lawmakers to reveal their clients, making their potential conflicts of interest even murkier.  But, some of these contracts are no doubt related to campaigns and public policy objectives.

House Minority Leader and potential Democratic candidate for Governor Chad Campbell lists “public affairs consulting” for Inspired Connections on his financial disclosure form. The “About Us” page for Inspired Consulting does not list Campbell as a member of their staff and it is unclear what his role is with the firm.  Other state legislators who serve as “consultants” include Sen. Al Melvin, Sen. Steve Gallardo, and Rep. Ruben Gallego.  Melvin recently made news by announcing he’s exploring a run for governor.

Former LD15 State Senator David Lujan (and good friend of Kyrsten Sinema) directed an independent expenditure effort against Republicans during the 2012 election cycle.  “Building Arizona’s Future” spent over $700,000 in the last cycle defeating Republicans, funded in large part by national Democratic money from D.C. that Sinema helped direct into Lujan’s committee coffers.  Lujan is now running for Phoenix City Council District 4.

This isn’t the first foray in the consulting arena for Campbell or Lujan.  In 2007 Campbell and Lujan formed a political consulting firm with then Democratic legislator and colleague Kyrsten Sinema.  It is unclear what Forza Consulting did or whom they represented, but according to records with the Corporation Commission the LLC still remains “open.”

Democratic Representative and rising star of the Left Ruben Gallego currently has the most prolific consulting background.  Before being elected to office in 2010, Gallego previously spent time with Valley PR firm Reister, and also served as Chief of Staff for Democratic Phoenix City Councilmember Michael Nowakowski.  He was also the Vice Chair of the Arizona Democratic Party.  Gallego’s wife, Kate Gallego, is running for Phoenix City Council in District 8 to replace term-limited Councilmember Michael Johnson.

Ruben Gallego is listed as the Director of Latino and New Media operations for Strategies360’s Arizona office.  Gallego works with Director of Arizona Operations Robbie Sherwood, a former reporter for the Arizona Republic and former Congressman Harry Mitchell’s Chief of Staff.

10-veterans-videoDuring the 2012 election cycle, Strategies360 was paid by the Yes on Prop 204 committee (“Quality Education & Jobs”) to handle communications on behalf of the union-funded campaign.  Prop 204 proposed the single-largest permanent sales tax increase in Arizona’s history and was viewed by many as a “special interest giveaway.”  Voters defeated the proposition nearly 2-to-1

Strategies360 was also paid at least $10,000 during the 2012 election cycle to handle “earned media outreach & strategic communications” for the Arizona Accountability Project (AAP).  The AAP was one of the chief committees used to funnel liberal money into the last election cycle to defeat Republican candidates.  AAP spent almost $600,000 last election cycle targeting Republicans including efforts against Jerry Lewis, Joe Ortiz, Frank Antenori, and John McComish.  They also did work in support of Democrat Tom Chabin.

Strategies360 was involved in the 2012 election to defeat Sheriff Joe Arpaio and is currently involved in the present effort to recall Arapaio.  Recently, Gallego appeared at a “Respect Arizona” rally (the group organizing the recall).  Also present at that event was Minority Leader Chad Campbell.

During 2012, Gallego even helped lead the efforts of the group opposing Arpaio, Citizens for Professional Law Enforcement PAC.  Arpaio’s campaign manager at the time, Chad Willems, questioned the financial motivations of Gallego and others:

“This is just another group out there of people lining their pockets,” Willems told HuffPost. “It seems like a full-time employment group for these guys.”

Gallego’s reach into the far-Left elements of the Democratic Party are deep.  He even served as the professional consultant for Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona during the 2012 cycle, orchestrating their attacks against pro-life Republicans.  His firm was paid nearly $5,000 in consulting fees, and they were paid more than $20,000 to handle the mail program attacking several Republican lawmakers and candidates.

Let me be clear: there’s nothing illegal about what Gallego or his firm is doing.  Consultants on both sides of the political spectrum are involved in these sorts of efforts every cycle.  Some would argue this is no different than the efforts of the Senate President and the Speaker of the House and their Victory Funds last cycle.  That’s a fair comparison, but unlike Gallego (and possibly other legislators), the President and the Speaker were not financially compensated for their involvement.

Current Arizona statute provides for a one-year ban on former legislators serving as lobbyists after they leave the legislature.  Specifically, ARS 38-504(a)(b) state that for one year, a former public officer, including legislator, shall not represent another person for compensation before the legislature concerning any matter with which the legislator was directly concerned and personally participated.For two years after he or she leaves office, no public officer, including legislator, may disclose or use for personal profit information designated as confidential.  Further, section c states:

A public officer or employee shall not use or attempt to use the officer’s or employee’s official position to secure any valuable thing or valuable benefit for the officer or employee that would not ordinarily accrue to the officer or employee in the performance of the officer’s or employee’s official duties if the thing or benefit is of such character as to manifest a substantial and improper influence on the officer or employee with respect to the officer’s or employee’s duties.

When legislators like Gallego are using their positions of influence to help direct thousands of dollars in independent expenditure efforts designed to defeat their colleagues and change the partisan make-up of their chamber, while simultaneously making money off of these efforts, how is that not a conflict of interest?

Filed Under: Campaigns & Elections, City Government, Conspiracy Theories, Elected Officials, Ethics, Guest Opinion, Public Relations, Uncategorized, Unions Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

MIHS Meets in Closed Door Session to Discuss Controversial State Contract

April 23, 2013 by Leave a Comment


The Maricopa County Integrated Health Systems Board of Directors is currently meeting in closed-door Executive Session to discuss the current legal challenge and protest filed by Magellan and United RHBA against MMIC (Mercy Maricopa Integrated Care), MIHS CEO Betsey Bayless, and Maricopa County Special Health Care District.  The current agenda shows a 30-minute spot dedicated to discussion of this subject, all of which will be exempt from records requests and exempt from public inspection.

It is not surprising that the MIHS Board is keeping a low profile and is remaining tight-lipped about this controversial contract after being awarded a possibly illegal $2 billion to $3 billion dollar contract from the State of Arizona.  This came on the heels of a controversial pay raise for MIHS CEO Betsey Bayless that raised her taxpayer salary to $500,000.

Accountability and SunshineThe board will apparently receive legal advice on the protest to the bid and discuss options moving forward.  An administrative law judge is likely to uphold the Department’s awarding of the contract, leaving a lawsuit targeting the state as a possible option.  Magellan has already filed a civil suit seeking financial damages in Maricopa County Superior Court against MIHS and MIHS’ CEO Betsey Bayless.  Magellan alleges MIHS was awarded the contract improperly and used proprietary information from Magellan to win the bid.

The new contract was set to begin on October 1, 2013, but the protest and lawsuit are likely to delay implementation.  Previously MIHS responded to the formal protest with the following statement:

“We are studying those protests and will respond in the appropriate venues,” the statement said. “We are confident in the strength of our bid, and we are proud to offer a unique, collaborative approach to meet Maricopa County Medicaid recipients’ behavioral-health needs and to integrate the behavioral- health and medical services for those with serious mental illness.”

If you recall, the lawsuit also alleges “serious conflicts of interest” by MIHS because Mercy Maricopa both manages the system and provide services, which is “prohibited by the contract and by state law.” Magellan also alleges that the bidding process contained “serious irregularities,” such as the state’s bidding process being amended twice to unfairly benefit MIHS over their private competitors.  Additional claims include conflicts of interest, improper scoring, licensing problems, and disclosure of proprietary information to competitors. Magellan originally serviced the state contract since 2007.

The serious allegations require attention and deserve public scrutiny.  MIHS should be holding discussions on the contract and the protest, but they should be doing this in the face of the public.  Not behind closed doors immune from public records requests. MIHS is a government entity that collects nearly $60 million dollars in property taxes every year and is run by a publicly elected Board of Directors.  When the state awards a contract that could be worth up to $3 billion dollars, possible bias in favor of a taxpayer funded MIHS over private competitors deserves more sunshine and certainly more accountability.

If you’d like to contact the MIHS Board of Directors and demand more transparency for taxpayers, they can be reached via email as follows:

 

Filed Under: County Government, Elected Officials, Ethics, Guest Opinion, Health Care, Special Interests, Spending Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Uninsured May Have Better Access to Care than Medicaid Patients, Survey Shows

April 16, 2013 by Leave a Comment

Reposted from AAPSonline.org

The public relations campaign to support Medicaid expansion frequently uses testimony by patients with serious medical conditions who have lost their private insurance. It is assumed that once they qualify for Medicaid, they will easily get their chemotherapy, hepatitis c treatment, or defibrillator battery replacement.

“The messages talk only about coverage, not care,” states Jane Orient, M.D., executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS). “But the real question is whether Medicaid provides access to care.”

An internet survey of AAPS members shows that about 47% of respondents think that it is more difficult for a Medicaid patient, compared with an uninsured patient, to get an appointment with a primary-care physician. Only 26% thought that the uninsured had more difficulty. For specialist appointments, 44% thought uninsured patients were better off, and 32% thought Medicaid patients were better off. Only 2% thought that Medicaid patients had “no problem” getting an appointment with a specialist.

When asked, “How easy is it for a Medicaid beneficiary to obtain drugs, medical equipment, or diagnostic tests?”, 48% said it could be “extremely difficult,” 27% said “moderately difficult at times,” and only 13% said it was “no problem.”

Of 166 respondents, 96 were physician specialists, 63 primary physicians, and 7 emergency physicians.

Open-ended comments were overwhelmingly negative about Medicaid. Rural patients who are unable to drive or travel may have no access to care at all except through charity. Some areas have no hand surgeons, endocrinologists, dentists, or rheumatologists who will accept Medicaid. Many cardiology tests, even echocardiograms on inpatients, are questioned or denied. Many drugs, even common generics, are unavailable without jumping through bureaucratic hoops. Treatment for chronic pain is especially difficult. It may be very challenging to get non-emergency surgery approved, no matter how necessary.

“Medicaid ends up as a jobs program for administrators and quasi-medical professionals,” writes one physician. “Very little of Medicaid money actually goes to the ‘health care’ part of the equation.” Another said that “poor customer service is the norm” and “excessive paperwork is routine.”

Because it may cost more to file a claim than a physician can hope to collect, physicians may lose on every Medicaid patient, and lose less if they just see the patients for free.

Stating that “denials were much more common than approvals for appropriate treatment options and diagnostic studies,” one physician concluded that “to expand such a horrendous program is insane.”

AAPS, which was founded in 1943, is a national organization representing physicians in all specialties.

Filed Under: Demographics, Entitlements, Federal Government, Government, Guest Opinion, Health Care, Legislation, State Government Tagged With: , , ,

Medicaid Expansion: What You Hear vs. What You See

April 16, 2013 by Leave a Comment

By Dr. G. Keith Smith
Reposted from AAPSonline.org

The strongest advocate for expanding Medicaid—and the likely source of funding for the massive advertising campaign—is the hospital lobby.

We hear that hospitals are going broke. They can’t make ends meet. The uninsured are breaking the hospitals’ backs from emergency room over-utilization. Hospitals won’t survive unless Medicaid is expanded. (This is the most interesting claim, as hospitals simultaneously complain that underpayment by Medicaid justifies their cost-shifting to others!)

These are the lies that are primarily responsible for bringing us ObamaCare.

But if we look around us, what do we see?

Hospitals are building everywhere. They sponsor sports franchises. They buy advertising in high-priced media outlets. They are ceaselessly buying physician practices—and also buying rural hospitals they destroyed by having bought all of the small-town physician practices and diverting their referrals. They are expanding their emergency rooms—and even building free-standing emergency rooms, so-called loss leaders for their institutions. They make multi-million-dollar “logo” changes. Their administrative staffs are huge and extremely well paid.

Why are patients terrified of becoming uninsured, or driven into bankruptcy by medical bills? It is not because of doctor bills. How many doctors have extracted such huge payments from patients as to cause them to lose their homes? It is hospitals that do that. Routinely.

After reading the recent article in Time magazine about abusive hospital billing practices, in which Oklahoma City’s own Mercy Hospital was named, one of my partners remarked that the rotating cross on top of their hospital should be replaced with a dollar symbol! My father recently asked me if any of the hospital administrators whose billing practices have bankrupted countless patients ever had face-to-face contact with those whose lives had been ruined by their greed. Or, he asked, were they like drone operators, destroying people’s lives in a remote, impersonal way, while they themselves remain safe in their office?

The truth is that, economically, hospitals are not unlike utility companies in that they have high fixed costs. As Thomas DiLorenzo explains in his brilliant book Organized Crime: the Unvarnished Truth about Government, once the plant is built and the power lines are present, the cost of adding another utility customer approaches zero. Once the emergency room is built and staffed, the actual cost of an additional patient approaches zero, other than the actual supply costs. As a physician who owns and operates a medical facility, I can tell you that the supply costs are not that high, even in a surgical environment.

Also, while the hospital spokesmen claim that they have to take everyone regardless of ability to pay, hospitals get paid even when they don’t get paid through the uncompensated care scam. As hospitals wave the charity flag with one hand, they are fleecing the taxpayers through this scam with the other.

When Jim Epstein of Reason magazine was writing an article about our facility, Surgery Center of Oklahoma, he discovered that the amount Medicaid paid local hospitals exceeded the prices we post publicly at http://www.surgerycenterok.com. Hospitals claim that these “horrible reimbursements” by Medicaid are one of the primary excuses used to justify the “hidden tax” they impose on uninsured (self-pay) and privately insured patients.

Think about this: if the costs for the indigent are shifted to others who do pay, or to taxpayers, how is it that the hospitals are providing “uncompensated” care? One way or the other, the hospital gets paid for everyone who comes through its doors.

We make a profit at the prices we have listed online. These prices are one-sixth to one-tenth of the prices charged for the same procedures at most “not for profit” hospitals. This is what you can see for yourself. What you now hear if you listen closely is a quiet panic engulfing those in the medical-industrial complex, as this free-market, transparent pricing model is getting noticed and gaining ground.

This movement, if allowed to grow, will reduce the cost of care and raise the quality bar, just like competition does in every other sector of the economy.

Why expand the bureaucratically encrusted waste and corruption-ridden Medicaid model that is bankrupting government, when freedom works so much better?

 

Dr. G. Keith Smith is a board certified anesthesiologist in private practice since 1990. In 1997, he co-founded The Surgery Center of Oklahoma, an outpatient surgery center in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, owned by 40 of the top physicians and surgeons in central Oklahoma. Dr. Smith serves as the medical director, CEO and managing partner while maintaining an active anesthesia practice. 

In 2009, Dr. Smith launched a website displaying all-inclusive pricing for various surgical procedures, a move that has gained him and the facility, national and even international attention. Many Canadians and uninsured Americans have been treated at his facility, taking advantage of the low and transparent pricing available. 

Operation of this free market medical practice, arguably the only one of its kind in the U.S., has gained the endorsement of policymakers and legislators nationally. More and more self-funded insurance plans are taking advantage of Dr. Smith’s pricing model, resulting in significant savings to their employee health plans. His hope is for as many facilities as possible to adopt a transparent pricing model, a move he believes will lower costs for all and improve quality of care.

Filed Under: Entitlements, Federal Government, Guest Opinion, Health Care Tagged With: , ,

Dr. Kelli Ward: Opposition to Medicaid Expansion is Real

April 14, 2013 by Leave a Comment
Dr. and Senator Kelli Ward

Dr. and Senator Kelli Ward

Since January, many of us at the State Capitol have been trying to determine a common sense way to approach reliable health care for our neediest citizens. It is clear that a full expansion of our Medicaid program to 138% above the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) will add 400,000 patients or more to an already overloaded system. After carefully studying this complex issue, I have determined the plan is unsustainable and potentially harmful to hardworking Arizona taxpayers. We simply do not have the doctors and other health care providers to offer primary care to these new patients. When people are sick or seek care for their chronic illnesses, they will not be able to get into a doctor’s office, so they will instead turn to our emergency departments. Not only will that be much more expensive to Arizonans, but the people are unlikely to get the kind of care they need most.

The last time we expanded AHCCCS (the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System – AZ’s Medicaid); we grossly underestimated the number of people who would enroll. Three times more parents of Medicaid-covered children and two times as many childless adults signed up. Costs went from an estimated $315 million to an actual $1.2 billion. Voters were told tobacco settlement money under Prop 204 would cover the added patients, but quickly we had to dig into the general fund. Now we are being told a hospital bed tax will cover this expansion proposal and the Federal government will bear the burden of the majority of the costs until 2017. Remember, the Federal government gets its money from us – the taxpayers. While no one can predict the true future price tag, experience proves that the costs have always been much higher than estimated.

Do not let people tell you there are no alternatives and we either expand or do nothing – there are real options. We should request that HHS allow Arizona to continue our current plan for those under 100% FPL and for Arizona to determine the best way to provide care for our indigent population. We should find ways to complete treatment of Medicaid patients that are in the midst of potentially lifesaving therapy for catastrophic illnesses despite the expiration of our current Federal waiver on December 31, 2013 – we can find a way to make an exception for this small number of patients. People above 100% FPL that are not otherwise eligible for coverage are able to buy subsidized policies through the federal exchange, we should let them. We should consider providing catastrophic coverage policies for those under 100% of the Federal Poverty Level and a graduated plan for other services. Cost transparency should be our goal. We must seek tort reform to discourage the practice of defensive medicine which drives up the cost of healthcare.

Our Medicaid system in Arizona is one of the best in the country, but I don’t believe that we need to make it bigger and give control of the hundreds of millions of dollars to an unelected agency director. I will continue to seek free market solutions to our health care dilemma and find ways to care for those who are unable to care for themselves. If you only remember one thing, remember this: the Medicaid expansion plan is about increasing the entitlement to healthcare coverage without any guarantees of increased accountability, improved access to care, higher quality, or lower costs of healthcare – it is a step in the direction of socialized medicine and much bigger government.

Senator Kelli Ward

Senator Kelli Ward, D.O., MPH is a Family Physician with additional expertise in Health Policy, she represents Arizona’s 5th Legislative District and resides in Lake Havasu City, AZ with her family. She serves on the Senate Health & Human Services (Vice-Chair), Appropriations, Education and Government & Environment Committees.

Filed Under: Conservatives, Elected Officials, Entitlements, Federal Government, Guest Opinion, Health Care, Legislation, State Budget, State Government Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Gary Nelson: Right On Crime, Right On Justice

March 26, 2013 by Leave a Comment

A CALL FOR A TRULY CONSERVATIVE APPROACH TO JUSTICE

By Gary Nelson

Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” – George Washington

I once heard a story about a couple who bought a large, aggressive dog with the intent of protecting their family from criminals. Tragically, however, the dog attacked one of their young children and nearly killed her, scarring her for life. Ironically, the very thing they hoped would protect them proved to be the source of violence far worse than they were ever likely to suffer at the hands of a criminal. The protector became the perpetrator, and their worst fears became reality.

The United States finds itself in a similar predicament today. Our vicious dog is a justice system which has become the most punitive in the free world. The “tough on crime” paradigm that has dominated our justice system for the past three decades has brought about the criminalization and incarceration of a radically disproportionate number of our citizens. We created it to ensure our safety, yet it now threatens greater societal harm than we ever imagined.

The perceived need to “crack down” on crime has resulted in severe punishments for crimes involving everything from assaults with firearms to personal use of drugs. Mandatory minimum sentences and “three-strikes” laws have drastically restricted judicial discretion, denying judges the ability to custom-fit sentences according to the circumstances of the offense or the needs of the community.

As a result, the United States of America imprisons a larger proportion of its population than any other civilized nation, including Cuba, China, & Iran. The number of Americans incarcerated has increased 400% since 1980, and it is estimated that over 30% of young adults now have criminal records.

The “Land of the Free” was rapidly becoming the “land of the imprisoned.” Recently, however, many have begun to understand that this trend has to change.

The implications for our nation’s future are profound. People with criminal records, including those only charged with misdemeanors, have an extremely difficult time finding work. The vast majority of employers will flatly refuse to hire anyone with a record. It is becoming increasingly clear that our over-dependence on punitive justice is creating a vast army of unemployable citizens destined to be dependent on government, or more crime, for their livelihoods.

As a veteran law enforcement officer and lifelong political conservative, I have come to believe that we conservatives have made a serious mistake in supporting the expansion of governmental power that is the inevitable consequence of “tough on crime” policies. We have embraced an approach to justice that has resulted in exponential increases in spending on corrections, courts, and police, as well as the criminalization and vocational incapacitation of 1 in 33 Americans. We have acquiesced to the erosion of individual liberty and the expansion of government power through over-regulation of nearly every aspect of our lives.

It is time for a return to a truly conservative, and American, model of justice. We must break our addiction to “crack-downs” and “get-tough” legislation, and move towards a restorative model of justice that provides real opportunities for the offender to return to productive citizenship.

It is for this reason I am pleased to be affiliated with Right On Crime, a campaign dedicated to “fighting crime, restoring victims, and protecting the taxpayer.” Endorsed by prominent conservatives like Grover Norquist, Marc Levin, and William Bennett, as well as eminent criminologists John DiIulio and George Kelling, Right On Crime is leading the way in returning our system of justice to a cost-effective,    restorative direction. If you are concerned about the future of our nation and want to see “justice” once again be the focus of our legal system, I encourage you to visit RightOnCrime.org and get involved.

Filed Under: Conservatives, Crime and Punishment, Culture, Demographics, Guest Opinion, Spending Tagged With: , ,

The Beltway Bubble

March 10, 2013 by Leave a Comment

By Sam Stone

There’s no recession in Washington, D.C. Massive building and construction projects blossom like D.C.’s famous trees. Vast, unending snakes of luxury automobiles slither along the streets. On any given day, many of D.C.’s myriad pricey boutiques and restaurants are standing-room-only.

It’s a different world.

Even the commercials are different. City buses grind around town plastered in messages sponsored by the AFL-CIO, imploring Congress to avoid cuts in federal spending programs. Ads designed not to appeal to the masses, but to provide one more avenue for lobbyists and special interest organizations to bend the ear of our elected officials, run endlessly on television.

It’s a glitzy, seductive high-profile bubble.

Spend time in D.C. these days, and it’s easy to see how so many well-intentioned Congressmen and Senators get trapped by the system. It’s not just Washington politics; it’s D.C. life. Elected officials are treated like kings: car services, staffers catering to their every need, posh apartments. The most succulent, extravagant dinners served, because of ethics laws, on a stick. And free booze. Lots and lots of free booze.

But it’s a lie.

People on Main Street are suffering. Despite one optimistic forecast after another, the recession really hasn’t gone anywhere. Although the White House and Federal Reserve Bank keep parroting the line that inflation is stagnant, prices for basic necessities like food, gasoline and heating fuel have more than doubled in recent years. Official joblessness rates grossly undervalue the problem by including people working part-time or seasonal jobs, and by assuming that anyone who hasn’t had a job recently is no longer interested in finding one. Real national unemployment is probably closer to 15% than the 7.9% our government is willing to admit to.

At home, still stuck in the bubble

Members of Congress rarely – if ever – even get to see the truth. When they do return to their State or District, it’s usually for a quick weekend of campaigning. They’re hustled from place to place, rarely stopping anywhere for more than an hour or so. They’re still surrounded by staffers whose job it is to cater to their every whim.

Even during longer breaks when Congress is in session, the routine doesn’t really change. Campaigns these days essentially never close up shop. One of the great advantages of incumbency is access to the enormous cresting waves of PAC, union and special interest donations an incumbent can secure for their reelection war chest. So while Congress may be on recess from time to time, the business of staying in Congress doesn’t stop. Instead of spending time talking with everyday citizens when they’re home, elected officials are stuck on the phone soliciting donations from groups who are only too eager to assist – so long as the recipients of their cash remember those debts the next time a vote comes down on the floor.

What’s the answer?

Term limits sound great, but until everyone agrees to play by the same set of rules, term-limiting yourself is just a way to ensure your Party leadership doesn’t take you seriously. No one becomes Chair of Ways and Means in their first term.

No, the best thing we could do is ask Congress to work less. Six months out of each year in D.C. should be plenty and, if our Representatives had to spend half of each year at home surrounded by their constituents, it’d be a lot harder for them to miss (or simply ignore) what’s really going on in America. Voters would have far more opportunities to get in front of our elected officials. And, as we saw with the Obamacare Town Halls across the country in 2010, they might be more than a little surprised at what they find.

Of course, less time in Washington also means that our elected officials would have to do less. Which, considering the mess they’re making of our nation, might be the biggest improvement of all.

Reposted from Southern Arizona News-Examiner

Filed Under: Arizona Politics, Campaigns & Elections, Economics, Federal Government, Guest Opinion, PAC's, Political Parties, Political Science, Special Interests Tagged With:

Arizona State Treasurer Doug Ducey Earns Statesman of the Year Award

March 8, 2013 by Leave a Comment

Western Free Press is pleased to announce the inauguration of our annual award for Arizona Statesman of the Year for 2012. We give this award to someone whose contributions have had a profound and positive impact on the citizens and State of Arizona.

As with all such awards, choosing just one person is rarely easy. Improving the civic life of a state and its people is a collaborative effort of many, all of whom add a vital piece to the puzzle. And yet, in some years, there is someone who stands out and makes that decision a little easier. Luckily for us, 2012 was such a year.

Arizona State Treasurer Doug Ducey is, in every sense of the word, a statesman. Skilled. Experienced. Respected. Effective. Over the last year, Ducey has brought every one of these characteristics to bear, and Arizonans have been the happy beneficiaries. And so it is with no small pride—and gratitude—that Western Free Press salutes Doug Ducey with the first annual Arizona Statesman of the Year Award.

Doug Ducey is an American success story—his education and career in finance, marketing, and management all preparing him for his impressive record as CEO of Cold Stone Creamery. As the Arizona Food Industry Journal described it . . .

While Ducey presents a calm and agreeable demeanor, underneath is an aggressive and driven financial acumen that makes him a lion in the world of investments and accounting. He comes from the private sector, where he most famously built Cold Stone Creamery with a partner from a local start-up company to a national brand. By the time he sold it, Cold Stone Creamery had expanded to include 1,440 stores, with 800 more in the pipeline, in all 50 states—in only a decade.

Ducey’s performance as treasurer is no less impressive than his personal biography. Motivated by the same spirit of civic concern that animated the vibrant tea party movement, Ducey ran for state treasurer in 2009. He defeated well-connected career politicians in the primary and the general election, and immediately set to work to improve the fiscal health of Arizona.

When Ducey came into office, Arizona was the better part of a billion dollars in the red. After what Ducey describes as a “team sport . . . with a financially responsible legislature that will actually cut spending . . . a strong governor who will say no to harebrained ideas and . . . a conservative cash management plan from the state treasurers office,” Arizona enjoyed a 2.4 billion dollar swing to the positive. Bringing his leonine financial acumen to bear, Ducey is now helping to manage Arizona’s surplus, building cash reserves for the future fiscal health of the state.

But Ducey is not just a steady hand on the state’s financial tiller. Enter 2012 and Arizona’s Prop 204. During the heart of the fiscal crisis, Arizonans approved a temporary increase in the state sales tax to help get the state’s finances back on track. Eager to take advantage, special interests decided to try to make the increase permanent, via a ballot proposition with no accountability and no guarantees that any of the money raised would ever reach the classroom.

Early polls showed Prop 204 well ahead, with support as high as 62%. In spite of long odds, Ducey rose to the challenge.  He marshaled support from citizens, business leaders, and local chambers. He raised $1.7 million in two months for the effort. He made his case in public forums, and he even convinced local papers to oppose the measure. In the end, his efforts proved successful—opponents of Prop 204 carried the day by an impressive margin of 36–64%.

This accomplishment earned Ducey the plaudit “Hero of 2012” from the Arizona Chamber of Commerce. For his efforts to defeat Proposition 204, and for his tireless devotion to the well-being of the State Arizona, we are pleased to echo this accolade, and to name Ducey our Statesman of the Year for 2012.

Reprinted from Western Free Press

Filed Under: Conservatives, Elected Officials, Endorsements, Guest Opinion

Pima GOP unites against the Governor

March 7, 2013 by Leave a Comment

Tim Stellar Arizona Daily Star,  March 6, 2013

GOVERNOR’S POSITION ON MEDICAID REPELS PARTY IN PIMA, PINAL

Highlights from the story:

A galvanizing opponent is finally bringing Southern Arizona’s fractious Republican Party groups together into a nearly united front.

Not the Democratic president – the Republican governor.

The Pima County GOP approved a resolution last month opposing Gov. Jan Brewer’s proposed expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. Chairman Carolyn Cox argues the proposal would cost Arizona taxpayers and unwisely expand a social program that will be hard to cut back in the future.

“We’re saying, ‘Please, Governor Brewer, don’t make this mistake,’ ” Cox told me Tuesday. “We honestly believe that it will not be a service to the people.”

Most of the party’s persistent factions – conservatives, libertarians and even some moderates – seem to agree. On Feb. 12, the executive committee passed the resolution unanimously – and the police weren’t called.

That’s not always been the case with the local Republican Party groups, here or in Pinal County. …..

Police were called to the Pinal County Republican Committee’s annual meeting a week before that, and a similar united front against the governor’s plan is forming there now, too. The Pinal party apparatus passed a resolution Feb. 16 opposing the proposed Medicaid expansion, with just one dissent and no call to police………

Seraphim Larsen was elected Pinal County Republican chairman that day, and he’s opposing Brewer’s Medicaid proposal now. The opposition began building in January, when Brewer presented her ideas on Medicaid at a meeting of party chairs from the state’s counties and legislative districts, Larsen said in an email.

“I suppose the main message is that there is very widespread opposition among Republican leadership and activists to the governor’s position,” he said.

The governor argues we should take advantage of federal government obligations under the Affordable Care Act by using it to restore health care that Arizona voters have promised the state’s poor in ballot initiatives.

Under Obamacare, the federal government will cover the cost of restoring Medicaid coverage to approximately 300,000 childless adults – many of them mentally ill – who lost coverage due to recent budget cuts. The catch: To get that federal money, Arizona must raise the eligibility cutoff for the state’s Medicaid program from 100 percent of the federal poverty line to 133 percent.

If federal subsidies drop in the future, the governor would pay for the lost federal payments by putting assessments on hospitals.

The governor’s spokesman, Matt Benson, insisted to me Tuesday that there is significant Republican support, including among business interests.

“I think what you have is a number of individuals who are opposed on the principle that they oppose the Affordable Care Act and the president,” Benson said. “Trust me – the governor understands that sentiment. But she needs to govern.”

State Rep. Ethan Orr, a Catalina Foothills Republican, said he’s helping to write the bill that will be introduced, but he has not committed to the governor’s proposal.

“Until there’s a bill, it’s difficult to weigh the specific merits,” he said Tuesday. “I’m making a deliberate decision to have an open mind.”

That makes him a member of a dwindling minority among Arizona Republicans. For most, the GOP governor has them happily united – in opposition to her.

Complete story:

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/elections/tim-steller-ariz-gop-unites-against-its-own/article_25f0e5de-8a56-5dca-ae82-8d5c999b6992.html

 

Filed Under: Arizona Politics, Blogs, Conservatives, Elected Officials, Government, Guest Opinion, Health Care, Legislation, Spending, State Government, Uncategorized

A Reason for Conservatives to Cheer?

March 4, 2013 by Leave a Comment

According to the Arizona Capitol Times’ Yellow Sheet, a group of nearly 20 conservative leaders from across Arizona have written a letter to State Representative Steve Montenegro urging him to explore a campaign for Secretary of State.  While liberal State Senator Michele Reagan has long coveted the job, there has not been a conservative candidate mentioned, related to the SOS race, that has elicited any real excitement among the grassroots of the AZGOP.  If Montenegro were to run, that would all change very quickly.  Montenegro is in his third term and has been a real fighter for conservative issues.  His scores from taxpayer groups, pro-family groups, libertarian-leaning groups like the Goldwater Institute, and conservative groups are always among the very best, and he has been a leader on issues like border security, fiscal restraint, the defense of human life, our 2nd Amendment rights, and more.  With so much of the national Republican Party looking for credible Hispanic candidates, a candidate like Montenegro might not only be attractive to Arizona conservatives, but Republican party stalwarts across the country.  We will try to get a list of the signers and will update this post as soon as we get them.  In the meantime, check out this clip of a younger Steve Montenegro (starts at 1:40) speaking at the first Arizona Tea Party back in 2009, and consider that this is him as a rookie, after just a few months in office!

YouTube Preview Image
Filed Under: Arizona Politics, Campaigns & Elections, Conservatives, Elected Officials, Guest Opinion, Latinos Tagged With: , , ,

The Shadow of Big Government

March 4, 2013 by Leave a Comment

By Thomas Purcell

Shadow GovernmentIt’s been said that ennui and employment are simply incompatible. Obviously the person that said that has never lived in a country run by statists.

Yesterday I spoke with an old friend; we worked together for a few years back in the early 90’s during a roaring economy here in Arizona. He was still in the same business today, but was explaining that he was going to leave the business to sell something else, as his business was awful.

He explained some issues revolving around his financial situation, living condition etc. but basically all his problems revolved around a lack of money.

“People just aren’t buying stuff. It’s not 1995 you know” he explained.

As the conversation ended I realized that this was not the first time I heard it. Everywhere people were saying that exact expression, ‘it’s not the 1990’s you know’ or ‘it’s not what it was’. Funny thing though, the President swore his policies were the same as Clinton’s just a few short months ago at the Democratic convention.

Even people who are working are taking on roommates, working two jobs, or doing something more to make ends meet. They stay in unhappy or violent relationships because they have no other place to go; they stay in jobs with bosses they hate because they are uncertain about their prospects for another job, they take less money than they think they are worth to avoid layoffs.

Thomas Purcell

Thomas Purcell

Then they go home at night and sit in front of the TV or computer rather than going out because they are worn out from work and have no money for extras and take their medication to get through another day.

A quiet ennui has settled over the land as we continue to accept less, work more, and feed more of our money to a hungry government. We worry about government inspectors who look over our shoulder, we worry about that report that needs to be filled out for the state, and we read the emails from the boss on the new regulations and change our procedures once again.

This is the legacy of big government. It’s not the promise of a utopic society; it’s the nightmare of government telling us what to do and how to behave. It’s like living with your parents again and working for minimum wage hoping that you can save enough to move out.

We passed laws yesterday to enhance programs to protect women from violence, but fail to address the real issue causing societal unrest—the pressure of working too hard, for too little, with too much oversight—which leads to violence in the first place, not just at home, but at work and school. Like too many rats in cage with too little cheese, eventually the rats being to prey on each other. Men blame women for a feeling of emasculation and so they kill their wives in a fit of rage. School kids blame classmates for being bullied and the schoolmasters for allowing to happen and so they go ballistic and massacre them. Workers ‘go postal’ at the guy in the cubicle next to them as they pop their gum one too many times, or they fail to get that promotion that the boss decides they can’t afford.

How often do we see it happen where men prefer killing everyone rather than go through the financial chaos of divorce? Or criminals commit suicide rather than face the prospect of prison and humiliation?

Instead we decide more programs are necessary and exacerbate the problem. Each new program now costs 5 times what they say, since we have to borrow to pay for it, increase the taxes to compensate, and return the principle at compounding interest. The debt piles up and the pressure piles on. All those little programs are straws that beginning to break the camel’s back—we are bankrupt and are foolishly thinking of cutting the defense of our nation and the safety net for our elderly when we are sick and old.

A pall has fallen over the land; the shadow of big government.

Read more of Thomas Purcell at his blog: www.Thomas-Purcell.com

Filed Under: 2nd Amendment, Conservatives, Culture, Economics, Entitlements, Federal Government, Freedom of Speech, Government Reform, Guest Opinion, Political Correctness, Political Parties, Political Science, Spending, Taxation Tagged With:

Taking Women’s Rights Forward With A Hard Left

March 4, 2013 by Leave a Comment

Suzanne SharerBy Suzanne Sharer

Talk about a war against women! Currently ground zero is right here in my own back yard as Arizona is once again front and center when it comes to so called “human rights” vs. right and wrong! Women’s rights have just taken a giant step backward in the city of Phoenix this past month with the passing of Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton’s infamous “Bathroom Bill”. This bill does nothing more than degrade women while putting us into dangerous situations and stripping us of our dignity and the respect we deserve. When was it; about two weeks ago that the left came out with some absolutely brilliant maneuvers to stop rapists? Now women are being legislated into questionable situations in the name of “civil rights” to where they have just made it easier for rapists and deviants to have easy access to women and children. Sadly it appears that Stanton has put special interests and a radical political agenda ahead of the personal safety and concerns of the ladies who grace his city. Grown men will now be allowed into girls/women’s restrooms in our parks and public places in the name of sexual equality and human rights.

The false argument; By passing a an expansion of the city’s human relations ordinance, known as the Bathroom Bill, much to the dismay of the mayor and his supporters, we are supposed to believe that under the guise of “prohibiting discrimination” on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, this new law will not have any devastating consequences for our churches, religious organizations, businesses, and families.

All I can say is move over Mayor Bloomberg it appears that Mayor Stanton of Phoenix is going to give you a run for your money when it comes to making false arguments on behalf of the ridiculous legislation you are putting out there! Oh and by the way this article isn’t even covering Stanton’s absurd gun “buy back” program that he just revealed! I can’t wait to touch on that soon! I truly hope people won’t rally behind that brain trust as women will need their guns locked and loaded now more than ever just to use a public restroom in the city of Phoenix!) Stanton has made his position clear. He is taking the City of Phoenix on a serious left turn at the risk of women and children, pandering for the dollars he feels the LGBT community will bring him. Now anybody who wants to wear women’s clothing will not be prohibited from entering into the girls/women’s bathrooms of our schools, parks and restaurants as well as our place of worship and any other public places in the name of prohibiting discrimination, tolerance and of course let’s not forget the mighty dollar in that forward thinking America.

If tolerance is so important in this new age of forced acceptance I have to ask the question; where is the tolerance for those of us who find this bill offensive to our rights? I find it very objectionable as a woman and as a mother to a beautiful young girl that I am being told I must be accepting of men who want to identify themselves as women, giving them more of a right than I have! Legislating people into uncomfortable and dangerous situations by telling them they are being narrow-minded of others rights if they disagree is not a step towards a future I feel we should be embracing! If you have an innocent young daughter would you want her exposed to a man irrespective of whether he may think of himself as a woman using the public restroom? Does how he feels on the inside change what is on the outside? There are clear physical differences that need to remain separate and regardless of how a person “feels”! I believe we need to base our decision on common sense and the fact that men and women have physical differences that need to be kept separate and private when it comes to these situations for everyone’s comfort and security not just those of the minority who are screaming the loudest.

Aside from all the problems this creates for women and young girls, local business’s and church’s now have to be concerned with being cautious not to violate these new “rights” if they wish to avoid any legal action that can now be taken against them by the passing of this new bill simply for standing up for their own ethics. Essentially what Stanton is saying to Phoenicians is that with the passing of his new “bathroom bill” the good people of Phoenix no longer have the right to speak out in defense of their morals or can use their judgment on an issue of common sense and public safety, now that we are living in a kinder more forward thinking society based on these new “human rights” given to us via Phoenix City Council.

What strikes me as odd is how Mayor Stanton put such urgency to this bill under a veil of media silence. With so many other more pressing issues that actually involve public safety, Stanton panders more to special interest groups that make public safety even more of an issue! If it wasn’t for a few media outlets such as Mike Broomhead of KFYI who dedicated some very valuable and insightful time on this subject during his radio show last week, most of Phoenix would not even be aware of what has just transpired. It appears that Stanton who made a promise to be transparent is getting a failing grade at this much like our current President. You can bet this bill was fast tracked through the city council to avoid media and public scrutiny to prevent the large outpouring of opposition it deserves! You can find some good links to read what is in the bill here on Mike Broomhead’s page; http://www.kfyi.com/pages/broomhead.html?article=10955139

After all is said and done what astounds me the most is the total lack of respect and the disregard for the comfort and safety of the women of Phoenix! The left flippantly states that it makes no difference which way the feet are facing in the stall but I couldn’t disagree more…First off it this is what they believe then why are we having this discussion? Second, I am 5’4” and weigh 112 lbs. What chance would I have if cornered in a secluded restroom by a man who weighs twice as much as me and much stronger? What chance do women really have, our mothers, sisters, wives and daughters? What are you going to worry about more, the so called “civil rights” of transgendered men to have access to women’s restrooms or the safety of your loved ones now exposed to any deviant who wishes to put on a dress?

Read more: http://www.kfyi.com/pages/suzanne-sharer.html?article=11017473#.UTSr1GNzu6E.facebook#ixzz2MaGTvVl1

Filed Under: City Government, Culture, Debates, Elected Officials, Family, Guest Opinion, LGBT, Political Correctness, Public Safety, Small Business

Andrew Thomas: Another Amnesty in the Works

February 26, 2013 by 3 Comments

A m e r i c a n  P o s t – G a z e t t e

Distributed by C O M M O N  S E N S E , in Arizona
Tuesday, February 26, 2013

When a bipartisan group of U.S. Senators announced plans in January 2013 to push new immigration legislation, Americans learned that the leaders behind this latest effort to deal with the nation’s broken borders would cross the political aisle. But it did not take long for them to realize that bipartisanship came at a price: amnesty for all illegal immigrants.
Coming together for this purpose was the so-called Gang of Eight. The members of the group were Democratic Senators Michael Bennet of Colorado, Richard Durbin of Illinois, Robert Menendez of New Jersey, and Charles Schumer of New York, and Republican Senators Jeff Flake of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, John McCain of Arizona, and Marco Rubio of Florida. Their proposal was the most ambitious immigration package since the 1986 reforms known as the Immigration Reform and Control Act(or Simpson-Mazzoli Act).

The Gang of Eight’s proposal would allow the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in America to remain without fear of deportation. They would be required to register with the federal government and pay a fine and then would receive “probationary legal status.” This would allow them to remain in the country and work.

Click here to continue reading

 
Join Our Mailing List
Filed Under: Crime and Punishment, Guest Opinion, Illegal Employment, Illegal Immigration, Legislation
«Older Posts