Distributed by C O M M O N  S E N S E , in Arizona
Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Treasurer consulting with attorney to figure out how to stop $975,000 taxpayer payout to Wilcox for “stress”   Judge Wake improperly bypassed statute requiring county treasurer to approve such payouts

by Jeremy Duda Arizona Capitol Times May 15, 2012   (we can only print excerpts in order to avoid copyright violations) Maricopa County Treasurer Charles “Hos” Hoskins will meet with an attorney to determine whether he can take legal action to stop a $975,000 settlement to Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox. Hoskins said County Attorney Bill Montgomery will assign an outside attorney to him to help him determine whether he has legal grounds to challenge a federal judge’s ruling to award the money to Wilcox as compensation for Sheriff Joe Arpaio and former County Attorney Andrew Thomas’ investigation and indictment of her.   The crux of his argument is whether U.S. District Court Judge Neil Wake improperly bypassed the requirement in state statute that the county treasurer approve all such settlements. “If I just sat idly by and did nothing, you as a citizen could bring an action against me for not upholding the law. Now, that’s the question,” Hoskins said. “If I am correct in that assumption, then the next step will be to decide what action I can take to uphold that provision of the law.” The Board of Supervisors in 2010 authorized then-County Manager David Smith to negotiate settlements stemming from cases involving Arpaio and Thomas’ investigations. But Hoskins said ARS 11-626, which states that all claims against the county by a member of the Board of Supervisors must have the approval of at least one other supervisor, “and of the county treasurer.” “The court seemed to think the board de facto approved the claim whenever they appointed Smith to resolve the issue back in 2010,” Hoskins said. “Supervisor approval is only the second step of the process. You don’t get closer until the third step, which is the approval by the treasurer.”

Distributed by C O M M O N  S E N S E , in Arizona
Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Former County Manager David Smith gave away large settlement amounts of taxpayers’ money out of anger (for being forced to resign?)  Judge who dismissed criminal charges against Wilcox admitted he never adjudicated it on the merits

Supervisors did great political botch job by Laurie Roberts Arizona Republic May 15, 2011   Take a bow, Maricopa County Board of Supervisors. You, Max Wilson and Andy Kunasek and Fulton Brock. Special accolades to Mary Rose Wilcox for a job exceedingly well done. Oh, it won’t rate the coveted Golden Rule in Government Award. I think we can rule that one out, based on her decision to trample the “do unto others” clause on her march to nearly a million dollars — of our money, that is. But overall, applause all around. Hands down the best political botch job I have seen this year, and given that this is Arizona, that is saying something. In the end Wilcox got her money, and Wilson, Kunasek and Brock got caught with their pants down. And the taxpayers? We got played. As usual. U.S. District Court Judge Neil Wake on Friday ruled that we owe Wilcox $975,000 — plus whatever the cost of her legal fees for having to return to court to pry loose her bonanza. On Monday, the supervisors were busy tugging on their Sansabelts, pondering how they got outmaneuvered and whether to appeal. “I still think it requires a board member to sign off on it,” Kunasek said. This particular piece of political theater began in December 2009 when Wilcox was charged with 42 criminal counts, stemming from allegations that she voted to grant public funds to Chicanos Por La Causa while obtaining loans from one of its subsidiaries. Three months later, a Pima County judge dismissed the charges, citing prosecutorial misconduct, but noted that he never considered the merits of the case against Wilcox. Cue the pain, the suffering and the inevitable lawsuit against us. Wilcox claimed that she suffered terribly, losing not only her restaurant but her Golden Rule in Government Award, an honor withdrawn by the Arizona InterFaith Movement after she was indicted. She joined fellow Supervisor Don Stapley and seven others in filing $46 million worth of claims against us for mistreatment at the hands of then-County Attorney Andrew Thomas and Sheriff Joe Arpaio. In June 2010, the supervisors — the three who weren’t preparing to sue us — authorized then-County Manager David Smith to settle the claims. In February, Smith talked about paying only their legal fees. Then suddenly last month, as one of his last acts before retiring, he began doling out big money: $500,000 to retired Judge Barbara Mundell and Stapley’s secretary, Susan Schuerman. Then, the shocker: He offered Wilcox $975,000. “David Smith was leaving and he didn’t care if he angered the board,” Scott Isham, Wilson’s chief of staff told me on Monday. “This was an ‘Fyou’ out the door.” County Attorney Bill Montgomery advised that the Wilcox windfall would have to be approved by one of her colleagues and the county treasurer. When her colleagues refused, Wilcox headed to federal court, hoping to convince Wake that she didn’t need anyone’s approval to cash in on her pain and suffering. On Friday, Wake agreed with her. It was almost hard not to, given the anemic defense put on by Steve LaMar, the attorney hired to defend the county. He acted as if he’d never heard of Montgomery’s legal opinion, which, in any case, the judge said “clearly doesn’t apply.” And LaMar’s argument — that any outlay over $200,000 needed board approval — fell apart when Smith testified that $500,000 checks had already been cut to Mundell and Schuerman. Bottom line: Wake found that the supervisors long ago handed Smith a blank check to settle the claims as he saw fit. Kunasek told me on Monday he always believed that Wilcox’s settlement would have to be approved by at least one board member. “If I want to get reimbursed for cab fare, I need to have another board member sign off on it,” he said. Both he and Wilson signed affidavits noting that they advised Smith that any Wilcox settlement would be subject to board approval. They just didn’t show up in court Friday to defend that point of view — a fact duly noted by the judge. Meanwhile, Smith was there to testify that he doesn’t recall ever being told any such thing. “My authority was to settle claims and, acting within that authority, that’s what I did,” he said. It took Wake about two seconds to order us to show Mary Rose the money, and an elated Wilcox proclaimed that justice prevailed. “I will rededicate myself to being the best county supervisor I can be,” she told a reporter. Of course, the best county supervisor she could be would be one who declines to take money from the people who for decades have been electing her. Yeah, that’ll happen. Reach Roberts at laurie.roberts@arizonarepublic.com or 602-444-8635. http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2012/05/14/20120514roberts0515-supervisors-did-great-political-botch-job.html#ixzz1ux7Zm9Z5

Distributed by C O M M O N  S E N S E , in Arizona
Sunday, May 13, 2012

Three other county supervisors, Bill Montgomery, and Hos Hoskins refused to sign off on $975,000 settlement for Wilcox    Wilcox sneakily hires Colin Campbell, former presiding Judge of the Superior Court to appeal decision to a federal judge who rubberstamped her settlement

In a move right out of the mafia movies, corrupt County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox figured out how to go around the system to get almost $1 million awarded to herself for “stress” over being prosecuted by Arpaio/Thomas. Even the other Supervisors refused award her the money! Fulton Brock, Andrew Kunasek, and Max Wilson stood up to her and would not authorize the settlement (Don Stapley could not vote since he was conflicted out, having his own lawsuit against the county for stress). County Attorney Bill Montgomery issued an opinion which said the $975,000 settlement would need authorization by one county supervisor and the county treasurer. County treasurer Hos Hoskins, friend of the Tea Party, first refused to sign off on it, and the rest followed suit. When Wilcox found out that not even one of them would authorize the settlement, she went out and hired Colin Campbell, the former presiding judge of the Maricopa County Superior Court and a liberal Democrat, to sue the county and force it to give her the money. His crony on the bench, Judge Neil Wake, handed over not only $975,000 to Wilcox but her attorneys fees too. That’s right, for successfully using taxpayers’ money to fight off any investigation or prosecution against her, Wilcox is awarded more taxpayers’ money. Wake has a long history of ruling against Arpaio and should have recused himself from deciding whether to award money to one of Arpaio’s enemies. Everyone knows that Wilcox is corrupt but has successfully been able to avoid prosecution by filing complaints with the Justice Department to stop Arpaio from investigating her, and filing bar complaints against any prosecutor who tries to prosecute her. Wilcox claims that her restaurant El Portal was shut down because of the negative publicity in order to get sympathy, but the truth is it had racked up numerous food violations. Her other restaurant stays in business at Sky Harbor Airport because she finagled a minority-owned business exclusive franchise to it.Wealthy Wilcox an oppressed minority? Wilcox is doing so well financially courtesy of us taxpayers she recently bought a SECOND late model Corvette. While most of us are struggling, barely affording older, average cars, Wilcox is riding high on the taxpayers’ dole buying additional sports cars. We don’t even know what her husband drives. Guesses anyone? A Cadillac is our guess. Already, the supervisors’ hatchet man David Smith has awarded hundreds thousands of dollars of taxpayers’ money to five of Wilcox’s cronies who have sued the county over “stress.” Talk about a conflict of interest! Even Arpaio/Pearce protester Randy Parraz got in on the gravy train, and was awarded hundreds of thousands of dollars for “stress” for protesting at a protest he wasn’t even at. One deputy county attorney lost her job over objecting to the payoff, which was designed to smear Arpaio. Next up: How much will Don “the Don” Stapley get in his settlement for “stress”? Predictions anyone? $2 million? $1.5 million? What about Conley “the Con” Wolfswinkel, Stapley’s former business partner and a convicted felon. We hear he’s next on the gravy train. Expect Colin Campbell to get a generous retainer for representing them too. After that, look for Wilcox or Stapley or one of their cronies to file a bar complaint against Bill Montgomery, since he dared to stand up to Wilcox.

After well over four years in Arizona, my wife and I have finally sold our property in Texas and we’re ready to buy a house here. I work near downtown Phoenix, but we’d like a little room and we’re not flush with cash, so I’m willing to drive. That means we could choose to live in most communities in the Valley, as long as they’re within about 20 miles of downtown Phoenix. One city in particular, though, is scratched off the list: Glendale.

I personally consider some parts of Glendale to have a lot of potential. There are some nice neighborhoods, some good schools, and drive times would be tolerable. The idea of moving to Glendale, however, looks too much like a crapshoot. If I wanted to gamble, I could go to a casino. But I don’t want to gamble with an asset as big and as important as a house.

The risk comes from the fast-and-loose way Glendale’s leadership has played with taxpayers’ money. The city has used sales tax proceeds to guarantee bonds for sports venues I personally would never use. It is also paying the National Hockey League to keep the Coyotes at Jobing.com Arena. Meanwhile, parks and a library annex, things I might use, will not be funded at levels once expected. Facing a $35 million budget deficit this year alone, the city is literally teetering on the edge of bankruptcy.

Top this off with a sales tax increase that will make Glendale’s the highest sales tax rate in the nation among major cities, and an expected property tax increase, and I cannot predict what my cost of living in Glendale is likely to be. At this rate, the value of any house I buy could be hurt just by being located in Glendale.

I love my family. I’m not taking the chance. I’m not buying a house in Glendale.

Dr. Byron Schlomach is the director of the Goldwater Institute’s Center for Economic Prosperity.

Learn more:

Arizona Republic: Glendale Leaders Mull Proposed Hike in Property Taxes, Layoffs

Tax Foundation: Glendale Considers Sales Tax Hike to Highest in Nation, Property Tax Hike

How do you close a $35 million budget gap? Perhaps the better question is why that hole was dug in the first place. One answer for the City of Glendale is hockey. In fiscal year 2012, the city added $20 million (up from only $1.2 million the year before) to its operating budget for the Jobing.com Arena, where the Phoenix Coyotes hockey team plays. The NHL has been demanding financial support from the city since 2009, when the team filed for bankruptcy.

Instead of looking for ways to cut arena operating costs, city officials are considering a 0.8% increase in the sales tax. This would make Glendale the city with the highest sales tax rate in the nation. It would also be enough to cover the $20 million city payment for Coyotes hockey next year.

In other cities, like Oakland, taxpayers don’t pay high dollars for someone else to manage their arena. Instead, professional management groups compete for that right. Arena management can be a profitable business, with groups maximizing concert and other entertainment events and keeping the revenues from concessions and ticket sales. Meanwhile, cities benefit because they don’t have to pay the operating costs. In some arena contracts, like the Sprint Center in Kansas City, the city also gets a cut of the profits. Last year, arena management added $1.8 million to Kansas City’s budget.

A few million dollars in the door would be a well-needed substitute for $20 million going out of Glendale for its arena. We have yet to see city officials open bidding for management. Given the heavy competition for it in other cities, Glendale should consider that option before asking taxpayers to cough up more sales taxes and for another year of hockey.

Carrie Ann Sitren is an attorney with the Goldwater Institute.

Learn more:

Goldwater Institute: Goldwater Institute v. City of Glendale

Arizona Republic: Glendale Budget Looking Bleak

Associated Press: No Team, No Problem for Kansas City’s Sprint Center

Amid calls for increased state spending and fears of 2014 program cuts, some are calling for extending 2010’s sales tax increase indefinitely. However, Arizonans should understand how much their state and local governments cost before we let them charge us even more.

The graph below shows state and local governments’ direct expenditures as a percentage of private GDP for four states and the 50-state U.S. average from 1985 through 2009. This cost-of-government measure reflects government’s affordability to taxpayers.

Some states with high incomes and GDPs can conceivably “afford” more government. One of the most affordable state and local governments in the country in 2009 was Connecticut’s, partly because incomes (and GDP) in Connecticut is high. Currently, as can be seen in the graph, liberal New Jersey’s governments were more affordable than ours.

The percentage can go up because government spending rises or because GDP has fallen. GDP in Arizona has fallen lately (as it has in virtually every state) and this graph demonstrates that Arizona’s state and local governments have failed, worse than most, to shrink with Arizonans’ ability to afford them. Even before the recession, though, since 1999 the general trend has been less affordable government in Arizona.

In 1990, Arizona’s government burden as a percentage of private state GDP was the highest of all 50 states. The following decade saw tax cuts that shrank Arizona’s government burden until we were below the U.S. average. As a result, our economy boomed.

Now Arizona’s state and local governments are again above average in cost. Our government burden is closer to that of California than Texas, and the difference between the two states is striking. California’s unemployment rate is nearly 11 percent; Texas’ is above 7 percent, but only because so many people are moving there.

The numbers show that Arizona has failed to keep government small and economic growth high. We seem more focused on being a tired, flaccid has-been like California instead of an energetic economic leader like Texas.

Our state legislative leadership has it right: Resist increasing spending. Reduce the risk of raising taxes later. And lower the burden of government.

Dr. Byron Schlomach is the director of the Goldwater Institute’s Center for Economic Prosperity.

Learn more:

American Legislative Exchange Council: Rich States Poor States (PDF)

Joint Legislative Budget Board: (Legislative) Budget as Introduced (PDF)

Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting: The Executive Budget Recommendation (PDF)

Distributed by C O M M O N  S E N S E , in Arizona
Saturday, April 14, 2012

Corrupt County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox may not get $975,000 from taxpayers for “stress”          Finally someone stands up to the Supervisors’ million dollar dishonest payouts for “stress” to their cronies and themselves

Excerpts from the article in the Arizona Capitol Times (we cannot reprint the entire article due it  being paid content)   County Treasurer won’t ‘rubber stamp’ Wilcox settlement Published: April 13, 2012 By Jeremy Duda   Maricopa County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox’s $1 million out-of-court settlement may hit a snag once it hits the county treasurer’s office. County Treasurer Charles “Hos” Hoskins said he won’t be a “rubber stamp” for the settlement to Wilcox and won’t sign off on the payment until he can verify that it’s justified. Hoskins said he will ask Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery for a legal opinion on exactly what constitutes verification for the claim, which Wilcox is slated to receive as compensation for former County Attorney Andrew Thomas and Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s 2009 investigation and indictment against her. According to Arizona law, all claims by county supervisors must be approved by another supervisor and the county treasurer. “I know it wasn’t put in there just to be a rubber stamp. So, approval by the county treasurer is going to have to have some kind of support,” Hoskins said of the statute. “I want to know what would be required to approve it, and lacking that, would I have to decline it.” … “There’s going to have to be some documentation to support it. It’s not going to be as easy as a hotel room receipt for attending a conference. It’s not going to be that black and white, I don’t think,” he said. … County Manager David Smith recommended that the county pay about $2 million to settle lawsuits filed by several people who say they were unfairly targeted by Arpaio and Thomas. Smith, who did not return a call seeking comment, told the Arizona Republic that the payouts would be cheaper than taking the cases to court. … Hoskins will not have to sign off on $500,000 settlements to retired Superior Court Judge Barbara Mundell or Stapley executive assistant Susan Schuerman because they are not members of the Board of Supervisors. Read also Laurie Roberts’ column mocking Wilcox for taking $975,000 from taxpayers “Oh, the pain of it. The unrelenting unholy horror. The sheer terror that it must be to serve as a Maricopa County supervisor.”

Phoenix, Arizona – A recent study by CREW, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, found that Congressman Jeff Flake has no shame when it comes to the amount of government money he is willing to waste. Phoenix’s KPHO-TV highlighted the study’s findings in which Congressman Flake has reimbursed himself $20,000 for travel, meals and other expenses. In a time when our country faces over $15 trillion of debt and 14 million Americans are unemployed, Congressman Flake thinks we should be footing the bill for his extravagant congressional lifestyle. When KPHO-TV reached out to Congressman Flake for an answer on why he finds it appropriate to waste $20,000, the sixth term congressman had no response.

Arizonans can’t afford Congressman Flake!

In case you missed it…

KPHO CBS Channel 5

Click here to view the embedded video.

Study: Some AZ Reps. Use position to benefit themselves

PHOENIX (CBS5) – Do you ever wonder how much money your lawmakers give to groups?

A new study spells it all out for the United States House of Representatives.

Of Arizona’s seven representatives, only three are mentioned in the study.

The group behind it is CREW, or Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

It decided to look into how many U.S. representatives used their positions to benefit themselves or their families.

The group claimed the answer is more than half.

People like Rep. Ron Paul, who’s campaign paid more family members than any other representative, the study said.

You’ll also see Congressman Jeff Flake, Ben Quayle and Ed Pastor mentioned.

Quayle seems to be the lightest offender in the report.

It said he gave $250 to his dad’s company for facility rental and staffing services.

The report claimed Flake reimbursed himself nearly $20,000 for travel, meals and other expenses.

Then there’s Rep. Ed Pastor.

According to the report, his wife and nephew used to work with Chicanos Por La Causa, and CREW claimed Pastor has earmarked more than $1.8 million to the group from 2008 to 2010.

The report also said Pastor gave his daughter a big one up on the competition getting her a job at South Mountain Community College.

It said Pastor earmarked nearly a million dollars in 2008 and 2009 to the school’s ACE program and steered over a million dollars in federal grants to the program four months after his daughter was hired.

Coincidentally, her salary was at the very top of the pay scale.

CBS 5 News reached out to Quayle, Flake and Pastor for this story.

The only one who responded was Pastor.

His office said he has declined to comment.

###

Michael Monti says taxpayers would be left holding the bag for Mark Mitchell’s boondoggle

(Tempe, Arizona) Mark Mitchell has recently been touting his ‘plan’ for a Tempe Conference Center, but he has failed to say who will pay for it. That’s because it’s the Tempe taxpayers who would be on the hook for millions.

Businessman and candidate for Tempe Mayor Michael Monti points out that Mitchell has done little to outline specifics of his conference center plans and has been unable for over a decade to get ASU on board, “Any plan must include ASU, the leading State agency in Tempe, which could contribute a significant amount to such a project merely by agreeing to book all of its guests into such a hotel and conference facility. Mark Mitchell has been on the Tempe Council for 12 years, has talked about a Tempe Conference Center his entire 12 years, and has never been able to get ASU to the table in such a proposal.”

Michael Monti has delivered detailed proposals and even held community forums for a plan to bring a public swimming beach to the Tempe Town Lake, without taxpayer funding. Meanwhile the centerpiece for the Mitchell campaign, his proposed hotel/conference center, is scarce on details. What we do know is that such projects, like those in Phoenix, can cost taxpayers dearly. The Phoenix Convention Center? $600 Million. But where will the funds for a Tempe version come from at a time of budget cuts and tax increases?

In addition, the Valley has a number of conference centers. If Tempe were to build one, it would be competing regionally in an already saturated market.

Monti is well aware that he might derive a financial benefit from a downtown Tempe Conference Center, but he still feels the idea is out-of-step and misplaced, “As a Mill Avenue business owner I realize such a project may be good for my business, but I think it would be a bad idea for the city. Secondly, I think it’s time we start looking to south Tempe for civic projects. The Mill Avenue corridor is blessed with a host of amenities. It’s time south Tempe had a bigger say in these decisions.”

Monti is calling for Mitchell to lay out a detailed budget of this project as well a plan to make certain taxpayers won’t be left with the bill.

Monti said, “I am all for bringing more tourists to Tempe. My personal livelihood depends on it. But I am not willing to soak the taxpayers for such a project. The Tempe city budget cannot survive a spending spree by Mark Mitchell merely to satisfy an insatiable need to spend taxpayer money. If built with public money, this project would only serve as another monument to a politician. We should learn from missteps made by other communities (City North in Phoenix) with regard to developer incentives and taxpayer subsidies. If the private sector could cover the entire cost, that would be great. If not, then we need to take a pass on this given the fragile state of our city budget.”

Michael Monti, owner of Tempe’s historic Monti’s La Casa Vieja, co-founded Local First, Arizona. He is also active in the Tempe Diablos Charities, and is the youngest inductee in the Arizona Restaurant Association’s Hall of Fame.

To make a campaign donation on line click here here or mail a check to

Monti4Mayor
P.O. Box 24476
Tempe, AZ 85285

His campaign is based on bringing private sector ideas to government, fiscal responsibility, civic involvement, economic opportunity, and innovation. His proposals include:

Financial incentives for city workers who save tax dollars
The creation of the Tempe Community Corps to increase volunteerism, and aid Tempe neighborhoods
Partnerships with ASU and the business community to bring more jobs to Tempe
The creation of a public swimming beach at Tempe Town Lake, paid for by the private sector
Partnerships with the ASU College of Nursing to aid Tempe seniors
Encouraging businesses to embrace eco-friendly projects such as the Blink Car Charging Stations at Monti’s La Casa Vieja
A ban on texting while driving in Tempe
A gift ban and stricter reporting requirements for Tempe elected officials
An eight year term limit for the mayor’s office

Arizona leaders and organizations that have endorsed Michael Monti include:

Tempe Mayor Hugh Hallman
Tempe Council Member Onnie Shekerjian
Tempe Democrat and Former Council Member Barbara Sherman
Tempe’s first elected Mayor, Rudy Campbell
The Tempe Chamber of Commerce
Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne
Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery
Congressman David Schweikert
Former Tempe City Council Member ‘Hut’ Hutson
Former State Rep. Laura Knaperek Tempe Democrat Carl Hayden
Former Tempe Councilman Joseph Lewis
Scottsdale Mayor Jim Lane
Barry Goldwater Jr.
Former State Senator and Tempe Councilwoman Bev Hermon
Former Tempe Council Candidate Angie Taylor Thornton

To visit the Monti4 Mayor Website click here or log on to www.monti4mayor.com (@monti4mayor).

###

“Time to cut up Washington’s credit card” 

 (Tempe AZ) Lt Col Wendy Rogers has signed the Cut, Cap and Balance Pledge. The pledge was a created by a coalition of over 40 conservative grassroots organizations who are calling on elected officials to support spending cuts and balancing the federal budget.

“Let’s face it,” said Rogers, “Our nation is broke and it’s time to cut up Washington’s credit card once and for all. I refuse to put my children and grandchild deeper into debt,” she continued. “Only by balancing the budget and finally controlling government spending is this going to happen.”

The original bill, which was approved by the House but rejected by the Senate, limited 2012 spending to $82 billion less than current spending levels, and it capped overall federal spending as a percentage of GDP, bringing it to less than 20 percent of GDP by 2017. The bill provided for a debt ceiling increase if and only if Congress sends a constitutional balanced budget amendment to the states for a vote.

The full text of the pledge reads:

I, Wendy Rogers, pledge to oppose any debt limit increase unless all three of the following conditions have been met:

Cut – Substantial cuts in spending that will reduce the deficit next year and thereafter.
Cap – Enforceable spending caps that will put federal spending on a path to a balanced budget.
Balance – Congressional passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution — but only if it includes both a spending limitation and a super-majority for raising taxes, in addition to balancing revenues and expenses.

Lt Col Wendy Rogers is a 20-year career veteran of the United States Air Force and was one of the nation’s first female pilots in today’s Air Force. She owns a small business in Tempe with 10 fulltime employees. Lt Col Rogers is running for Congress from where she has lived for the past 15 years in Arizona’s newly created 9th Congressional District, which includes Tempe, and parts of Phoenix, Scottsdale, Mesa and Chandler. Campaign website is www.WendyRogers.org.

###

Every so often talk arises about holding an Article V Amendments convention amongst the states to amend the Constitution, since Congress has become increasingly unaccountable. In reaction, dire warnings spring up declaring that a “constitutional convention,” or “con con,” could result in a runaway convention where radical changes are made that fundamentally rewrite our Constitution. Are the doomsday warnings legitimate, or simply scare tactics to block desperately needed reforms?

Legislation is currently being considered in most state legislatures that would begin the process of adopting a National Debt Relief Amendment. Once ratified, it would prohibit Congress from increasing the federal debt unless a simple majority of the states approve. So far, North Dakota and Louisiana have passed the initial legislation with bipartisan support in both chambers of their state legislatures. Ultimately, 38 states will need to ratify the amendment. The language of the proposed amendment is very simple, “An increase in the federal debt requires approval from a majority of the legislatures of the separate states.”

Article V of the U.S. Constitution lays out the process by which amendments are added to the Constitution. Amendments may be proposed by either the states or Congress. Throughout America’s history, amendments have only been proposed by Congress. If proposed by the states, an amendment must then be ratified by three-quarters of the states or by conventions within the states. It is the initial convention called for by the states to propose amendments that naysayers, including some on the right oddly enough, claim may cause dangerous changes to the Constitution, even though it has never happened before.

The Founding Fathers rejected initial drafts of Article V that would have permitted open-ended conventions, and instead adopted very narrow, precise requirements. They rejected language four times that would have provided the mechanism for a full constitutional convention. In Federalist No. 85, Alexander Hamilton explained that states did not need to call for a full constitutional convention since Article V provides full power to amend the Constitution. James Madison specifically supported the use of Article V in Federalist No. 43. Accusations that an Article V Amendments convention will result in a full-blown “constitutional convention” or “con-con” are not correct. There is no such thing as a constitutional convention – it can be found nowhere in the Constitution.

The Goldwater Institute, considered the premiere state-based right-leaning think tank in the country, has published numerous papers explaining why an Article V Amendments convention to consider the National Debt Relief Amendment should not be feared. Nick Dranias, Director of the Goldwater Institute’s Center for Constitutional Government, wrote an essay entitled “Runaway Convention Myth Debunked,” in which he relayed the history of Article V, declaring, “Despite claims made to the contrary, the truth is that Article V does not provide authority for a foundational constitutional convention. The Founders specifically and repeatedly rejected efforts to substitute the current Article V language to allow for a foundational constitutional convention to be called.”

The National Debt Relief Amendment proposes only one amendment, specifically limiting the convention to consideration of that amendment only. Throughout each step of the way the process is set up to focus on one specific amendment; it is not like a flurry of amendments can be introduced at the last minute and shoved through. First, 34 states must pass resolutions proposing the exact same amendment. Next, delegates to the convention are selected by the state legislatures. Delegates that disregard their mission can be recalled and replaced. If there are attempts to consider things outside the scope of the proposed amendment at the convention, lawsuits can be filed to halt this activity, or Congress can refuse to send the results to the states for ratification. Finally, 38 states are required to ratify the results. 38 states are very unlikely to ratify something nutty – not even 10 states would ratify something nutty.

I received a shadowy email from an unidentified organization on Tuesday urging readers to oppose the bill in Arizona’s legislature. Why was the email anonymous? The opposition did not bother to speak up at the Arizona legislature’s committee hearing earlier this session against the bill. Nor did they at the Idaho legislature. Why are they afraid to debate their position publicly?

State Senator Curtis Olafson (R-Edinburg, N.D.) is leading the effort to pass a National Debt Relief Amendment through RestoringFreedom.org. He participated in Harvard’s Conference on the Constitutional Convention last fall, which included viewpoints from all across the political spectrum addressing the feasibility of an Article V Amendments convention. As part of the conference, the audience was permitted to suggest amendments. When some extreme sounding amendments were proposed, the speakers and the rest of the audience ignored the proposals. Olafson believes this is representative of how delegates chosen by state legislatures to conduct an Article V Amendments convention would treat radical amendment proposals. “Well-respected people would not suddenly develop collective insanity and go against instructions from state legislatures,” Olafson said. “Fearmongers like to speculate crazy scenarios.”

Congressman David Schweikert (R-AZ) introduced legislation in January at the Congressional level to start the amendment proposal. State Senator Art Wittich (R-MT), who is leading the effort to get the legislation passed in Montana, applauds concurrent federal legislation, but says that getting the amendment through Congress will be tougher. “It is politically easier for Congress to cut taxes than the budget, an inherent imbalance, and there is no incentive to exercise fiscal responsibility,” Wittich says. “Getting new members elected to Congress who would support this amendment is difficult since incumbents have vast advantages in elections due to redistricting, franking, etc. Since many states already prohibit deficit spending, they are already inclined to support this.”

It is disappointing that opponents are using fear to scare people – opponents who do not even have the guts to identify themselves. Article V is possibly the only tool we have left to fight the unaffordable expansion of federal government. Most of the 50 states are now considering National Debt Relief Amendment legislation. Tea Party groups and anyone concerned with the government’s runaway spending should lobby their legislatures to pass this legislation. Some of the states are also considering a balanced budget amendment. This is another amendment that will help rein in spending and would be easier to push through state legislatures than through Congress.

Senators Olafson and Wittich believe that detractors have it backwards. “People should fear the status quo of out of control spending more than they should fear an Article V Amendments convention,” Wittich said. Senator Olafson expanded, “For those who preach fear about a runaway convention, we have a runaway convention right here in front of our eyes, it is a runaway Congress with out of control spending, czars, and Obamacare. It was clearly the intent of the Founding Fathers that we, as state legislators, would understand that not only do we have a right to use Article V, but moreover, that we have a duty to use Article V when we see a serious challenge facing our nation that is not being solved by Congress.”

Olafson leaves detractors with this challenge:
For those of you who preach that we should fear an Article V amendments convention, I have two questions for which I would challenge you to provide logic-based answers.
1. The Founders included a process in Article V for the states to propose and ratify amendments that does not require any approval by Congress. Why would they provide the states that power and that process if they did not intend that the states should use it?
2. Can you provide for our enlightenment your official list of the 38 states that all of us should fear would ratify a dangerous, extremist or radical amendment?

 Reprinted from Townhall

Click here to view the embedded video.

What are the consequences of actually trying to make good on guarantees like that?   One need look no further than Europe.   Riots over entitlement cutbacks are now a common occurrence, and they are only the beginning.

How did Europe get itself into this mess?

If you’re an American older than 30, you may remember:

• the hoopla over the formation of the European Union (EU), with some gleefully calling it “The United States of Europe“,
• the predictions that America would soon have  to “move over” as the EU became the dominant economic power in the world, and
• the herd of financial advisers recommending that American investors purchase EU stocks and funds or get left behind.

So where does the vaunted EU stand today?

The EU is tottering on the brink of financial collapse.  It has fallen victim to (1) the statist / collectivist / socialist infection that has sickened Europe for well over 100 years, and (2) the rampant entitlement mentality that European politicians have cultivated for over 60 years as they sought votes and power.

Regarding that entitlement mentality, you may have heard of:

• French pride in their government-enforced 35-hour-maximum work week,
• Italian politicians’ perks and privileges,
• Spanish civil service salaries rising much faster than inflation,
• Greek public sector workers getting two months extra pay for no extra work, and
• English benificence to its own public sector.

In fact, entitlements have become so thoroughly embedded in EU cultures that they are now enshrined in the EU Constitution as human rights (something the Great American Left is working to emulate in our own country).

Predictably, over-taxed and over-regulated, the EU economies could not long generate the surplus wealth needed to pay for all their promised amenities.  With two full generations of citizens trained from birth to expect their state-granted “human rights”, it’s small wonder that any attempted cut-backs have been met with strikes, demonstrations, boycotts, and protests, including violent ones.

Now the jig is up.  It’s time to face the music.  Herman Van Rompuy himself, the President of the European Council, has put it crisply and clearly:

We cannot finance our social model.

Well,  if it’s any comfort, Mr. Rompuy, we in America can’t finance ours either.   Just our entitlement programs and debt service already consume all our tax revenue, and we’re desperately borrowing and printing over $4.7 billion per day to pay for the overrun as well as everything else.  And this is no temporary bump in the road.  With over 10,000 baby boomers retiring every day, the deterioration is accelerating, seemingly without limit.

Why do so few Americans understand the true depth of this predicament?

Is it because the President and his spokespeople deliberately obscure the problem in a fog of class-envy-based lies that they think will serve them well in the upcoming election?  How many times have we heard that “if the wealthy would just pay their fair share”, we could get past our budget crisis?  It’s a self-serving canard, but millions of Americans still walk around believing it and repeating it.

Even if we were to cancel the demonized Bush-Obama tax cuts for all Americans (not just the wealthy), we’d only pay for about 28 minutes‘ worth of our current level of borrowing per day.  What do we do about the other 23 hours and 32 minutes?  (For a fact-based presentation, see the Rep. David Schweikert video at this link, especially at time marker 07:36).

As Bill Whittle has shown, with his own unique sense of humor, even if we were to “eat the rich“, confiscating all their wealth, we could only cover our deficits for about one year.   And then what?

A few brave souls in Congress have come to understand our economic crisis in real terms with real numbers.  They’ve been trying to reach and teach the rest of Congress and all of America.  We need to help them by repeating their message to our fellow Americans just as loudly and as often as we can.  

But there’s more than that to do … much more.

It is the incumbent members of Congress who got our country into this mess.  It happened on their watch when they were supposed to be looking out for us and our children.  And the longer a Representative or Senator has been in office, the more culpable he (or she) is.

Therefore …

Whether Democrat or Republican, every incumbent should be held accountable and compelled by his constituents to answer these questions:

Where were you when these impossibly expensive programs were designed and approved?
Did you warn us?  Did you tell us what the debt would be to our children and grandchildren? 
Did you vote against the programs?  Have you worked to expose them?  What are you doing now to reform them?

If an incumbent cannot answer acceptably to his constituents, it is sufficient cause for him to announce he will not run again for office, go home at the end of his term, and not come back.  His district or state can then deal with finding a replacement candidate who will take his responsibility to his constituents seriously.  We especially need full replacement of the elitist lifetime legislative class representatives and senators who have betrayed us through negligence, lethargy, incompetence, or malfeasance.  We do not work for them.  They work for us.  Our message to them should be simple:  You’re fired!

What will happen if these politicians, especially Washington’s lifetime legislators, are not replaced? 

Take a good long look at Europe today.  As Member-of-European-Parliament Daniel Hannan has put it in his book The New Road to Serfdom: A Letter of Warning to America,

Europe is living in our future

We do not want to go there, and it’s up to us, We the People, to stop it from happening.