Symington endorsement of Munger: Mystery Solved

Last Thursday, former Arizona Governor Fife Symington announced that he was giving up on the possiblility of another run for the Ninth Floor, and he was endorsing John Munger, a Tucson businessman and former chair of the AZGOP, in the Republican primary.

Some speculated that Symington's decision not to seek the GOP's nomination next year may have been related to his long-time friendship with Munger, or perhaps to the results of a poll by Public Policy Polling that showed Symington down 23 percentage points to Democratic Attorney General Terry Goddard in a hypothetical matchup.

That speculation, while citing the standard and frequently accurate reasons for a move like Symington's, was wrong.


He may not have believed he was going to be here to run next year.


The key to the mystery of Symington's motives for withdrawing from the race doesn't go back to late September and the poll results, nor do does it go back the three decades or more of his friendship with Munger.

Nope, the key to Symington's withdrawal goes back only 12 years, to 1997.

It was mid-March. Symington was still governor, not yet having been convicted on federal bank fraud charges.

The weather was beautiful, the Cactus League was in full swing, and the nighttime views were spectactular.

...Ahhhh...Central Arizona in the spring...anyway, I digress. Back to the post... :)

Aside from the usual idyllic weather conditions, something unusual happened in March of 1997 to make it especially memorable in Phoenix history.

Lights.

A series of them.

In the sky.

All witnessed by our then-governor, Fife.

At the time, many fantastic stories and explanations abounded, most centered around visitors from alien planets and the like. Those were later debunked.

In spite of that debunking, 10 years later Symington still believed that the lights were actually part of an alien spacecraft.

All of which brings us back to the present, last week to be specific.

The lights, and Symington's possible mothership, returned to Phoenix last Wednesday. They called them "flares" but we *know* that was just a cover story, don't we?

Symington spent Thursday tying up loose ends, preparing for the coming rapture (though "alien visits" frequently seem to include medical exams and rectal probes, so I'm not sure that "rapture" is the right word here :) ), certain of his ascension to a plane higher than that of the 9th Floor.

So imagine his disappointment when he woke up Friday still stuck on the Terrestrial plane, and that even his own fellow Republicans were part of the cover story.

From a press release from the House Republican caucus -

Those mysterious lights in the Southwest Arizona sky are not UFOs. They are flares being dropped in the night sky from attack aircraft onto targets below as part of a training exercise by the U.S. Air Force, which is scheduled to take place tonight at 8:00 p.m.

“We do not want the flare activity to frighten and alarm citizens,” Rep. Jerry Weiers (R-West Phoenix) said.

The next meeting of Symington and Weiers could be so frosty that Sylvia Allen will cite it when claiming that global warming is a hoax... :)

Health insurance industry lobby group rides to the rescue

Democratic Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, chair of the U.S. Senate's Finance Committee, is the "author" of one of the health care reform proposals making their way through Congress. Because his proposal is by far the most industry friendly (OK, it's an industry wish list, including not having any kind of effective public option), he has come under withering criticism from from progressives and moderates across the country for his failure to place the interests of his constituents and other average Americans before those of some of his largest campaign contributors.

Today, the health insurance lobbying group America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) rode to Baucus' aid with the release of a report that sharply criticizes his plan for not adequately protecting the bottom lines of insurers.

From USA Today -

The health insurance industry is warning that a comprehensive Senate bill would increase the cost of a typical policy by hundreds, or even thousands, of dollars a year after lawmakers eased up on the requirement that all Americans get coverage.

The stinging attack came on the eve of a pivotal Senate vote and was a clear message to President Obama and congressional Democratic leaders who have been making headway on overhauling the nation's health care system. The industry fears that a weakening of the penalties for failing to get insurance would let Americans postpone getting coverage until they get sick.

How is today's release "aid" for Baucus?

It's simple political cover, an attempt to make it look like Baucus isn't in the pocket of the health insurance industry.

And that is the "best-case" scenario. This could also be a shameless ploy to ward off some of the reform proposals with stronger benefits to the public, a "shot across the bow" of reformers, warning them about what to expect if any of their ideas look like they will gain any legislative momentum.

There are those in D.C. who haven't sold their souls to the lobbyists and can't be kept toeing the industry's "party line" via the usual campaign contributions.

Those folks will spend weeks, if not months, digging through the mountains of the best BS that industry payola can buy.

The industry "report" is here, courtesy of Politico.com.

The White House's response, courtesy TalkingPointsMemo.com, is here.

The Congressional Budget Office's analysis of the Baucus bill is here.

Later...

Fixng what's wrong with AZ government

...Just some idle musings that were a better way to spend my evening than crying about the Red Sox losing and the Yankees winning their respective playoff series. :)

Holy cow! The AZ Republic published something about politics that doesn't look to be a press release or something cribbed from other sources (EV Trib, AZ Cap Times, AZ Guardian). The next thing you know, the desk jockeys from Gannett's HQ in Virginia might let some of their newspaper employees get back to actual journalism.

OK, probably not, but one can hope. :)

Anyway, on Sunday the Republic published a piece about Arizona's broken government and invited a number of political and community luminaries to weigh in on what ails AZ's political structure and how to fix it.

The story has its roots in Sandra Day O'Connor's "O'Connor House Project."

The end result of a list of issues with Arizona government and possible solutions is here.

During the discussions among the luminaries, a number of questions were asked to help formulate the above list of issues and possible solutions. That list is here.

In the interests of starting a discussion that extends to the folks who make the actual decisions on any remedies/changes, here are the questions and my responses. Just some stuff to think about and hopefully talk about -

- Should we elect a lieutenant governor on the same ticket as the governor?

Hmmm...as a partisan, I'd say yes. However, as a voter, I'm not so sure. I grew up in a state (MA) with a Lt. Governor, and as with most such positions, it was a largely ceremonial position. It's usually an unnecessary one, unless the governor of a given state patronizes hookers, gets caught trying to sell a Senate seat, or(just maybe in the near future the Lt. Gov. will be needed in this example), thinks that "hiking the Appalachian trail" is an acceptable euphemism for "goin' on a booty run to Argentina."

The problem in Arizona, with Janet Napolitano's promotion to DC and Jan Brewer's ascension to the 9th floor, was that the person who was next in the line of succession just wasn't ready for the job.

A dedicated Lt. Governor's position could minimize the possibility of that happening in the future, but so could simply electing competent people to the down-ballot offices.

And given that three out of our last five governors entered the office via succession, not election, maybe a plank of "ready for the top job" should be part of every SOS candidate's campaign platform.


- Are there statewide offices the governor should appoint and the Senate confirm?
Yup. While most states' Attorneys General and Secretarys of State are elected, treasurers and education chiefs are mostly appointed Cabinet-level positions.

And why are we even considering electing a state mine inspector? That's not even a cabinet level post, it's a staff job. Actually, since it is safety-related, the holders of the job should be knowledgeable professionals, not career political hacks looking for a safe sinecure until they start collecting a pension.


- Are there legislative reforms that will lead to a Legislature more representative of the public?

"Legislative" reforms? Maybe, but the issue is more cultural. The real problem, if you want to characterize it as that (and I do), is that because of the number of "safe" districts (dominated by one of the major parties) the lege is representative of primary voters, who tend to represent the more ideological wings of their respective parties.

Find a way to mitigate voter apathy and ignorance between elections. Get people to pay attention to what goes on in the lege and the Executive Tower in odd-numbered years as much as they do in the even-numbered ones.


- Do former reforms such as term limits, clean elections and redistricting work for Arizona?

Redistricting isn't a reform, it's a regular mandate. How we redistrict can be the problem, and I don't know enough about the ins and outs of that process to comment here.

As for term limits and clean elections, I'd say yes. They weren't implemented to keep extreme ideologues out of office; they were implemented to open up public office to more citizens. They've worked.

The problem is the side effects, and it's tied into the safe districts mentioned above, is that too many voters are disinterested in government until they are holding a general election ballot in their hands, and most of *them* vote by partisan affiliation. Which leads to the hardcore ideologues who were the darlings of their party's extreme base having an easy path through the general election.

Still, ending CE and letting in corporate money, permanently elected politicos, and the entrenched corruption that characterized AZ politics for decades may be too high a price to pay for weeding out a few wingnuts.

Better to fight voter apathy.


- Are there reforms that can increase voter turnout?

Vote-by-mail and early voting are already doing wonders for shoring up turnout (other than in stand-alone special and some municipal elections), but they do little to counteract voter apathy and lack of education on the offices/questions that they are voting on.


- Does a longer-term focus occur if senators are elected for four-year terms?

Perhaps, but an even better move might be to fashion the structure of the Arizona State Senate after the structure of the U.S. Senate. The U.S. Congress was laid out as a bicameral legislature to ensure both that House members each represent (roughly) the same number of residents, leading to large population states having a proportionately large influence in the House, and that each state has an equal number of Senators, leading to small states having as much influence in the Senate as large states.

In that spirit, how about changing the makeup of the AZ State Senate? There are 30 members now.

We could elect one member from each of the state's 15 counties to fill half the membership. The other 15 could be elected from "senatorial" districts (think: a combination of two of the current LDs).

If we go to four-year terms for senators, that would set up an election pattern of where 15 senators were up for election every cycle, with a natural division of county senators on the ballot for one election and SD senators on the ballot two years later.

All of this would help ensure that Arizona's rural areas are adequately represented while adding a layer of stability to the institutional culture of the Senate.


- Should there be more time between the primary and general elections?

Umm - YES!!

There's roughly 4 to 5 weeks between the primary and the mailing of early ballots for the general election. That means that campaigns have change from "primary" mode to "general election" mode and be fully up to speed by then, and that is difficult, if not downright impossible, for challengers and minority party candidates in a given district.

A longer campaign season between the primary and the general election would increase the ability of those candidates with an uphill battle to get out their messages and maybe turn a few of those voters who reflexively vote their party line.


- Are there changes that can limit fraud on initiative petitions?

Not sure. I am not too familiar with the nuances of initiative petitions, so I'll have to think on this a while. If anybody has insights on this, please feel free to share them in a comment.


- Should the way the names of propositions are set be changed to avoid misleading voters?

Yes, but not sure how.


- Are there changes needed to the process for initiatives to get on the ballot?

Well, we can start by limiting the number of questions placed on the ballot by the lege. Also, given the number of competing/contradictory questions that have been placed on the ballot in recent years, a ballot structure where the SOS (or appropriate elections oversight agency) could join the questions in a structure of "vote for one of the following - Yes on proposal A, Yes on Proposal B, or None Of The Above."


Now, from the summary of problems and possible solutions linked above, some of those "solutions" and my take -

1. Kill Clean Elections.

No. The problem isn't that too many "bad" people are running for office - there have always been fringe candidates, and there always will be. The problem is that too many voters still don't pay attention to candidates and qualifications for governing until they are casting their ballots. And too often, not even then.

2. Create competitive districts.

Well, yeah, but we all need to remember that because of demographic and population shifts, this cycle's safe district is the next cycle's hot spot, and vice versa. The redistricting commission should do the best, fairest possible job they can, and be prepared, within two years, for complaints about how lousy and unfair a job they did.

3. Eliminate term limits.

I don't think so. They might need to be tweaked a little, but since they aren't hard limits (other than for executive-level offices, officeholders are only enjoined to take a term off from a particular office, not permanently barred from ever holding that office again), so completely setting term limits aside isn't appropriate.

We'd be better off raising legislative compensation. At $24K/year, most legislators are A) independently wealthy, B) retired, or C) hoping their dedication to public service doesn't lead them to bankruptcy court.

4. Sunset initiatives.

No. Some tweaking might help here, though. Most initiatives that spend money are tied to dedicated sources of revenue. Tie their sunset to the lifespans of those sources (actually, I think they already are, to a point anyway). Otherwise, leave them alone. The voters enacted them, the voters can change or end them.

And if we do enact a general sunset provision for all voter-mandated initiatives, it really should apply to all of them, not just the fiscally-related ones. In 2006, a number of ugly anti-immigrant questions were put on the ballot by the bedsheets and burning crosses crowd, and if measures to create a vibrant public health and educational infrastructure are are subject to sunsetting, those others should also be subject to sunsetting.

5. Keep unrelated policy out of the budget.

Actually, this is already kind of the way that it is - already the general appropriations bill can only address actual appropriations. Any policy changes can be found in "budget reconciliation bills", or BRBs, where changes to law that are necessary to make a budget work are supposed to go.

The problem is in sessions like this past one where things got so petty and spiteful that BRBs were used to enact policy changes (like certain ones attacking teachers' unions) that really had NOTHING to do with the state's budget.

Perhaps setting up a mechanism where citizens could turn to the courts to challenge particular provisions based on germaneness to the budget would work here.


Any comments/ideas?

Edit on 10/12 to add: Greg at Espresso Pundit, also a participant in the discussions that generated the above questions/problems/solutions, has a post on this same topic here.

Apologies for the long post, but with the Red Sox' season over, I had the time. :))

Later...

PSA time - H1N1 virus

First up, a note from Congressman Harry Mitchell's office.

From an email -

As a father and a grandfather, I know how important it is to keep your family healthy. As we head into flu season, I want to make sure that you have the information you need to help avoid catching or spreading airborne infections.

We can all take action now to protect ourselves and our families throughout the fall and into the winter. As a result, I've updated the H1N1 Flu Information Hub on my website to help you get the correct and most current information regarding the H1N1 virus, also known as the swine flu. It includes important resources regarding influenza viruses and key tips for prevention and keeping your family healthy. It also includes links to agencies like the Arizona Department of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the World Health Organization and other agencies that manage different aspects of H1N1.

In addition, should you or a family member become infected, my H1N1 Flu Information Hub has key information regarding the steps you should take. One of the best ways to avoid the flu is to take everyday steps to stay healthy, as prevention is the first line of defense. Here are 5 simple steps CDC recommends during this year’s flu season:

•Cover your nose and mouth with a tissue when you cough or sneeze.

•Wash your hands often with soap and water, especially after you cough or sneeze. Alcohol-based hands cleaners are also effective.

•Avoid touching your eyes, nose or mouth.

•Stay home if you get sick to limit contact with others to keep from infecting them.

•Eat well, be active, get plenty of rest.

I encourage you to visit my H1N1 Flu Information Hub and I will continue to update so you and your family can stay informed throughout this year’s flu season.

Sincerely,

Harry

In addition to available online resources, many of which are linked to at Congressman Mitchell's website, the City of Scottsdale and the Scottsdale Fire Department are holding a number of public presentations on preparing for flu season.

From the press release -

Free community presentations are being hosted by the Scottsdale Fire Department this month to help residents and businesses prepare for the H1N1 flu. Discussion topics include steps to take to stay healthy, signs and symptoms of the flu, when to seek emergency medical care, tips for creating an emergency plan and how you can stay up-to-date on the latest information. Free 90-minute community presentations are scheduled for:

•Noon to 1:30 p.m., Saturday, Oct. 10, at Rio Montana Park; 11180 N. 132nd St.
•12:30 to 2 p.m. Oct. 17 at Granite Reef Senior Center; 1700 N. Granite Reef Road
•9:30 to 11 a.m. Oct. 24 at the Witzeman Public Safety Building; 8401 E. Indian School Road
•Noon to 1:30 p.m. Oct. 24 at Rio Montana Park; 11180 N. 132nd St.
•7 to 8:30 p.m. Oct. 27 at Eldorado Park Community Center; 2311 N. Miller Road
•2:30 to 4 p.m. Nov. 4 at La Mirada Desert Park; 8950 E. Pinnacle Peak Road
•6 to 7:30 p.m. Nov. 10 at Rio Montana Park; 11180 N. 132nd St.
•9 to 10:30 a.m., Nov. 14 at the Witzeman Public Safety Building; 8401 E. Indian School Road

Advance registration is strongly encouraged, but walk-ins are also welcome. To sign up, visit http://www.scottsdaleaz.gov/fire/H1N1.

For more information or to schedule a group presentation, contact Patty Jo Angelini at (480) 312-1815 or email pangelini@ScottsdaleAZ.gov.

Later...

The coming week...

As usual, all info gathered from the websites of the relevent political bodies/agencies (except where noted) and subject to change without notice.

This week is relatively light on the political activity, perhaps because of Monday's quasi-holiday, Columbus Day. It's a "quasi" holiday because almost everyone outside of the government still has to work.

...As with last week, floor action in the U.S. House of Representatives will be dominated by budget issues.

Among the topics on the agenda for the week:

- H.R. 2442, Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Expansion Act of 2009. CRS summary here. Note: this one was on last week's agenda too.

- Conference report on H.R. 2892, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010

- Possible consideration of the conference report on H.R. 2996, Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010.

Most of the bills scheduled to be heard under suspension of the rules (2/3 majority required for passage) look to be pretty non-controversial, post office namings and the like.


...Over in the U.S. Senate, the floor action will similarly be dominated by budget matters. Specifically, they will be considering H.R. 2847, Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010.

The country's attention will be focused on this week's committee schedule, especially Tuesday's Finance Committee vote on the health insurance industry's Max Baucus' idea of health care reform (LA Times report here).


...Back here in Arizona, the budget is still out of balance and the legislature and Governor still can't be bothered to address it. As with last week however, there is some intersession make-work and posturing taking place at the lege.

- On Tuesday, the Senate Government Institutions and House Appropriations Committee of Reference will conduct a sunset hearing on the Joint Legislative Budget Committee at 1:30 p.m. in HHR1.

- On Wednesday, Speaker Kirk Adams' Ad Hoc Committee on Private School Tuition Tax Credit Review will meet at 1 p.m. in HHR3. Expect hours of testimonials about the benefits of the tax credit. And that will just be from State Rep. Steve Yarbrough.


...The Arizona Corporation Commission doesn't have any Commission meetings scheduled for this week, but its hearing schedule is here.


...The Arizona Board of Regents is holding an executive session on Monday at 1:30 p.m. to discuss "transition of the Executive Director."


...the Board of Directors of the Central Arizona Project will hold "Customer Workshop" on Thursday to discuss the 2010/2011 budget.


...The Tempe City Council isn't scheduled to meet in formal session this week, but the Council's calendar of events for the week is here.

Edit on 10/12: Because I originally linked to the agenda for 10/20, not this week's meeting on 10/13. I've corrected the writeup without noting the changes because everything changed.

...The Scottsdale City Council will meet Tuesday night in a regular meeting. The highlight of the evening's agenda is a proposal to refer an increase in the city's bed tax to the ballot during a special election in March. There will also be a number of residents appointed to many of Scottsdale's boards, commissions, and task forces.

Scottsdale's community meeting schedule is here.


...Not scheduled to meet this week: Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, Governing Board of the Maricopa County Community College District, Board of Directors of the Maricopa Integrated Health System, Citizens Clean Elections Commission. But don't be shocked if the Board of Supes finds a reason to call an emergency executive session.

...And in the first event of the 2010 campaign season, on Thursday, the Maricopa County GOP will be holding the first candidate forum in the race for its nomination for State Superintendent of Public Instruction.

Of course, they're calling it an "education forum" but when two of the panelists have already formed committees for the race (John Huppenthal and Margaret Dugan) and a third is rumored to be strongly interested in running (Rich Crandall), it's going to be all about next year's race for the Rep nomination.

Later...

John Shadegg, the CBO, and selective credibility

Note: for those readers unfamiliar with the abbreviation "CBO," it stands for Congressional Budget Office. The CBO provides non-partisan analyses to help Congress make decisions in budget and economic issues.

Congressman John Shadegg (R-AZ3) seems to have a creative definition of what constitutes a credible source of information.

When that source says something that he can use to support his ideological/industry lobbyist-funded positions, that source is credible.

When the same source says something the undermines his preferred position, he doesn't consider re-evaluating his position, he just attacks the source.

To whit, the CBO and the fiscal impact of health care reform.

From Shadegg in July, when he found the CBO to be credible -

Now, with only a single week to go before the August break, the CBO is estimating that despite the cost-cutting rhetoric, the House Democrats’ health care proposal will increase America’s deficit by $239 billion over the next ten years.

From Shadegg in October (warning: the link is to RedState.com; prolonged exposure could result in brain damage :) ), where the CBO's analysis doesn't support his position any longer -

CBO Stands for Cooked Books Office

With this sort of sloppiness coming forth from Shadegg, indicating that he is getting tired (somewhat reminiscent of JD Hayworth circa 2006, and we know how that turned out for Hayworth), it's time for him to consider sticking with it the next time he announces his retirement.

There are a number of Republicans - State Sens. Jim Waring and Pam Gorman, former Shadegg chief of staff Sean Noble, and others - rumored to be eyeing the seat, all waiting for the seat to open up (somebody who was going to run last year when Shadegg "retired," Steve May, probably won't be running in CD3 next time around. It looks like he may be running for a JP slot in the East Valley instead).

There are also a number of Democrats waiting for Shadegg to make his decision, any of whom could make it an interesting race (some even if Shadegg tries for one more term). Bob Lord probably has another run in him, and with the lessons he learned in last year's run against Shadegg, last year's "formidable challenge" could turn into "next year's victory."

So either way (Shadegg in, Shadegg out) CD3 is going to be interesting.

If Shadegg stays in the race, expect more from him like this (which means lots of blogging material).

If he retires, that means that there will be a scrum in north Phoenix next year, which also means lots of blogging material.

Stay tuned.

Another one for Democratic Diva's "Conservative Misogyny" category

...this one's for you, Donna...

From the Sun-Sentinel (FL) -

Armed with handguns and AK-47 and AR-15 assault rifles, the members of the Southeast Broward Republican Club abandoned the usual community center for their club meeting this week, and gathered at a gun range where they fired bullets instead of political bombshells.

{snip}

One of the shooters at the Tuesday evening event was Robert Lowry, a Republican candidate hoping to unseat U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Weston. Lowry's target had the letters "DWS" next to the silhouette head.

Lowry said he didn't know who wrote Wasserman Schultz' initials on his target, but said he knew they were there before he started shooting. He initially described it as a "joke," but after answering several questions he said it "was a mistake" to use a target labeled "DWS."

Ummm..yeah.

To all GOPers reading this:

I'm pretty tone deaf on a lot of this stuff (unless it's blatant, I tend to miss the misogyny. What can I say? I'm a guy. :) ), but even I can see the pattern in things like Jon Kyl's anti-maternity care tirade, the NRCC's call to put Nancy Pelosi, the first woman serving as speaker of the U.S. House "in her place", and this troubling incident (shooting a woman in effigy for having the audacity to oppose a male candidate).

Given that more than half the population of the United States is female, you are isolating your party from mainstream America.

Keep up the good work.

President Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize

First let me say this: Congratulations Mr. President, and "thank you" to the Nobel committee for recognizing and honoring our President.

Now let me say this: "Premature" doesn't even begin to describe this.

His efforts at moving U.S. foreign policy back toward real diplomacy and away from the Bushies' policy of "Kill 'em all and let God sort out the bodies...after we've stolen all of their stuff" is laudable and something that I'm proud of as an American, even before today's announcement.

However, we are a little more than nine months into the Obama administration. It's *way* too soon to evaluate the success of those efforts.


Having said all that, it's been great fun to watch the right wing seize up with fits of outraged angst [can't use that phrase - Tedski used one that is similar, and truth be told one that is also better, in his post on this topic...how about...?] become overtaken by paroxysms of apoplexy [yep, that one'll do :) ] over this.

That's not a very "peaceable" or "diplomatic" attitude on my part, but then I'm not up for any awards either. :))

Later...

Horne promises access to those who give him large campaign contributions

There's a not-so-fine line between blunt honesty and utter brazenness, and Tom Horne has stepped *way* over that line.

From AZCentral.com -

State schools Superintendent Tom Horne says he has not decided whether he will run for attorney general next year, but he has promised his biggest campaign
contributors that, if elected, he will meet with them at quarterly lunches during his term.

{snip}

In e-mails and printed mailers obtained by The Arizona Republic, Horne tells prospective donors that he has formed an exploratory committee to consider running for attorney general in 2010. In the material, he points out that the maximum amount an individual can donate is $840, or $1,680 per couple.

"If I am elected as attorney general, I pledge to have quarterly lunches with members of the '840 Club' throughout my administrations," the material says.

Horne denied that he was offering special access to maximum contributors, conflating his pledge of regular access to an event held by Janet Napolitano after her first election as Governor and campaign fundraising dinners held by candidates nationwide.

Apparently, he's hoping that no one notices that those examples are of one-time-only events, while he is promising repeated and regulary scheduled access to him for his largest contributors.

The best part of the pledge, for Horne and his bribers "contributors" anyway, is that if he wins, it's not like they will have to worry about a corruption investigation from the AG's office.

Tom Horne - he's spent eight years running Arizona's schools into the ground, and now he wants us to give him a chance to do the same to the Attorney General's office.

The sad part is that he has a real chance at the GOP nomination for the job - his only (presumed) opponent in the Republican primary is Andrew Thomas, the man best known as a puppet for Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio (witness the prosecution of journalists who have criticized Arpaio and the hiring of expensive out-of-state lawyers to act as special prosecutors to push Arpaio's jihad against the county supes, something that no credible AZ prosecutor will touch).

Welcome to politics in Arizona folks.

Apparently, the GOP isn't as business-friendly as it wants people to think

At least, it's not friendly to small businesses...

From AZCentral.com -

Arizona health regulators have proposed dramatic increases in licensing fees for more than 2,000 child care facilities to help make up for state funding cuts.

The annual three-year licensing fees are now a flat $150, but the Department of Health Services' planned rule change would set rates for new and renewed licenses ranging from $581 to $13,442, depending on the number of children.

"The amounts are too much, too soon, at the worst possible time," said Bruce Liggett, the executive director of the Arizona Child Care Association. "We as private businesses are reeling."

The complete list of fees is on page 7 of this .pdf.

While most child care facilities won't have to worry about the $13,442 fee (that's for facilities with more than 150 children), they're still looking at license fee hikes of 400% to 4900%.

The vast majority of these "facilities" are small businesses employing just a few people and helping to care for the children of folks who have limited choices. Most of those businesses will have to pass on the increased cost to their customers.

And if the cost of their childcare provider goes up too much, it could force many of the parents, particularly single working mothers, to find that working just isn't economically feasible.

I'm sure that within a day or so, one of the "leading intellectual lights" of the AZGOP (you know, Russell Pearce, Jack Harper, or one of their ilk) will find the nearest microphone and pontificate on the "need for shared sacrifice in these trying fiscal times" or somesuch BS.

I'm just as sure that if AZ Game and Fish tries to promulgate similar fee hikes for hunting and fishing licenses, the same "leading intellectual lights" will scream for heads to roll at AZGFD.

After all, the GOP probably figures that gun nuts "outdoor firearms enthusiasts" are more likely to vote for (and give money to) Republicans than childcare providers (who tend to be rather too poor and, well, too *nice* to support Republicans.

Later...

Short Attention Span Musing

Edit later on 10/7 with a correction to a factual error...

Just a few questions that I've been wondering about...


...Wouldn't it be ironic if AZ Senator Jon Kyl's anti-maternity care diatribe during a Senate hearing on health care reform is what pushes Maine Republican Senator Olympia Snowe off the fence and onto the side of health care reform?

- In a related note, at 1 p.m, State Rep. Kyrsten Sinema and a group of Arizona mothers and medical personnel will rally at Kyl's office (2200 E. Camelback in Phoenix) to protest Kyl's contempt for them and all expectant mothers (OK, so that's a bit of an overstatement, but he served this one up like a BP fastball to Albert Pujols).


...What's going on in the Scottsdale City Hall? There is, as usual, a 4 - 3 divide on the Council regarding most significant issue (Mayor Lane and Council members Borowsky, Littlefield, and Nelssen on one side and Council members Ecton, Klapp, and McCullagh on the other).

That divide is actually pretty much par for the course with the Scottsdale City Council. What is interesting is the way that it has manifested itself.

For instance, I've noticed something while attending the meetings of the Charter Review Task Force - the "three," Ecton, Klapp, and McCullagh have been at each one, observing intently and taking notes. After talking with other City Hall-watchers, I found out that they've also been regulars at the meetings of the Budget Review Commission.

Considering that the work being performed by the folks on the Task Force and the Commission is vital to both the short-term and long-term interests of Scottsdale, the fact that Council members are paying close attention is laudable.

So why aren't the "four" - Lane, Borowsky, Littlefield, and Nelssen - there too?

Disclaimer: I *did* see Borowsky at one meeting of the Charter Review Task Force, but she entered the Kiva (City Hall meeting area) from the back of the building, watched the proceedings for a moment, and left. She was just passing through, not watching and learning.

Are the "three" more dedicated to their jobs? Or are they just not receiving the same breadth and depth of info from Council staff , which is overseen by Tim Lasota, Lane's chief of staff ?

Edit to add a correction: I contacted Pat Dodds, Scottsdale's Public Affairs Officer, for info about the structure of the Mayor and Council's staff.

It turns out that Council staff members do not directly report to Tim Lasota. It used to be that the staffers for the Mayor and Council reported to the City Manager's staff reported to the City Manager. That was changed earlier this year so that they now report to the City Clerk. While it seems likely that the Mayor's own staffers (an admin and an assistant) are directed by Lasota in practical terms, they and the Council staff do not report to him officially.

Of course, the change in the org chart reporting lines (from City Manager to City Clerk) only serve to highlight the dysfunctionality that currently permeates Scottsdale's City Hall. (see the "jihad" comment below)

Thanks to Mr. Dodd for his quick response with the correct information.

Also. apologies to Mr. Lasota if he was offended by the comment that he was in charge of Council staff. I don't expect that he was offended, but since the factual error was mine, an apology is merited.

End edit...

Disclaimer2: I have never voted for any of the "three", but am beginning to wonder if maybe I should have.


...I am beginning to wonder if the current budget stalemate/meltdown at the Capitol, with all of the very public internecine Republican angst associated with it, was all part of a larger plan to force a smaller, anti-Arizonan, pro-corporation model of government onto Arizona, without bothering with a change to AZ's Constitution?

Let's see some of the signs that have recently been in the news -

The Governor and the Legislature crippling the Arizona Corporation Commission, the fourth branch of government in created in the Arizona Constitution (Article 15), with more cuts to the rest of the government coming due to their continued inaction regarding the budget crisis;

The Governing Board of the Maricopa County Community College District micromanaging the District toward mediocrity (and proudly saying that is their job);

The jihad that the Republican mayor and council in Scottsdale is conducting against professional staff.

This all may not be part of a specific plan for a quiet de facto coup d'etat, but it highlights what happens when a major political party allows a petty and extreme political ideology to triumph over professionalism and a committment to the community.

Stay tuned...

Sal DiCiccio - not letting facts get in the way of campaign posturing

From AZCentral.com -

Phoenix City Councilman Sal DiCiccio and members of an Ahwatukee Foothills residents' committee say they have studied state and county plans to link Chandler and west Phoenix with a 22-mile freeway and come to a conclusion:

Put the South Mountain Freeway on the Gila River Indian Community.

{snip}

DiCiccio said Monday that neither ADOT nor MAG has formally asked Gila River officials if they would consider a freeway deal.

"I'm telling you, when the public finds out about what has not happened, people are going to be outraged," DiCiccio said.

{snip}

Alia Maisonet, a Gila River Indian Community spokeswoman, confirmed that neither state nor county officials have presented a formal proposal to put Loop 202 on tribal land. But she said the tribal council has twice considered the matter internally and twice voted against it, although she noted that the council could change its mind.

"Things can change," she said.

But ADOT spokesman Timothy Tait said he was baffled by DiCiccio's implication that Gila River officials have been left out of freeway negotiations.

"They (Gila River officials) attend MAG meetings and have been part of the process all along," he said. "We have not approached them because they have passed resolutions against the freeway."

So basically, DiCiccio is trying to pander to Ahwatukee voters by telling them that the freeway that they've known was scheduled for Pecos Road for almost a quarter century can be redirected onto a reservation (the residents of which, shockingly enough, aren't his constituents) at no cost to them.

Leaving out the fact that the reservation government has repeatedly said "NO!" or that it would cost Arizona taxpayers billions of dollars to do so anyway. And that they themselves are Arizona taxpayers.

It's one thing to engage in a little pandering during a campaign (hey, it *is* a campaign after all), but this move is so cravenly transparent as to speak of a deep level of contempt for the intelligence of the residents of District 6 (and an all-encompassing contempt for the residents of the Gila River Indian Community).

It also doesn't speak well for Mr. DiCiccio's own intelligence and political acumen - if he really wants to "protect" the well-heeled residents of Ahwatukee from the that big meanie ADOT, he'd run for his LD's Republican nomination for a legislative seat.

Only he's not running for lege - he's running for City Council against Dana Kennedy. Who is focused on City of Phoenix and District 6 issues, not legislative ones.

Not the exactly the epitome of breaking news

From the Phoenix Business Journal -

Conservative radio commentator and former Scottsdale congressman J.D. Hayworth is consider a run against U.S. Sen. John McCain in next year’s Republican primary.

There has been speculation/expectations regarding this for months, both here and elsewhere. The Business Journal is something of a johnny-come-lately here.

I truly don't believe that Hayworth would have a serious shot against McCain, but I'm not a Republican insider (so that's not exactly the epitome of breaking news, either :) ). As such, I can't offer any definitive insights into the minds of Republican primary voters. Based on what I've seen though, the only way that McCain loses the primary next year is if he isn't *in* the primary.

However, there has been a quiet rumor, and I don't have details, that a Democrat with a higher profile than Stuart Starky is considering a run for U.S. Senate next year. That seems to indicate that some folks with better sources inside the GOP (or at least within the McCain camp) believe that McCain may end up retiring, creating a race for an open and poachable seat.

If the Reps nominate somebody like Hayworth, somebody who appeals only to their shrinking base, not the growing number of independents in AZ, it will give a major boost to the Democratic nominee, whoever he or she may be.

Hell, Starky may have been steamrolled by McCain in 2004, but even he'd have a fighting chance against somebody like Hayworth.

Later...

John Shadegg - low profile even among his fellow Kool-Aid drinkers

This one is pretty minor, but still to funny to pass up....

From NaplesNews.com -

What do you say we move the capital out of Washington and transport it to Omaha or somewhere in the center of the nation where people still exhibit common sense and a deep-seated patriotism! Certainly this idea has crossed my mind more than once. If only we could completely shut down the bloated, intrusive, metastasized, arrogant federal government and reopen it somewhere in the Midwest under new management and dramatically scaled down. What a vision that would be!

After reading that opening paragraph, most sstute readers will realize that the author of the piece, one Edward Wimberly, is as anti-government and anti-public services as even the most extreme winger in the Arizona Legislature (Ron Gould, perhaps?)

In other words, one of Congressman Shadegg's fellow travelers, just without the title "Congressman.".

Yet a later paragraph shows that Mr. Wimberley doesn't really have much of a clue about Arizona's native son (who seems to spend more time canoodling with out-of-state lobbying groups like the Heritage Foundation and the Club for Growth than he does working for his constituents). (emphasis mine)

This steady drain on the people’s rights has not gone unnoticed. For instance, a little known Congressman from Arizona by the name of James Shadegg has been introducing a bill entitled “The Enumerated Powers Act” every year since 1995 which would require the sponsors of every piece of legislation to specify just where in the Constitution the particular bill derives its authority.

Maybe it really *is* time for Shadegg to retire. Between his lack of regard for the people who hired/voted for him, and the obvious lack of regard that his ideological peers have for him, it's likely that no one will miss him when he's gone.

Sunset provisions and the lege - Intersession silly season

During yesterday's post regarding political events scheduled for the coming week, I mentioned a couple of hearings that will be taking place at the lege this week.

There will be "committees of reference" holding sunset review hearings on various state agencies. (Agendas here and here)

This was something of a strange (but not totally unheard-of) concept to me, so a little further research was called for.

Turns out that during some previous legislatures, ARS Title 41, sections 2951 through 3102 (aka Chapter 27 of Title 41) were passed into law, creating the sunset process for all state agencies, departments, boards, commissions, institutions and programs. It also establishes a sunset review process of legislative hearings for each agency, etc.

In essence, it's a system of killing off agencies and programs that the current legislature doesn't approve of for ideological reasons.

For instance, during this week's meetings, agencies like the Arizona Neighborhood Preservation and Investment Commission, Legislative Council; Ombudsman for Private Property Rights, Office of Ombudsman-Citizens Aide, Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records; Board of Library Examiners, and State Board on Geographic and Historic Names and the Board of Athletic Training will have to justify their continued existence.

With the likely exception of the Ombudsman for Private Property Rights (that one falls completely within the ideology of the wingers in the lege), all of those agencies will be raked over the coals and (probably) be ended. Regardless of much value they provide to the people of Arizona (I mean, who needs neighborhoods in a place whose economy is based on the massive cookie-cutter residential subdivision?)

If the committees of reference recommend for the continuation of a particular agency, they must get a bill through the lege that changes the sunset date, something that is far from guaranteed even if the committee of reference supports it.

In addition to this week's hearings (and those next week, which will include a sunset review of JLBC), the following agencies, etc. will face a legislative star chamber in the near future:

Department of Water Resources

Department of Juvenile Corrections

Commission for the Deaf and the Hard of Hearing

Department of Insurance

Department of Health Services

Motor Vehicle Division


Anybody want to start a pool to bet on which ones the lege's Republicans kick to the curb?

Later...