Consumer Reports cautions about buying your own health insurance; McCain, Guiliani should listen

Consumer Reports magazine, published by the Consumers Union, chronicled in their January 2008 issue (they really are ahead of themselves) the difficulty the self employed and those working for small businesses have in finding health insurance. This is particularly timely since several of the Republican presidential candidates are talking about moving away from employer-sponsored health insurance and pushing people into buying individual health insurance on their own. Individual health insurance is so popular that a whopping 7% of Americans already get their insurance that way. It's great if you are young, in great health, and will never need to use it. But many others might as well have a giant red stamp on their forehead saying "UNINSURABLE." The article details the stories of those who thought they were in good health, but upon applying for health insurance on their own, without an employer-sponsored pool to spread out the risk, were unable to obtain sufficient coverage due to conditions as common as high blood pressure or asthma. Since Consumer Reports doesn't put much of their magazine's content on the web (it's kind of hard to make money putting stuff for free on the web if you don't sell advertising like other news sites do, but that is what gives Consumer Reports such credibility), I cannot link to the article. But it starts out with a great analogy:

Imagine that shopping for a new car worked like this: If you really didn't need the auto and lived two blocks from work, any dealer would sell you a car for a song. If the commute was 50 miles, much too far to walk, no one would sell you a car at any price. You wouldn't get to see a full contract until you plunked down your cash. Your monthly car payment would go up 20 to 30 percent every year, and, by the way, the steering wheel might be extra. The auto industry doesn't work like that, of course, but the market for people who buy their own health insurance does.

The article reveals Consumer Reports' findings:

• 71% of those on individual plans had overall complaints with their coverage, compared to 53% for those on an employer plan.
• 55% of those on an individual plan said their insurance covered most costs, while 81% of those covered by their employer did.
• 52% covered by an individual plan said their premium was too high, compared with 29% on employer plans.
• 45% on individual plans said they postponed needed medical care due to costs, compared to 31% covered by employers.

In Arizona, 24,000 folks are in a state-sponsored, high risk pool called Healthcare Group. These are people who pay significant monthly premiums for their health insurance, are employed, and are not eligible for health insurance through their employer. What they do get through Healthcare Group that they do not get in the private individual market is coverage for their pre-existing conditions. As is always the case with a pool of high risk (sick) people, it costs a lot to insure their health. Healthcare Group has been operating in the red, and the legislature is still determining the future of the plan, and whether the 24,000 Arizonans served by it will continue to have coverage. While the plan is administered through our Medicaid agency, AHCCCS, Healthcare Group was told by the legislature to be financially independent and for several years did not receive taxpayer money. Enrollment in Healthcare Group has now been closed and premiums have been increased, which tends to create a further "death spiral," since no new (and younger) people may join the plan, while those on it will usually get older and sicker. There is not silver bullet, but when someone says everyone should just be responsible for going and buying their own health insurance, it simply is not that easy.

Oh, and cities have a budget crisis too, affecting you more than you think

So I've written about budget problems at the federal and state governments. But are cities suffering? Of course! As an article on the front of today's Arizona Republic pointed out, cities are suffering from the same economic slowdown, especially from declining sales tax revenues as fewer of us are making big purchases lately. So what's the effect this could have on us? Potholes not getting fixed? Libraries closing earlier? Well, cities do provide some important services, including the roads that are barely keeping up with growth, aging sewer systems that badly need upgrading, removal of graffiti, and even funding for domestic violence shelters. Arizona's cities may further be hit by state budget cuts, because our cities get some of their revenue from the state's income tax, which gets shared with city governments in exchange for cities not adding their own taxes to our income (filling out two income tax forms every April is enough!). In the past, when times got tough, the state has reduced revenue sharing for cities. Meanwhile, the Bush Administration has proposed eliminating or reducing several important block grants to cities. One, the Community Development Block Grant, is used in the City of Phoenix to shelter domestic violence victims, enforce anti-blight laws against slum lords, provide job training to help people be self sufficient as they leave public housing, and install new sewer lines. This money also funds something very important in my central city neighborhood: graffiti removal. Last year, Graffiti Busters removed graffiti from over 34,000 sites in Phoenix, and distributed thousands of gallons of free paint to volunteers to remove graffiti. So how much money does the federal government provide cities for uses like this? Well, the annual cost, which President Bush considers too high, is about what we spend in Iraq every two weeks. Moreover, the way the federal government distributes aid to cities favors older cities like Detroit rather than fast growing cities like Phoenix, Mesa, or Tucson. Check out these graphs from the City of Phoenix Congressional Briefing Book:

So I ask our Congressional delegation, even if you aren't fans of lots of government spending, can't you at least make sure Arizona gets its fair share of the tax dollars we send to Washington back here in our own communities?

Arizona legislature considers taking away health insurance from pregnant women, vaccines from kids, and $220m from schools

The staff of the Arizona legislature recently released 255 pages of possible cuts to the Arizona budget to deal with a $1 billion deficit. The possibilities include slashing health insurance for 18,000 low-income children, dropping hundreds of low-income pregnant women from AHCCCS health coverage as well, cutting out vaccines for children, cutting back on necessary safety inspections of child care centers, and removing $220 million from schools. While I have briefly glanced at the 255 page document, I haven't been bored enough to read it all. Rumor is that the proposed budget cuts are "hidden" on the internet (because the internet is a good place to hide things, after all) of a government budget office, so if you do an internet search, you may be able to find some very boring, but possibly important reading.

State Senators and Representatives have been quick to point out that no decisions have been made yet on budget cuts, that nobody wants to make all these cuts, but that they were merely prepared by staff so the legislature could see what was available to be cut. If you think it is important for children to have a good start in life by getting the prenatal care they deserve, or to go to child care centers where they are not abused or neglected, or that it is important to fund schools, well, you should probably call your state Senator and Representatives today and tell them that you feel it is a priority.

Renzi flip flops on funding schools

I buried in my November 7 entry on Pat Robertson and Rudy Guiliani a blurb about President Bush vetoing a bill funding the government for this fiscal year because it did not have his proposed cuts to Head Start, special education for the developmentally disabled, Pell Grants for college students, and early reading programs for young children. Apparently the bill had specific merits to people in rural Arizona. According to a press release by the office of Congressman Rick Renzi, the bill also funded teacher training in rural Arizona, as well as nursing programs in Pinal and Gila Counties. Renzi not only supported the bill, but promised to "continue to stand in strong support of legislation that helps improve the quality of education for all Americans." That is, until November 15, when Congress tried to override the President's veto of the bill. Then Renzi changed his vote and voted against teacher training in rural Arizona and nursing programs at two junior colleges in his rural district. Why? Renzi won't say, but since the vote to override the President's veto failed by just two votes, Renzi could have made the difference in funding education if he continued supporting the bill, instead of caving in to a President who wants to cut education at every level.

Unauthorized immigrants not a burden on U.S. health system, study finds

A new study by the University of California School of Public Health found that unauthorized immigrants to the United States use health care services less than the rest of our country, and use expensive emergency rooms at about the same rate as the rest of the population.

Good jobs in the U.S. declining

A report released this week finds that good jobs - jobs that pay at least $17 an hour and provide health insurance and a pension -- declined by 3.5 million between 2000 and 2006, according to the new report by the Center for Economic and Policy Research. Key to the decline was the erosion of employer-provided health insurance (down 3.1%) and employer-sponsored pension and retirement-savings plans (down 4.9%). The research defined a good job as one that pays $17 an hour, or $34,000 annually, has employer-provided health care and offers a pension. The $17 per hour figure is equal to the inflation-adjusted earnings of the typical male worker in 1979, the first year of data analyzed in the report. Over the 2000s, the share of women in good jobs declined 0.2 percentage points, undermining small gains made in the 1980s and 1990s. For men, the picture was worse, with a 4.4 percentage-point decline in the share of good jobs, compared to a 1.9 percentage-point decline in the 1990s and a 3.4 percentage-point drop in the 1980s. To read the full report, please visit: http://www.cepr.net/content/view/1352/8/

Sorry conservatives, but Arizona already has low taxes and is friendly to small business

A new report from the conservative-leaning Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council ranks Arizona as the 15th most friendly state to small business. Taxes were a big factor, and one in which Arizona did fairly well. However, showing that taxes are not the only factor contributing to a good business climate, SBEC also ranked states on crime and energy costs, areas where Arizona did not do so well (coming in dead last in crime if not for D.C. being included as a state). Arizona was ranked as having the 10th lowest gasoline tax in the country (since this pays for highways, perhaps this is why roads aren't keeping up with growth?), and the 3rd lowest worker's comp and unemployment insurance costs. Per capita state and local government spending is the 8th lowest in the country. So if I am reading this report right, if Arizona wants to improve its business climate, we do not need to focus much more on low taxes. We need to cut energy costs and cut crime, and that helps everyone living here, whether they own a business or not.
Read the full report here.

(And then there is that whole education thing, which this report did not even mention, but along with our low government spending, Education Week ranks Arizona 49th in the U.S. in per pupil funding of K-12 education)

Should poverty fight focus on men?

In an Op-Ed last week in the Baltimore Sun, Katie McMinn Campbell and Will Marshall tackle the issue of poverty, and in contrast to the 1990's ideas blaming poverty on single moms, say that now we need to focus on men, saying fewer poor men are working today compared to the 1990's.

The solution Campbell and Marshall propose is not a higher minimum wage (we already enacted that), but an expasion of the Earned Income Tax Credit, which provides a significant refund to working people whose incomes are below are certain level. However, the EITC, as it is known, mostly benefits custodial parents. Those without children are not allowed to earn nearly as much, and the credit is worth about 11 times as much if you have children as if you don't. They say we need a big increase in the EITC for non-custodial parents who pay their child support. This would reward work and put money into the pockets of responsible fathers who do not have custody of their children, but who pay their child support.

I knew I liked Jerry Ford

Former President Gerald Ford revealed in interviews to be published after his death that he had trouble with the Bush Administration's warrantless spying program, and that Dick Cheney did not turn out to be the asset to the Administration that he had hoped. My progressive/liberal friends have always given me grief that I feel Jerry Ford was not only a good man, but also an underrated President, given all that he inherited. We know that, even in his 90's, the man had the critical thinking skills I wish we had in the White House today.

Talk about a hard audience

The consesrvative/libertarian-leaning Goldwater Institute just released its scorecard of how our 90 state Representatives and Senators voted when it comes to issues Goldwater considers important. Only one of the 90 received an A (actually, it was an A-), and almost every Democrat scored an F. Shocking from the Goldwater Institute, I know.

Robertson endorses Guiliani and House passes ENDA...is religious right dead?

I'm not sure if Hell froze over today. Perhaps they are getting the cold weather that is eluding us in Arizona. Pat Robertson, the man behind the Christian Coalition, endorsed Rudy Giuliani, abortion- and gay-rights supporter, for President today. John McCain was endorsed by former presidential candidate Sam Brownback, also a Christian conservative, while Mitt Romney is touting the endorsement of Bob Jones III. Yeah, now those are some people who I would really want endorsing my campaign! People who still think that interracial dating is the downfall of America. So I suppose it is a mixed bag as to whether or not the "Christian right" still holds considerable sway in the Republican Party. I would say yes if they are still trumpeting these endorsements, but the fact that the religious right is willing to embrace Giuliani also indicates they are doing whatever they have to in order to stay relevant.

Meanwhile, the U.S. House of Representatives today passed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which prohibits employment discrimination against gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. Transgendered person were left out as they were deemed too controversial, and granting them the right to employment could sink the whole bill. But 184 Representatives voted against this bill, only a handful because they felt it was wrong to leave out transgendered persons. Most voted against this bill because they felt it is right to fire someone for being gay. For those reasons, President Bush has promised to veto the bill.

Speaking of Presidential vetoes, the President is also threatening to veto a bill for human services funding. Bush is threatening a veto because Congress refuses to go along with the President's proposed cuts to rural health, Head Start, LIHEAP (which helps low-income, often elderly, people in cold climates pay their heating bills), nutrition programs for the elderly, funding for special education for the developmentally disabled, Pell Grants for college students, and early literacy programs for young children. And yes, my Republican friends, these cuts involve spending less money this year than last year. It is not a reduction in the amount of the increase, so give up that argument already. Yes, people should be as self sufficient as possible in society, but there are folks who need help. Going after children, the disabled, the elderly, and education? Wow! Perhaps if Haliburton or Bechtel provided these services, the President would be willing to fund them.

A good movie

I saw this movie today at the Valley Art Theater in Tempe, and highly recommend it:



This movie rocks because it has Anita Bryant getting a pie to the face during a press conference. She noted that at least it was a fruit pie. I sometimes wonder why some of the anti-gay people are also against the polygamists in Colorado City/Hilldale. After all, the same Bible that calls homosexuality an "abomination" or "unnatural" says that polygamy is okay. I have been told many times by various Christian fundamentalists that the Bible is to be taken literally and not interpreted, yet I have yet to meet a Christian who lives out the Bible literally, especially those parts of Leviticus that prohibit eating shrimp or wearing clothing made from more than one type of material. I'm still awaiting the campaign to kill everyone who works (or shops) on the Sabbath...also mandated by Leviticus. If you are reading this from Virginia Beach and happen to run into Pat Robertson at Walmart on a Saturday (I don't take him for a Costco shopper), please let me know! But in seriousness, this was a touching movie, and showed that there are many people of faith in this country whose faith is deeper because they love someone in their family who is not heterosexual. But that's enough preaching. It's back to my radical homosexual lifestyle...you know, sleeping in, rearranging the furniture, then going out for a latte, or whatever else might be on my radical agenda for tomorrow!

Are we safer treating young offenders like adult criminals?

NPR did a great story recently on the differences between the Missouri and Texas juvenile justice systems. Missouri treats young offenders differently than adult criminals, recognizing there is a greater chance at rehabilitating someone young who is just starting down the wrong path than there is with hardened criminals. And Missouri's results? A 7% recidivism rate in their juvenile system, almost unheard of elsewhere. Meanwhile, the recidivism rate in the Texas system is over 50%. It doesn't take a genius to realize that when you reduce the recidivism rate that much, you have actually prevented crimes and saved lives (perhaps literally through lower homicide rates, and also redeeming the life of a young person who was previously headed toward crime). If you want to see a visual contrast between the two systems, look at these pictures taken at facilities in...

Missouri:

And Texas:

In the 1990's, as we as a society grew more concerned about crime, we decided to get more punitive, saying that if we just had harsher punishment, it would serve as a deterrent (because we all know that teenagers frequently think through the consequences of their actions). Yet the data show that the Missouri system, which actually treats kids like kids, reduces crime and keeps society safer. The Texas system has harsher conditions, and it is a crime factory. Worse still, we decided in Arizona in the 1990's that many offenders under 18 should go to adult jails, again with the idea that the punishment would be harsher and that would serve as a deterrent and teach them their lessons. Yet studies show that young people sent to the juvenile system have a lower recidivism rate than kids who are sent to prison with the big boys, who really know how to steal and kill. Is this surprising?

Photos courtesy of National Public Radio. They are used without permission, given that it is PUBLIC radio. (If I could afford a lawyer, I might be disabused of such a silly idea).

Send the illegal drivers back to their own lane!

Some clever person penned a funny letter to the editor in the Arizona Republic this week, responding to an article that there are a lot of drivers using HOV lanes in rush hour even though they are driving alone. The writer suggests building a wall between the lanes, and rounding up all the illegal drivers and sending them back to the lanes they came from. Sheriff Joe, where are you on this one?

Washington Post In 2002 And 2007: Bush Is Trying To ‘Prevent’ War

In case we need another reminder of the Bush Administration's intent in Iran:

When Congress gave President Bush authority to invade Iraq in 2002, the Washington Post claimed an invasion was not imminent, and that Bush was trying to "prevent" war. Now the Post is making the same claims about Bush's policy toward Iran.

Colin Powell admits helping British try to dissuade Bush on Iraq

Colin Powell unsuccessfully tried to get Tony Blair and the British government to stand up to President Bush prior to the invasion of Iraq, according to a new book for which Powell was interviewed. "In the end Blair would always support the president. I found this very surprising. I never really understood why Blair seemed to be in such harmony with Bush," Powell is quoted as saying. "He'd be ready to say, 'Look here, George'. But as soon as he saw the president he would lose all his steam."

Mayor Gordon outlines new downtown initiatives, scraps "Copper Square" brand

Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon tonight proposed several solid if modest ideas in his 4th annual "State of the Downtown" address at the historic Orpheum Theater. To top off his proposals to make downtown Phoenix a great place to work, live, learn, play, and visit, the Mayor proposed scrapping the name "Copper Square" and simply referring to it as "Downtown Phoenix." There was a rock-n-roll theme to this party, which was sponsored by major corporate big wigs, and featured the music of Alice Cooper and the Mayor handing out Cooper-signed guitars to various people who were making a difference in the life of downtown. Gordon's proposals for downtown:

• Exand the route of the free Downtown Area Shuttle (DASH) bus.
• Build 1,000 new affordable housing units downtown.
• Invite ASU to bring its law school downtown, closer to courts and law firms. Invite U of A to add to its downtown presence (I believe it was the public health school he sought).
• More shade connecting downtown's open spaces, reducing urban heat island effect.
• 1,000 more hotel rooms downtown. Apparently demand for hotel rooms downtown has tripled (which is good as the Convention Center's size is tripling), and the several new hotels being built are not providing sufficient rooms. Gordon said if private investors will not build, the city will build another hotel like the Sheraton that it financed, which is scheduled to open this time next year.

What's Congress up to? Children's health update...

The U.S. House of Representatives is scheduled to vote today on a new bill to replace the one President Bush vetoed that extends the life of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Bush and some Republicans launched claims, not entirely true, that the vetoed bill would provide free health insurance for families making over $80,000 a year. The truth was that New York and only New York would be allowed to raise coverage to that level (due to the high cost of living in New York City), and only if the President gave them a special waiver. New Jersey would have been allowed to continue covering families making about $70,000 a year.

The new version is substantially similar, providing more money to enroll low-income kids who are already eligible but whose families do not know about the opportunity for health insurance. The new bill prohibits states from using federal money to cover families over 300% of the poverty line, or about $61,000 a year for a family of four. New Jersey will face a cut, and New York won't be allowed to expand their program. Coverage of childless adults will be phased out in one year instead of two, states will be required to develop plans to minimize the shift from private to public insurance, states will be encouraged to use the money to supplement premiums for existing employer-sponsored coverage, and there is stronger language requiring states to verify citizenship or legal immigrant status.

The new plan may also be vetoed by Bush, but the hope of its supporters is that there will be enough new Republican votes for this bill that there will be the necessary 2/3rds majority to override the President's veto and make him irrelevant to the process. Stay tuned.

Homeowners beware: property tax bills are full of errors, costing you and state money

An article ran this week in the Republic saying some fear school override elections will fail next month because homeowners just received their latest property tax bills, which for many people went up due to mathematical changes in the way taxes are assessed between businesses and homeowners. If you are wondering what a school override election is or why it is important, there are state limits on how much schools can spend; overrides allow schools to spend over that amount, and don't necessarily raise taxes. Sometimes they merely permit a district to spend the money they collect in property taxes.

In the process of trying to figure out for a coworker why her property taxes went up, we discovered that her house was incorrectly listed by Maricopa County as a rental property without her knowing it. It appears that the County can change the status of your house without you knowing it. Your property tax bill most likely only says whether it is Class 3 (you own your house and live in it) or Class 4 (you rent your house out to someone else). If it is Class 4, you are paying higher taxes. A quick search of the County Treasurer's website found that several people I know who are living in their own homes are incorrectly identified as renting them out, paying higher taxes, while several people who are renting their homes out are paying the lower homeowner rate and, perhaps unknowingly, cheating the state (and schools and veterans and foster kids and the disabled, etc.) out of money.

So please, if you own and live in your home in Maricopa County, go to the County Treasurer's website and make sure you are listed as "Class 3" and not overpaying. If someone you know is renting their house out, make sure they are listed as "Class 4" and are not evading the taxes they do owe, taxes that pay for schools and other badly needed services at a time when the State is facing a deficit.

Want a quick overview of a public policy issue in AZ?

The non-partisan research staff of the Arizona Senate has put together issue briefs that are available on the legislature's website and will give you brief background information on a host of issues in our state. I just discovered this, although I understand it has been hiding out on their site for some time. When the legislature comes back into session, you can even watch proceedings live on their website.

Arizona food banks need your help!

As you may have heard, thousands of Arizonans have lost jobs as a result of the recent collapse in the housing market. As you may be able to guess, more people are seeking help from food banks, while donations to food banks are down. Meanwhile, perhaps driven in part by rising demand for corn-based ethanol to fuel our cars, food prices have increased dramatically in the last year. So Arizona’s food banks desperately need your help with a donation of money or food. You can find a food bank to which you can donate here.

Also, if you live in Tucson, you can actually save money on your groceries while helping put more money into food services for those who are hungry. The Value Foods grocery store located at the Community Food Bank (3003 S. Country Club) is a small grocery store open to people of all income levels that sells deeply discounted groceries. None of the items are donated, dinged, or dented. Having non-profit status and working with the same providers who serve Sheriff Joe’s jails, they are able to pass along savings of 30-70% compared to regular grocery stores, yet still operate in the black. As a non-profit, any money they make is reinvested into helping feed the hungry. So save some money while doing good by your community. The two are not mutually exclusive!

Senator Clinton: 60's flower child or vigorous defender of upstate NY economy?

It was a rare political slip when Senator Hillary Clinton tried to get $1 million in taxpayer money to fund a museum at Woodstock, New York. If she were merely a New York Senator, like her colleague Sen. Charles Schumer (who is NOT running for President), it would be great politics. After all, nobody in New York City is going to be offended if their Senator comes across as a flower child of the 60's (apparently on a national level, though, that offends some, and rekindles things that people dislike about the Clintons). And for the more conservative people living in upstate New York, they would just be happy for the tourism dollars a Woodstock museum would provide (for those of you too young to realize, Woodstock was a concert, not just a cartoon bird).

Republicans, who vastly increased the amount of bacon Congress handed out during their 12 year control, had a rare success in stripping this bit of pork from an appropriations bill. Clinton's fellow presidential candidate and Senator John McCain criticized the Woodstock project. But both parties do it to win favor with their constituents back home, and it won't end anytime soon. Changing parties in control of Congress won't end these kinds of projects. Only when there is an apolitical process to spend money based on merit, a process not influenced by campaign donations, will we see an end to so many of these pork barrel projects. And that is why our country needs something similar to Arizona's Clean Elections.

According to the Associated Press, the driving force behind the Woodstock museum is billionaire Alan Gerry, who days after the earmark was inserted into the bill gave $9,200 to Clinton's presidential campaign and $20,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, a group headed by Schumer to elect Democratic Senators. I am a political progressive, which is more than just a new, more socially acceptable term for "liberal." From the days of Theodore Roosevelt (a Republican), progressives have fought for government accountable to the people. If Alan Gerry is a billionaire, why doesn't he just spend the $1 million (not a lot for a billionaire) to build the museum, instead of expecting us taxpayers to shoulder the burden? In my opinion, Gerry should build the museum with his private money, and our public money should finance campaigns. A little investment of public money into political campaigns could save a lot of taxpayer dollars in what should be private projects like this.

What to do about that pesky health care problem

Health care is expensive. Employers are dropping coverage. Premiums are skyrocketing. More and more Americans, about 46 million now, have no medical insurance. Millions more have insurance that does not cover their pre-existing conditions for which they most need it. So what do we do about it? A single-payer, government run system like Canada and many other developed western countries? Employer or personal requirements to have health insurance? Or an even more free market system than we have now? These questions will be debated December 6 (I know, it's kind of far off) at 7:30 a.m. (I know, it's kind of early) in Tempe. Mark Manoil, former Democratic candidate for Corporation Commission, will debate former Libertarian candidate for Governor Barry Hess. It appears to be free, and takes place at Jim's Coney Island Cafe, 1750 N. Scottsdale Road.

How Do We Control Health Care Costs? McCain Weighs In.
Whether health care is paid for by government, employers, or families, the costs can break budgets. No shifting of the burden will solve our problems unless we find a way to bring costs under control. Senator John McCain recently released his health care plan, which is strikingly similar to what President Bush and other conservatives have long proposed: tax credits to help individuals buy their own insurance outside of their employers and allowing people to buy health insurance from other states. McCain's idea is that if there is more free market competition, that will drive prices down. The problem is that, when having a heart attack, few people will stop to find out which hospital is the cheapest, nor drive across town to save a few bucks. Buying health insurance from other states where it may be cheaper sounds good, right? Unfortunately, part of the motive is to escape states' consumer protection laws. The other part is to skirt the various mandates that states put on health care. This issue, called "mandate-lite," has come up in Arizona's legislature recently. Basically, some believe that if insurance companies are no longer required to cover certain procedures, or offer mental health or substance abuse coverage, that they will save money and generously pass that savings along to their customers. In the states that it has been tried, it has not been shown to reduce health care premiums. McCain and Bush's proposal to give people refundable tax credits to buy health insurance also has several problems. If everybody buys insurance on their own instead of through their employer, there is no pooling of the risk. People who are healthy will get cheap health insurance, which will be covered by the cost of the tax credits. People in poor health either won't be able to afford health insurance or they will get insurance that will not cover any existing health problems. Conservatives will argue this is about personal responsibility: if people choose to be unhealthy, they will have to pay for it, and if they choose to be healthy, they will save money. They will make the personal choice to eat better, exercise, and stop smoking. Unfortunately, the child born with juvenile diabetes did not choose her health problem. The person with chronic pain because they were hit by a drunk driver did not choose their health status either. So yes, giving everybody a subsidy to go buy their own health insurance works just fine, as long as you don't mind leaving a few sick people out in the cold.

Children's health video

About immigration...

I am at a loss when I want to write about immigration. No, I have dozens of things to write, but how I can compress them into a brief blog post I don't know. But here are some recent events.

In case you missed it, Mesa Police Chief George Gascón wrote a piece for the Viewpoints section of Sunday's Arizona Republic. He did not take on the anti-immigrant crowd directly the way Chief Jack Harris from Phoenix Police did after the recent killing of a Phoenix P.D. officer by a Mexican national who had repeatedly entered the U.S. illegally. Still, the get-rid-of-the-illegals-at-all-costs crowd will not like Chief Gascón's column. In it he sites internal statistics from the Mesa P.D. showing that just 24% of arrests in Mesa are Latinos, about in line with the city's Latino population (25%). And of Latinos arrested, certainly many are U.S. citizens or permanent legal residents. So if illegal immigrants are really causing all the crime that Russell Pearce and others claim (80% plus), then they must be Anglo illegal immigrants, since Anglos make up 62% of the arrests in Mesa. Perhaps the I.R.A. has established a syndicate in the East Valley? Now THAT would be newsworthy!

On the same page of Sunday's paper, Linda Valdez also wrote a column about the immigration hysteria, along with her concerns about racial profiling and Sheriff Joe. She talks about the controversy of the Mexican flag flying at the Arizona-Sonoran Desert Museum outside of Tucson. The flag was briefly removed by the museum after threats were received from anti-Mexican extremists. It is worth noting that the Sonoran Desert, whose plant and animal life are showcased at the Desert Museum, lies in both the Mexican state of Sonora and in Arizona. The Mexican and American flags have both flown at the museum for 50 years. And apparently those who contacted the museum threatening to hurt the animals inside because the Mexican flag was displayed outside were never Boy Scouts. U.S. flag etiquette has long allowed the U.S. flag to fly with other countries' flags, provided they are on separate staffs, about the same size, and that one is not higher than the other during peace time. Why does the anger, hatred, and in many cases, downright racism of a few force us to change long standing U.S. flag etiquette, or cause a well respected museum to briefly give in to domestic terrorists who want to harm animals because they don't like U.S. flag etiquette...or brown people?

People have a right to their opinions, and the frustration Americans feel about our broken immigration system is understandable. But don't we still have a responsibility to get our facts right? And why do people think that removing flags and hurting animals is going to solve our immigration problem? I don't think that kind of logic flies, even in Congress.

Will the new employer sanction law increase Arizona's mortgage default rate?

I thought the Wall Street Journal article, also picked up in the Tucson Citizen, saying that immigrants not in the country legally have lower default rates on mortgages was very interesting. The presumption is that people who use an Individual Tax Identification Number (ITIN) to pay taxes rather than a Social Security Number are probably in the country at least without work authorization. For loans more than 90 days in arrears, ITIN mortgages have a delinquency rate of about 0.5 percent, according to the Journal article. That compares with 1 percent for prime mortgages and 9.3 percent for subprime mortgages extended to those with spotty credit histories. "Our default level is almost zero," one lender quoted in the article stated. "It's an absolutely promising market. These Hispanic families will pay their mortgage before anything else." The article did point out that those getting a mortgage through an ITIN are put through greater scrutiny, but it still indicates that there is a market of homeowners in our country illegally who are pumping money into our economy.

But will they invite her to more Republican National Conventions?

Ann Colter has said something stupid. I know that is not newsworthy. And usually I don't wish to use this blog to give a voice to nitwits like her who don't know when to shut up. But she talks about being in New York City for the Republican National Convention in 2004...before she talks about how Jews need to be "perfected," and how all America should be Christian. So the question isn't about Colter's comments, which don't really come as a surprise to anyone who has ever heard her say anything before. The question is when the Republican Party, which has put so many of our leaders in power over the years, is going to stop inviting her to their convention. If I were doing PR for the Republicans, I wouldn't want her anywhere near.

So do I believe Ann Coulter's books should be yanked from bookstore shelves? No. Would I boycott a bookstore that sells Mein Kampf? No, because I believe it is history and the last thing we should do is ban history to prevent people from learning from it. But if I walked in to a bookstore and saw a display table up front promoting Mein Kampf, would I ever return to that bookstore? No, not unless it was with news cameras or the Anti-Defamation League.

Normally I embed Youtube videos when I want people to see something. I don't believe the aforementioned woman deserves another platform, but if you must watch it, click that Youtube link and search for it. Hate-driven speech is not consistent with a participatory form of government like democracy. Ultimately, it turns people away from the process, allowing a small minority to exercise a great amount of power in our republic. Sometimes it is hate-driven, and sometimes it is just the same talking heads blaming each other. But when the American people see someone legitimately stand up for what we see as our values, we will march to the polls in droves.

Surprise of the year: Arizona Democratic Party calls on Republican Senate President to resign!

Sometimes it is best to not say whatever is on your mind. It can be hard for us political types, and those of us who feel passionately about certain issues. I find it difficult as one who works by day at a non-partisan, non-profit organization, is the Vice Chair of a local Democratic Party organization in my spare time, and may one day seek public office to always speak freely. But nobody has yet asked me to give up any hats that I wear as a result of my mouth (or typing skills).

Today's column in the Arizona Daily Star by Maria Weeg, Executive Director of the Arizona Democratic Party, is one of those times when my party should have been silent. The Democratic Party is claiming that, because Arizona law prohibits elected officials from campaigning for another office until they are in the last year of their current term, that state Senate President Tim Bee (R-Tucson) is violating the spirit of the law by having an "exploratory" committee to run for Congress. First, the local media in southern Arizona have already editorialized on the issue, agreeing with the Democrats that Bee should resign to run. For the state Democratic Party to add its voice to the argument makes that argument seem less genuine. Moreover, Tucsonans would much rather listen to their local media than a state organization that is based in Phoenix.

One problem with so many talking political heads is they spend so much time talking that they have no memory. Alfredo Gutierrez leveled this same accusation against then-Attorney General Janet Napolitano when both were seeking the Democratic nomination for Governor in 2002. Gutierrez said that Napolitano was skirting the law by setting up an exploratory committee before she could legally run. Where were the Op-Ed columns from the Arizona Democratic Party then? If it is okay for Governor Napolitano to do it, why is it not good for Senator Bee?

And here is the heart of the issue: Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot. This year, Senate President Bee worked hand-in-hand with Democratic leaders in the Senate to craft a bipartisan state budget. This was the first time in years the Democrats were allowed in the process. This was a sharp contrast to the partisan budget battles over in the House. Now Arizona faces a deficit of several hundred million dollars. Would the Arizona Democratic Party prefer a more conservative, more partisan Senate President to take office now and help Governor Napolitano identify cuts to state services? Perhaps the state Party would prefer a Senate President Verschoor or Huppenthal. While I support the new leadership of the Arizona Democratic Party, as a Democrat and former Southern Arizona resident, I believe the party should be more strategic in this campaign. They should not be on record saying that the first Senate President from Southern Arizona in 30 years shouldn't be allowed to finish his term. His comments supporting the President's veto of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, on the other hand, is an issue that affects thousands of real Arizonans, and not just political parties.

Suburban sprawl creating traffic bottlenecks? Hey, the poor will build you a new highway!

First, kudos to Dave Wells for his letter to the editor in Monday's East Valley Tribune. He was responding to conservative Tribune columnist Tom Patterson, who asserted in his October 1 column that “state leaders have mostly turned up their nose at … reducing corporate and individual income tax rates.” Patterson must have been out of state for the past couple years, since the legislature passed a 10% across the board reduction in income taxes in 2006. In fact, if not for that tax cut, Wells says, the state might not be faced with a deficit and possibly slashing services today.

But here's the funny thing about the Arizona legislature when it comes to taxes. The state had a huge surplus of close to $2 billion in 2006. We knew at the time, as we know today, that Arizona is not building adequate highways and other transportation infrastructure to keep up with our rapid growth. In fact, a task force convened by Governor Hull at the beginning of this decade said the state needs another $20 billion to fund more highways over the next 20 years. Yet the state gave away much of that one-time surplus in permanent tax cuts, which by and large went to wealthy individuals. Now there is talk at the legislature that there should be a tax increase to the tune of half a percent in the sales tax to fund highways. I say no. The legislature knew the need was there in 2006, they had some extra money, and they chose to give most of it away to the rich. Now they want the poor, who pay the brunt of sales taxes, to pay more to finance the highways we could have started building two years ago.

Okay, so they are doing something real in Congress

Congress did get one "real" thing done. They passed, and President Bush gave up initial concerns to sign, the College Cost Reduction and Access Act. It claims to give the biggest increase in college student financial aid since the original G.I. Bill. It finds the money in the budget by cutting back on federal payments to student loan lenders. Let's see if the reduced federal payments have the opposite effect, driving lenders out of the student lending business, as opponents claim. Either way, if you have a Pell Grant, its value is going up.

Are they conducting any real business in Congress?

So a couple years ago, there was a vote in the U.S. House of Representatives "expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that those who celebrate Christmas believe that the symbols and traditions of Christmas should be protected." I'm not entirely sure what that is supposed to mean, but the resolution passed by a margin of 401-22. Oddly, the one Congressman who usually votes no on anything that comes before the House because he believes it is not within the Constitutional powers of Congress is Ron Paul, and he voted yes for Christmas. C'mon, Ron Paul even voted against giving the Congressional Gold Medal to Peanuts cartoonist Charles Schulz (he brags about it on his myspace page). And here I thought libertarians might believe in the separation of church and state.

More recently, Congress voted for a resolution "recognizing the commencement of Ramadan." This time, nobody voted no, but 41 Republicans and 1 Democrat voted present. One Congressman who voted for Christmas but "present" on Ramadan is Tom Tancredo of Colorado, who like Paul is seeking the Republican nomination for President. Tancredo said the resolution was "an example of the degree to which political correctness has captured the political and media elite in this country." And a vote for protecting the symbols and traditions of Christmas was not driven by a right-wing political correctness, the kind that believes there is a war on Christmas? I hate to speculate on the ulterior motives of politicians (okay, I actually love it, it's kind of a sport, isn't it?), but could it be that Tancredo just thinks Christianity is the superior religion and that it's okay for that to be the policy of the U.S. government? After all, this is the guy who suggested we bomb Mecca as a deterrent to terrorism. Yeah, Tancredo, thanks to folks of your ideology, the war on terrorism has been about as successful as the war on Christmas.

It's probably good they're only in session every other year

Most people tend to think that, for what we pay our elected officials (which in most state legislatures is a lot less than you think), their elected officials should at least show up once in a while. Of course, in Texas, I have to imagine the legislature does a lot less harm when they are not in session, which is only every other year. However, take a look at what goes on when they are in session:

A great response to Rush Limbaugh

Votevets.org just released this ad responding to Rush Limbaugh, who said recently on his radio show that is being listened to less and less, that soldiers who disagree with the President's policy in Iraq are "phony soldiers."

Boxer goes a round with Inhofe on global warming

Global warming-denier and Senator James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), who has said former Vice President Al Gore is "full of crap," decided at a recent hearing to ask the former Veep the kinds of questions Senators like to ask - ones that the Senators don't allow their subjects to answer. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-California), who took over as Chair of the Environment Committee from Inhofe when the Democrats took control of Congress, raised her gavel and reminded him that he doesn't get to make the rules anymore because "elections have consequences." She then allowed Gore to proceed. While my personal run ins with Sen. Boxer don't exactly endear her to me, it was fun to watch this exchange.

McCain discusses our "Christian nation" and his views on Islam

You may have missed Sen. John McCain's interview with beliefnet.com on his faith and its influence on his public life. In it, McCain says that "the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation." He also states that "I admire the Islam" (the Islam?), but that he would prefer a President "who has a solid grounding in my faith." Presumably, he is referring to his faith generally as Christianity, and not specifically to the Episcopalian Church in which he was raised, nor the Southern Baptist Convention, of which his current church (North Phoenix Baptist) is a part. McCain also talks about an immersion baptism he may have after the election, saying he would not want a baptism at this time as it could look political. While most "mainline" Protestant churches (i.e. the Episcopals, Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians) believe in one Christian baptism, and that it is not necessary to be re-baptized after changing churches, that is not the belief of the Southern Baptist Convention. McCain's desire to avoid the politics of baptism may not stem just from keeping people from questioning his motives. He is wise to avoid driving the wedge further in the theological schisms that exist within Christianity while on the campaign trail.

In spite of his comments about "the Islam," McCain does defend Mitt Romney's Mormon faith, and states that he does not believe it should be a campaign issue. McCain also says he cannot claim to have ever had a revelation from God, that he does not pray for personal success, and that he believes in the separation of church and state.

So which is it?

The front cover (above the fold) of today's Arizona Republic had a headline describing our border with Mexico as "A Revolving Door of Criminals." Then, buried on page A8, was an article by the same reporter (Daniel Gonzalez) with the headline "Immigrants Are Unlikely Criminals" with the sub-heading "Study: Native-borns commit more crimes". The study, done by the University of California-Irvine, said that immigrants, whether in the country legally or illegally, are less likely to commit crimes than the native-born population. So if immigrants are less likely to commit crimes, yet our border is a "revolving door of criminals," then to whom was the Republic referring in saying that criminals are crossing our borders? Were they referring to the drunken underage U of A students returning from a night of partying in Nogales? You can see how people who only skim the headlines of the newspaper (which President Bush once proudly boasted of) might be confused as to what is going on in our world.

Who is the bigger threat, our "friend" or our "enemy"?

We have heard an awful lot lately from the Bush Administration and in the media about Iran's nuclear program, which is still in its infant stages. What did not get wide media attention, however, was the recent poll from Pakistan showing that Osama Bin Laden has a higher public approval rating than U.S. War on Terror-ally General Pervez Musharraf, the current leader of that country. Even worse, Bin Laden's approval rating in Pakistan is five times that of U.S. President George Bush, whose approval rating is just 9% in Pakistan. So while the U.S. government and media keep their eyes on Iran, a country that had nothing to do with September 11 and which is still several years away from possessing a nuclear weapon, Iran's neighbor, Pakistan, is already a nuclear power, and has become a hotbed of Al-Qaeda and Taliba activity. Should we be scared?

If you're over 25, and were raised in Arizona, you'll appreciate this

For a change of pace, here is something non-political:

What's Congress up to?

This week the House and Senate both voted to reauthorize the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Not only does the reauthorization continue a program that has reduced the rate of uninsured children in Arizona from 25% to 15%, but it will cover an additional 4 million children nationwide (and 86,000 in Arizona) who do not currently have health insurance. The Senate passed the proposal by a veto-proof margin, but the House appears a few votes shy of the votes needed to override President Bush's promised veto. Bush wants to shrink the rolls of children insured by the program, although he claims his tax credit proposal would cover 500,000 new kids with health insurance (an eighth of what the bill that passed Congress would do).

So what else is Congress up to? Moving a bill that would create an airline passengers bill of rights, seeking to remedy the wave of passengers stuck on the tarmack inside their plane during weather delays. Beefing up enforcement at the Food and Drug Administration. And bills have been introduced, but are not yet moving, that would restore cuts made in 2005 to child support enforcement. Some Senators and Representatives in the last Congress, mostly ones who claim to be big on "family values," thought it was a good idea to cut funding from child support enforcement. While I understand Republicans have long considered themselves fiscal conservatives, I thought they were also big supporters of enforcing the law. I guess when it's deadbeat dads, that whole law enforcement thing flies out the window. Former AZ Congressman J.D. Hayworth defended the cut to child support enforcement, saying they were only cutting administrative expenses. This rationale is true - if you consider the entire child support enforcement program administrative. After all, the money pretty much goes to "bureaucrats" sitting in an office somewhere, but child support enforcement isn't like city cops. They don't find deadbeat parents by walking a beat. But they do manage to keep families out of poverty and off of welfare, and studies show that for every dollar of federal, state, and local money spent on child support enforcement, $4.58 in child support gets collected that wouldn't otherwise. To me that not only sounds like good family values, but good fiscal policy too.

And why require people to have auto insurance?

I've often felt that just as people are required to have auto insurance in our society in order to drive, everyone should be required to have health insurance to breathe. It works that way in most industrialized countries in the world. But a new initiative would amend the Arizona constitution to prohibit the state from ever mandating that people buy health insurance, or buy certain types of health insurance. As I sat last night in a soup and salad restaurant noticing America's obesity epidemic (I know some might consider that an ironic place to notice America's obesity epidemic, but it's amazing how unhealthy salad becomes when you load it with ranch dressing or end it with an all-you-can-eat ice cream bar), I realized that a major part of why other societies (Canada, Australia and New Zealand, western Europe) have national health care and we don't is our rugged individualism. Whoever is responsible for paying for our health care is going to try to keep the costs down, whether it is private HMOs or the government. And if government pays for our health care, the fear is that next they will tell us we can't smoke or eat fast food. And that's just down right un-American!

Can't we all just Move On?

I can't say I am an active member of Move On. I used to get their e-mails, but they soon cluttered up my inbox, constantly asking me to tell my Senator or Congressman yet again what I felt about the same issue.

That said, I think Move On has done some great media over the years, and if nothing else, the past couple weeks, they sure have generated plenty of earned (i.e. free) media for their organization. They take out one newspaper ad and next thing they are all over the news. Talk about amplifying your message. The U.S. Senate even voted 72-25 to condemn the now infamous ad referring to General David Petraeus as General Betray Us because they feel he is misleading Americans and painting a false picture of success in Iraq.

Was the language inflammatory? Perhaps. Is it covered by the First Amendment? Absolutely, just like the equally inflammatory rhetoric from the right. But does anybody see some hypocracy here? (Imagine that in politics!) After all, those crying loudest about the Petraeus ad are the Bush Administration and a handful of their loyalists - the same people who themselves questioned the loyalty and patriotism of anybody opposing the invasion of Iraq, even if the critics were retired Generals such as Wesley Clark or Joseph Hoar.

Two event announcements...and I'm leaving for a few days

First, this blog will be un-manned for a few days as I attend a conference in Baltimore for a few days. However, I wanted to inform everyone of a couple of events going on that you may be interested in if you want to get more involved in what's going on in our state.

First, for those of you in the Valley of the Sun, there is a campaign going on to create competitive political districts for our legislature and Members of Congress. They are having a soiree at the Clarendon Hotel at 3rd Avenue and Clarendon (just south of Indian School) on October 4. For more information, contact me. Why is this important? Well, have you checked out the partisan bickering in our Congress or Legislature recently? Most of these folks represent bullet-proof Republican or Democratic districts that were drawn to elect these people and nobody else. So it's time to redraw the lines and open up the public discussion. You may remember we tried doing this back in 2000. That effort was not as successful, because it created legal language to guide the drawing of the districts from which we elect our leaders that had many components: keeping together communities of interest (whatever that means), making districts compact, assuring adequate minority representation, etc. This new ballot initiative keeps most of those requirements, but makes politically competitive districts (i.e. ones that can elect either Republicans or Democrats) a more important factor.

The second event is in Tucson, and is the Children's Action Alliance Legislative Breakfast. It will look at this past legislative session, what was accomplished, and what was left on the table. It will also look ahead to the next session in January, and how the legislature will deal with a deficit that may be up to $1 billion dollars. For more information, contact Penelope Jacks at 520-795-4199 or by e-mail. Several southern Arizona legislators are expected to be in attendance.

The power of a leader's words

Sometimes we think politicians are all talk, all hot air. And while I am a firm believer in the old adage that actions speak louder than words, I know that words are important. Anybody who has ever had the bitter taste of putting their foot in their own mouth knows this.

Hopefully I'm not breaking too many copywrite laws by posting this excerpt from Lee Iacocca's book Where Have All the Leaders Gone:

"Words can inspire. They can lift us to heights we never dreamed possible. Words can also provoke fear and rage. They can pound people into the ground. A true leader always strives to inspire. That doesn't mean he can't express outrage. But he motivates people to act by appealing to the good in their hearts, not the evil in the hearts of others. He motivates people with possibilities, not with threats. President Dwight Eisenhower once said, 'You don't lead by hitting people over the head. That's assault, not leadership.' If you want to know how we got to the point of condoning torture, all you have to do is look at the trail of rhetoric from our leader: axis of evil, mushroom cloud, shock and awe, wanted dead or alive, ticking time bombs, enemies of freedom, the forces of darkness and tyranny, you're with us or against us, bring 'em on."

Then there are the words of Robert Kennedy:

Have they learned nothing from the mortgage meltdown?

From Citizens for Tax Justice:

A new short paper from Citizens for Tax Justice examines the debt accumulated under President Bush in light of the Senate Finance Committee's vote to raise the national debt ceiling again. President Bush has added $2.9 trillion to the national debt so far, despite inheriting a balanced budget when he took office in 2001. Since then, Congress has been forced to raise the statutory limit on the total amount the federal government is allowed to borrow four times - in 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2006.
Yesterday, the Senate Finance Committee approved legislation to raise the debt limit a fifth time, to an unprecedented $9.815 trillion, to prevent the federal government from defaulting on its debts and being unable to borrow any more. In contrast, when Bush took office, the debt limit was $5.950 trillion - $2.9 trillion less than the new amount.
For more analysis, read the paper at http://www.ctj.org/pdf/debt0907.pdf.

Finally, a religious left

Several months ago, or perhaps more like a year ago, my partner and I attended a Sunday service at Community Church of Hope in central Phoenix. You may have passed by it on 7th Avenue near Indian School. It is the one with all the rainbow flags. The pastor gave a sermon very different than what I am used to from Presbyterian pulpits, which usually don't talk a great deal about what is going on politically in America (except for the recently deceased Rev. D. James Kennedy from Florida, who was conservative Presbyterian on a mission to reclaim America for Jesus). The Pastor at Community Church of Hope had been a chaplain in the Arizona legislature when he came out of the closet as a gay man. He spoke of how little support he received from a legislature made up largely of the religious right and the secular left. The conservatives in the legislature were unwilling to support a chaplain who was gay, while the liberals didn't like the idea of having a chaplain at all. But as the Christian Science Monitor points out, there is a religious left rising, as evidenced in the way "faith and values" have made their way into the Democratic presidential primary lexicon.

Left and right agree: Bush has eroded our civil liberties too much

Okay, it is not fair to say this is purely left vs. right, just because most political debates in our country today are framed that way, any more than the Arab-Israeli conflict during the Cold War was a matter of communists vs. the west. But the Goldwater Institute, which is generally conservative leaning with a strong libertarian streak, is in agreement with the American Civil Liberties Union, generally perceived as being liberal, but again, really they are very libertarian. Both groups agree the Bush Administration has gone too far in restricting the civil rights and liberties of Americans in the past 6 years, through activities like spying on Quakers.

Bad politics for sure...but is it a good idea?

This isn't an issue I hear about from advocacy groups, politicos, or the mainstream media, so thanks to the wonder of having my own blog, I will bring the issue up. Consumer Reports magazine, published without advertising by the non-profit Consumers Union, recently did a test that showed what we've long known, that driving at higher speeds requires a lot more gasoline. Specifically, they tested a four cylinder Toyota Camry with automatic transmission and got 40 miles per gallon cruising at a steady 55 miles per hour (not bad for a midsize with automatic), but at a steady 65 mph, that fell to 35 mpg, and at 75 mph, mileage fell even further to 32 mpg (later reported as 30 mpg). Many decades ago, when we faced an energy crisis, the nation instated a coast-to-coast speed limit of 55 miles per hour to save fuel. Still earlier, during World War II, there was a national speed limit of 35 miles per hour to save fuel for the war effort. Today we are at war again and know so much more about fossil fuels' effects on the environment and climate. Moreover, higher speed limits can result in more highway fatalities, although in areas of rural Arizona, there is very little to hit no matter the speed. We hear talk about hybrids, and some of us talk about having mass transit and walkable neighborhoods, along with inter-city rail. But should we again consider lowering our speed limits (whether by 5 mph, 10 mph, 15 mph) to save fuel, lives, and the planet? Please feel free to vote, and to leave comments.

Senator Craig poll results

By a margin of 5-to-1 (ok, not just a margin, but literally 5-to-1), the voters on this blog said that Senator Craig should not resign, but serve the remaining year (and some change) in his term and let the voters decide on his behavior.

Republican Idaho Congressman slams leaders over handling of Craig

Republican Representative Mike Simpson of Idaho, who has been mentioned as a possible successor to Senator Larry Craig if Craig steps down as planned, slammed Senate Republican leaders for their handling of the Craig incident. Simpson noted the disparity in the way Craig was treated versus many other Republican Senators currently facing ethics problems.

From The Hill:
“I hope I never stub my toe and they throw me under the bus,” Simpson said of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and other Republican leaders. “It kind of makes you wonder what party you want to be a member of.”

“They have people over there [in the Senate Republican Conference] in far worse trouble that they haven’t said a thing about,” Simpson said. Read the full slamming article here.

Universal health care...in Arizona?

A group from Tucson called Healthy Arizona, which has been responsible for past successful ballot initiatives to expand health insurance in our state, is pushing for a universal health care initiative to be on the ballot in 2008. The language of the initiative is expected to be finalized this fall. Meanwhile, in the legislature, House Democratic Leader Phil Lopes (also of Tucson) is continuing to push his plan for universal health coverage. Additionally, Governor Janet Napolitano has begun convening health care stake holders, and plans to introduce some proposal related to health care when the legislature comes back into session next January. Details on what the Governor is planning, as usual, are closely guarded (or more accurately, they are probably still deciding where they want to go). It's a sure bet that Napolitano will aim for something politically safer, and probably more incremental in nature, than Lopes or Healthy Arizona.

The two Napolitanos: Governor of Arizona, and President of Italy

Tecate billboard outcry: are Latinos becoming too PC?

I thought this was a fun blog post I found, and it quotes my former boss, Congresswoman Lucille Roybal-Allard of California (and yes, she is Latina - born and raised in LA).

Election day is coming!

Tuesday, September 11, is election day in many cities in Arizona, including Phoenix. Oddly, city elections were September 11 in 2001. Let's hope for a more peaceful day this year. What better way to honor those whose lives were taken by terrorists than to express your voice through democracy?

In Phoenix, several propositions are on the ballot. Proposition 1 would raise the sales tax two-tenths of a percent (costing you two cents extra for every ten dollars you spend) to hire additional police and firefighters. Emergency response times are lagging in the city, and while none of us is eager to raise our already high sales tax (especially since sales taxes hit low-income folks the hardest), we would get our money's worth from Prop 1. Proposition 2 would give a 6% cost-of-living raise (last raise was two years ago) to the City Council and Mayor. Phoenix's hard working City Council gets paid $61,000 currently, or about two-and-a-half times what the Arizona legislature makes (in the early 1990's, the salaries were almost identical). I'm guessing almost none of those equally hard working new police officers and firefighters hired if Prop 1 passes will be making anywhere near this money. Meanwhile, the $88,000 the Mayor of Phoenix earns is just below what Governor Napolitano makes. With Proposition 3, the City is asking something more simple - permission to continue spending money they already have. Proposition 3 does not raise taxes or spend one additional dime of taxpayers' money. But if it fails, it would force the City to cut a third of its budget, which inevitably would affect public safety (like the aforementioned cops and firefighters). Propositions 4-6 are mostly housekeeping measures that have drawn little opposition.

Half of the City's 8 Council Districts have an election, and in three of them there is no incumbent, so we know there will be at least 3 new City Councilpersons after this election, the most newbies on City Council since the district system was created in the early-1980's. Check out the endorsements of the Arizona Republic, or for those of you interested in GLBT issues, look at the endorsements of Echo Magazine.

Senator Craig's resignation necessary?

I had been looking for a new poll question for my blog (feel free to e-mail me when you have ideas). I decided to do something about Senator Larry Craig. For those of you who still don't know, he is the Idaho Republican who entered a guilty plea to disorderly conduct, stemming from allegations he solicited sex in a men's bathroom at the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport.

Is it fair that Senator Craig was shunned by his colleagues for pleading guilty to a misdemeanor? If it was some other misdemeanor, or if he had been prowling around the women's bathroom, would it have caused his resignation? After all, Senator David Vitter (R-Louisiana), showed up in the contact lists of a Washington, DC, madame. Where are the calls for his resignation? Perhaps people in Idaho and people in Louisiana just have different expectations of their Senators' behavior. After all, in Louisiana, every elected official is innocent until they find a body. And just to show I am not merely anti-Republican, Senator Ted Kennedy did plead guilty to leaving the scene of a famous auto accident in 1969, a one-car accident in which he was driving and his passenger was killed, which he did not report for several hours. Senator Robert Byrd, the octogenarian from West Virginia, left the scene of an accident, citing an obscure Constitutional provision that prohibits detaining Members of Congress for minor infractions of the law when Congress is in session. And Congressman William Jefferson of Louisiana still holds his seat in spite of a bribery investigation that turned up gobs of cash hiding in his freezer.

As I'm sure you can guess, I believe it is better for people to figure out who it is that God made them to be, and if that is homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual, asexual, whatever, to accept it, move on, and act on it in an appropriate way. When people try to partition off that portion of their life, well, it ends up coming out in inappropriate ways such as Senator Craig's alleged behavior.

But despite all the calls among his fellow Republicans for his resignation, and the silence of many Democrats who are not eager to defend a Republican Senator with an anti-gay rights voting record, the question arises (no pun intended): was his resignation necessary? Today we finally have one Senator, Arlen Specter (occasional Republican from Pennsylvania), saying that if Craig is telling the truth, he should withdraw his guilty plea, and fight it in court. As usual, not many Republicans are listening to Senator Specter. Senator John Ensign, the head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, whose job it is to elect Republican Senators, said Craig's resignation was "best for himself, best for his family, and best for (the Senate)." Presidential candidate and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, a "values Republican," had the best quote: that Craig "did us all a big favor by leaving the stage and taking this issue away from further discussion." Yes, so Christian of the Rev. Huckabee (also an ordained pastor) to be thinking of his party's political fortunes rather than the suffering of one person accused, rightly or wrongly, of inappropriate behavior. Heaven forbid the Republicans be forced into a discussion of why they consistently vote against allowing gays and lesbians who want to be who God made them to be, and live a loving life dedicated to a partner to do so, yet they are more than willing to cover up allegations of same-sex sexual harassment by Congressman Mark Foley. Now for a really good display of hypocrisy (if the preceding was not enough), check out this site before they take it down, or watch Sen. Craig's endorsement of Mitt Romney.

Fun old clip...watch for a young Karl Rove

For a change of pace, here's a movie review...or four

I saw four movies this past weekend. That must be some sort of record for me. Two were old, while two were made in the past couple years. On Friday night, in a cabin in Payson with friends from college, we watched the original Sabrina, from 1954, starring Audrey Hepburn, Humphrey Bogart, and William Holden. On Sunday afternoon, at the Phoenix Art Museum, I saw 1937's Shall We Dance with Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers. While I like many classic films, I am not one who believes all old movies were great. But I thoroughly enjoyed both, and found myself laughing out loud throughout Shall We Dance. I was amazed by the flamboyant gay-ish characters in Shall We Dance, which made it even funnier after 70 years and many changes in the American lexicon when one of the characters said he would soon be returning to his regular "gay life." The sexual innuendo was as present in 1937 as it is in today's films, with the Astaire and Rogers' characters trying to downplay rumors of an affair between the two. What was different was the subtlety with which it was delivered - or implied. Perhaps more than decency, our society has lost its sense of subtlety. And yes, for those who were wondering, the Phoenix Art Museum frequently shows movies at 2 p.m. on Sundays. From the art deco ship in Shall We Dance, I presume that films are chosen for their artistic displays.

Among the newer films I watched this weekend, the first was Mike Judge's Idiocracy. While I am a fan of both Beavis and Butt-head and King of the Hill, I've always found Judge's style better suited for the small screen. In fact, this film was perhaps the stupidest film I have ever seen. The premise behind the film is that stupid people breed more than smart people, and that eventually the world will be nothing but ignoramuses (or is it ignorami?). After seeing two smart, funny, feel-good films from an earlier era, Judge's film proved its own point through its sheer stupidity.

The final film I watched this weekend was Dreamgirls, which is a thinly veiled fictional story based largely on the life of real Motown superstars. The music and cast were great, although the story line was a bit predictable. I bet this one was great on stage, though.

I tried to see a fifth film tonight, Jesus: The Lost Years. Unfortunately, it was a sold out special engagement, and tickets were only available through the marketing company that primarily sells tickets through churches. When I called the company sponsoring the special showing, I heard a recording telling me to hold for the next operator, after which I was soon hung up on. The irony of this experience, given some of my past experiences being shunned by "Christianity," is the topic for another blog. If anyone gets the chance to see this movie, please let me know how it is. The New Testament of the Christian Bible says little about Jesus's youth, especially these years in which he was in Egypt. And I am the type of Christian who believes that God speaks to us through more than just ancient scriptures deemed worthy of being in the Bible. In fact, like the United Church of Christ, I believe God Is Still Speaking. And there you have it: movies, God, and social commentary. What more could a blog post have?

Follow up on Sheriff Joe

For those of you who read the previous story on my blog, it ran on A1 of today's Arizona Republic, above the fold. I beat the state's largest newspaper by just half a day. Regardless of who broke the story, I'm glad it got some attention.

The employee whose e-mail I posted is Ramon Delgadillo, a translator for the county court system. And to answer the questions I posed in the blog, Sheriff Joe has said that nobody so far has been caught and/or deported for trying to visit a county jail (the screening did just start, but if nobody is caught, then why are we doing this? And more importantly, do immigrants really come to America, legally or illegally, so they can visit people in jail?). Moreover, as I expected, if you claim to be a natural born citizen, you do not have to show any proof of this claim to be admited to visit the jail. If you claim to be a naturalized citizen, however, you must document it with your ID number, when you became naturalized, etc. Who knows what permanent (legal) resident aliens have to show. My question is why not make everybody show proof that they are here legally to enter a jail? Otherwise, how is the law enforced without racial profiling, by people who likely can't tell an Apache from an Iraqi? I have met people who speak flawless American English who are in our country illegally. And I know people who were born and raised in this country, but for whom English is a second language. So how do we know when to take people's word for what box they check if we don't check everyone's birth certificate or naturalization papers? Wouldn't this program work much more effectively if we did, or is this program not as much about catching illegal immigrants as it is about catching headlines, Sheriff?

Sheriff Joe discriminating...against the county's own employees

As you may have heard, Sheriff Joe Arpaio is now requiring people to prove their citizenship or legal residency in order to visit our county jails. This is to keep illegal immigrants from visiting their family in jail, as if that is somehow going to reduce illegal immigration. He apparently sees it as another way of catching them. Good luck on that Sheriff. I want to hear the report of who gets caught and deported for visiting a jail. But in the mean time, here is an e-mail I received from a 25 year employee of the court (and U.S. citizen) who was prevented from entering a county jail to do his job because he was not carrying the proper identification. As a former civil rights investigator for the Arizona Attorney General's office, my question is whether the Sheriff is requiring the same documentation (a birth certificate) for those who check "naturalized citizen" on the form, or if they just take your word for it if you look and talk white...I mean right. If the documentation requirement is not the same between natural born and naturalized citizens, the Sheriff could be breaking the law, costing us taxpayers still more money with another lawsuit against our government that could have been prevented. And since I never have received press releases from SJ, and have no desire to, I won't be taking him to court as the West Valley View did to have access to press releases that are public records.

Here is the e-mail I received from a county court employee:

Yesterday, August 15, 2007, I went to the Lower Buckeye Jail with Alicia Dominguez, Public Defender. When we were checking in we were required to fill out a new form. This form has boxes to indicate your citizenship status, one box if you are a U.S. Citizen or National by birth in the United States, another if you are a Naturalized Citizen not born in the United States,” it also asks which court, city and state issued the certificate of Naturalization and requests the number of the Certificate, the date it was issued as well as your passport number and the date of issue. I marked the box for Naturalized Citizen. We turned them in at the window along with our county IDs. After a phone call to her supervisor, the person at the window informed me I had to include all the rest of the information. I said I did not have it with me, and was denied entrance to the facility to do my job.

I have worked for the Courts for over twenty five years; I have been to the jails thousands of times and I had presented my county I.D. There is no governmental requirement to carry the information that was requested. There is no requirement to apply for a passport as a citizen, naturalized or not. Furthermore, there was no provocation for discrimination. Whether our sheriff has the right to require that information from the general visiting public is for someone else to decide; but, through no fault of my own, I now find myself in a hostile work environment. I am being treated differently than my co-workers who are not naturalized even though we share our citizenship.

I came to this country as an immigrant over 34 years ago. I became a citizen, I have a family, I vote, and pay taxes only to be treated like a second class citizen. I am not one to write frivolous letters but I am outraged, and everyone who cherishes the rights of citizenship should be outraged.

I have withheld the name of the employee for privacy reasons. However, if you are a member of the media (mainstream or otherwise) wishing to contact this person for an article, please e-mail me and I will put you in touch with him.

Totally biased, but funny, video

Dick Cheney was right about Iraq in 1994

Watch Dick Cheney explain in 1994 why it was the right decision NOT to invade Baghdad after the 1991 Gulf War.

Where do the candidates for President stand on taxes?

Wondering where the presidential candidates stand on taxes and tax fairness? Check out this summary from the Citizens for Tax Justice.

Will Bush and Congress expand health insurance for children?

A decade ago, in the wake of the unsuccessful Clinton health care reform,, a Republican Congress did agree with President Clinton that we should at least provide health insurance to more children in low-income families. Thus was created SCHIP, the State Children's Health Insurance Program. In Arizona, this is administered by AHCCCS and called KidsCare. It allows children in families making up to about $41,000 a year for a family of four to get affordable health insurance. The monthly premiums are never more than $35, and may be less depending on income and the number of children.

On September 30, federal funding for this program ends. The U.S. House and Senate have passed separate bills to reauthorize this program, and President Bush has also called for the program to be reauthorized. So it's a done deal, right? Not exactly. Congressional Democrats want to expand the program to allow families making a little bit more money to buy into SCHIP and to make sure those already eligible know about it, while President Bush actually wants to kick off some of the families who are currently served before he'll let the program continue.

This is another one of those funny areas where Republicans say they don't want to cut a program, but merely reduce the amount of the increase in the program. President Bush, after all, wants $5 billion more over the next five years than the program currently spends. That's an increase, right? Well, not exactly, and no, this isn't Washington double speak. As you all know, health care costs are rising faster than just about everything else out there (except other life necessities like food and energy). Given the increases in health care costs, and the rising number of people who have to turn to public health insurance because their employers no longer cover them, the small increase in funding that President Bush offers does not even cover rising costs for those already on the program. I've seen this as well with child care funding to help low income people transition off of welfare and into work. We know that families with children coming off welfare are 82% more likely to still be employed after two years if they have help paying for their child care. Yet one of President Bush's proposals to "reduce the increase" in child care funding would mean that 300,000 fewer families would be served after five years...a miniscule increase in money, but a big drop in the number of people served. So is it part of an "ownership society," as the President claims, or a "you're-on-your-own-ship society?"

Who pays more taxes for the right to pollute the air: smokers or motorists?

From the "duh" files, news came this week that cigarette sales are down since Arizona voters hiked cigarette taxes 82 cents a pack last fall. Some question whether we have become too dependent on cigarette taxes. In other words, we've now taxed cigarettes so much, that too few people are smoking to generate the tax revenue we expected from them.

Do you think we'll ever get into this situation with gasoline taxes, the point of diminishing returns? Today's Arizona Republic mentioned that asphalt costs have shot up 75% in the past four years, and cement costs have risen 30%, causing some previously planned road projects to be cancelled or postponed. Meanwhile, our state's gasoline tax of 18 cents per gallon, which is used to fund highways, has not been raised, even to keep up with inflation, in 17 years. So why not raise the gasoline tax a nickel or dime a gallon? Do we think the same thing would happen that we're seeing with cigarette taxes...that people would stop driving if we raised gasoline taxes? If so, then we'd raise more money for new highways while reducing the number of drivers using them, and that would solve our congestion problems right quick. Right now, only 10 states have lower gasoline taxes than Arizona, and even if we raised gasoline taxes a dime a gallon to 28 cents, we'd still be well below Washington state's 34 cents per gallon. But alas, it will never happen, because then all those folks in Bylthe, CA, would stop crossing the river to Quartzite to fill their tanks, and Arizona will never give up its tax on Californians! Maybe if there are any smokers left in Arizona, we can ask them to build us more highways?