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?