Tuesday, October 30, 2007

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.

Thursday, October 25, 2007

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.

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

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!

Friday, October 19, 2007

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

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

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.

Monday, October 15, 2007

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.

Friday, October 12, 2007

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.

Thursday, October 11, 2007

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.

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

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.

Sunday, October 7, 2007

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:

Saturday, October 6, 2007

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.

Monday, October 1, 2007

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.