Arizona's Own Espresso Pundit

Putting On A Happy Face...

Newspaper advertising revenue was down 12% for 2009--and that's on the already reduced 2008 base.  Go back and read that sentence again.  I think I was fair. I didn't use "plummet" or "continues to fall".  Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned that 2008 was bad, but I wanted to point out that advertising revenue fell in 2008 and fell even further in 2009.  You may not like it, but I think it was a fair sentence. 

But if you want a great example of spin and wishful thinking, check out this New York Times article covering the decline...

Last year was, as expected, a terrible year for advertising spending in this country, according to a leading research company. But the year ended better than it began — still down, yet the rate of decline slowed significantly — and early signs for 2010 seem promising.

Ad spending in the United States fell 12.3 percent in 2009 compared with 2008, according to figures to be released on Wednesday morning by Kantar Media, part of WPP. The fourth quarter fell 6 percent compared with the same period the previous year — a marked improvement from declines of 14.2 percent in the first quarter, 13.9 percent in the second quarter and 15.3 percent in the third quarter.

“There are signs the advertising economy is beginning to improve,” said Jon Swallen, senior vice president for research at Kantar Media in New York.

Beginning to improve?  Well, I guess the transition from free fall to steep decline can be characterized as an improvement, but "improve" usually means "get better" not "get worse at a slower rate".

What's really funny is that my version of the article is accompanied by an on line ad that features a roulette wheel.  So the page is literally spinning. 

 

Low Rent, Short Commute, Fun Roommates

Former State Representative Ted Carpenter is running for Treasurer.  I haven't been following Ted since he left the Legislature, but according to Google, he's moved into a nice...shall we say "facility"...near the Capitol.  Ah yes, the state mental hospital on lovely Asylum drive just minutes from the Capitol...come to think of it, this explains a lot.

Harper Wins A Correction

On B1 of last Sunday's Valley and State Section, E.J. Montini wrote a scathing columnabout budget cuts taking place at the Legislature.  Montini skewered Sen. Jack Harper for this quote.

When some folks visited the Legislature last week to reinforce the real pain that was about to be inflicted on our most vulnerable citizens, they were met by legislators like Republican Sen. Jack Harper, who said, "We're beyond the point of whether something is a good program, we're cutting everything we can; the time for whining is over."

Whining? Harper was among those who voted against cutting the pay of lawmakers. So perhaps what he meant by "cutting everything we can" was "everything but us."

Harper cried foul and produced video demonstrating that Montini had combined quotes that were about different issues and were about 5 minutes apart in the hearing.  I wrote about Harper's protest here. 

Sen. Harper - Randy Lovely forwarded your letter to me. Thank you for including the video site. After reviewing it and talking to E.J. Montini, we will be running a correction on Wednesday putting your comment in the context you outlined in your letter. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.

 

Best,

 

Ken Western

Editorial director

On Wednesday morning, the paper printed this correction.

"The 'courage' to abandon kids and the ill," March 14, Valley & State, B1:

A comment by Sen. Jack Harper, R-Surprise, in E.J. Montini's column that "we're cutting everything we constitutionally can" was made during an Appropriations Committee hearing in response to testimony on proposed cuts to the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission. Harper's comment was not directed at advocates of protecting children's and social programs.

Congratulations to Randy Lovely and Ken Western for making the correction.  However, I have to make a few points.  First, it's important to note that the incorrect quote isn't incidental...the quote is the core of the column.  Harper was only included in the column because of the quote.  In fact one could argue that without the incorrect quote, there's no reason for the column.  The correction saying that the quote was wrong, doesn't provide the context to show that the entire Harper section of the column falls apart.

Second.  The only reason that I could find the correction is because I knew to look for it.  The correction is on the bottom left of Wednesday's page A2.  The original story was on the front page of the Sunday edition of the Valley and State section.    The number of people who saw the original article will be hundreds of times more than the number who saw the correction.

Nevertheless it's great that the Republic reviewed the tape and asked E.J. to make the correction.

Republic Declares Victory in Jihad Against Tax Credits.

I've been covering the Republic's Jihad against the Private School Tax Credits and in early February I listedt the 28 articles that made up the Republic's most recent barrage.  The articles appear to have been timed to raise the maximum doubt about the program during the critical year-end fund raising period. 

Indeed, contributions were down for the first time this year and the Republic acknowledges that its coverage is part of the reason.

The weak economy and a series of investigative reports in The Arizona Republic and East Valley Tribune likely contributed to the first declines ever in the 12-year-old program, executives with the school-tuition organizations said.

And which organization was the biggest loser...?

The Catholic Tuition Organization for the Diocese of Phoenix reported the steepest drop in total amount of scholarships: $1 million, or 9.7 percent, from 2008 to 2009. Its donations dropped $612,000, a 6 percent decline.

In light of my previous post about Randy Lovely and Michael Clancy's disdain for the current leadership of the local Catholic Diocese, the damage shouldn't surprise you.

Equal Footing

EJ Montini took on Jack Harper in Sunday's Republic

When some folks visited the Legislature last week to reinforce the real pain that was about to be inflicted on our most vulnerable citizens, they were met by legislators like Republican Sen. Jack Harper, who said, "We're beyond the point of whether something is a good program, we're cutting everything we can; the time for whining is over."

A few years ago, guys like Montini ruled the world and if guys like Harper disagreed with him, Harper could pound sand...or write a letter to the editor. 

Now it's a whole new world.  Harper has sent out a blast email--complete with links to the video footage of the hearing-- and claims that Montini took him out of context and combined two quotes that were about five minutes apart. 

Here's Harper's letter and link.  You get to decide for yourself if Montini manipulated the quote.  My point is that the world is not the same... the internet allows Harper to point to archive footage of the meeting while email and blogs put him on an equal footing with Montini.

Since it only takes a few minutes to verify Harper's story, one would hope that Montini will check to see if he made a mistake and if so, issue a correction.  One would also hope that the brass at the Republic would be doing the same thing.

Harper points out that Montini doctored the quote

Ed Montini has taken two quotes of mine from Appropriations Committee and sited them together and out of context. About one hour and 15 minutes into the committee, I chided John Blackburn, from the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission for complaining about his agency’s budget (when we were cutting services and insurance to children). In the video, you would be able to see that I challenged Blackburn to justify his lobbying. I asked him how many lives his agency saves. I then went on to site money wasted by the Arizona Auto-Theft Authority by giving out Club Anti-theft devices to people who live in apartments or drive Honda’s, like it was the most important thing state government does. I told Blackburn that there was no sense in crying about it in public. Later in the meeting, I mentioned that we were no longer weighing the merits of a program, but cutting everything that we constitutionally could (at One hour and 19 minutes). Montini wrote his editorial as if I were saying that about children’s programs. Incidentally, there were emails being circulated by liberals that misquoted me, first. I wonder if Montini did his research before writing, or repeated the emails going around. He should watch the video, recognize that I was trying to make children’s issues a priority, and print a retraction.

Thank you. Jack State Senator Jack Harper 602-926-4178 1:15 and 1:19 in this video: http://azleg.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=13&clip_id=7038

Catholic Bashing...How Lovely

Here's a great example of agenda journalism and a nice peek into the inner workings of the Republic.  Let's set the stage...the Catholic Diocese is laying off several employees. 

For the second year in a row, the Catholic Diocese of Phoenix has eliminated positions and laid off personnel.

Fifteen positions were cut, and 12 employees were laid off. Last year, the diocese eliminated 17 positions and laid off 11 people.

Towards the end of the article, Reporter Michael Clancy throws in this editorial non sequitur.

Despite the financial constraints, the diocese last year was able to send $50,000 to support an anti-gay-marriage initiative in Maine.

Does that have anything to do with the story?  Of course not.  It's merely a device to make the reader jump to the conclusion that the Diocese has its priorities misplaced.

Clancy is a Catholic who has made it clear that he is unhappy local Catholic leadership, yet the Republic continues to give him a forum in which he can pound away at the Church.  So Clancy works his own private feud into his stories and the Republic management give him a free hand.

Do you think what would happen if the issue went the other way?  What if a Conservative journalist covered Planned Parenthood and peppered his stories with snarky little abortion references?*  How long do you think he would last before Randy Lovely made the reporter chose between advancing his own personal agenda and actual journalism?

Of course, since Randy Lovely agrees with Clancy on this issue, so Clancy can write whatever he wants.  Naturally, you are free to cancel your subscription...which might explain the circulation numbers for the last 15 years.

Meanwhile, Clancy gets to vent his private frustration at the Diocese and Lovely continues to be a hero in the gay community.

Ah yes, the finest of journalistic traditions.  

*Footnote:  The more appropriate example would be a Catholic Editor who allowed snarky references about the GLBTQ community into his stories.

Lobbyist's Nightmare...Consultant's Dream

So your client wants a big tax break and he's willing to pay big bucks to get it through the legislature and then the Arizona Republic points out that he's the richest guy in Arizona...next you will be standing in front of thousands of people and you will realize that you don't actually play the Violin....must run away from the werewolf...but legs are moving so slowly...

Ok, I shouldn't exaggerate, Sperling isn't the richest guy in Arizona, he's actually number 4 and his son--who benefits just as much from the tax break--is number 5.  So I guess they are technically just the richest family in the state.  Here's how the Republic put it.

...and University of Phoenix founder John Sperling and his son Peter Sperling with $1.3 billion and $1.2 billion, respectively.

Here's a little more about their attempt to get a tax break through the legislature.

Here's a nice little piece about some of their political contributions...Giffords, Mitchell, Kirkpatrick, Chris Dodd...I think I detect a pattern. 

Of course, none of this is surprising.  The ultra-rich are almost always Democrats, they donate their money to liberal causes and they want favorable treatment in return.  Didn't you ever take a political science course?

Of course the Patron Saints of Political Consulting always open a window even as they are closing a door...the Sperling tax cut makes for bad lobbying, but it's great for the political consulting business.

Check out this ad (Click here for a clearer copy)...I'm sure you will see a copy of it this November.

(In case it's not completely obvious, I made this ad up from scratch.  It's not a real ad although I will say that I'm pretty proud of it.)

Let's Tax the POOR to provide services for the MIDDLE CLASS...

I was on Sunday Square Off last month with Democratic Diva Donna Gratehouse and she complained that Arizona has a regressive tax system.  My response was that if Democrats don't like a system in which the poor pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than do the rich and middle class, then the Democrats should stop proposing tax increases on the poor that are used to provided services to the middle class.  It's pretty simple really.

Take the Tobacco tax.  We know that the poor smoke in disproportionate numbers.  We also know that the poor already qualify for AHCCCS.  So when folks like the Bashas propose to increase tobacco taxes in order to expand AHCCCS eligibility, they are raising taxes on the poor and the benefits (by definition) go to those who are not poor.

That's fine with me it you want to propose it.  Just stop whining about how unfair it is.

Now the Hospital association has a proposal that will undoubtedly be regressive, undoubtedly supported by the state's Democratic Leadership...and whose results will undoubtedly be whined about as "unfair."

The Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association is working with consultants on an initiative it hopes will make it to the ballot in November. It would raise money to stop the state from cutting more than 310,000 people from the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, the state's Medicaid program.

Exactly what form the proposed levy would take has yet to be worked out. Laurie Liles, the association's lobbyist, said consultants and pollsters are looking at what kind of tax would be most palatable to voters. Historically, voters have been particularly receptive to taxing cigarettes; the total levies on those are now $2 per pack.

We don't know what items are going to be taxed, but you can be sure that it's cigarettes, alcohol, soft drinks and a host of other items that the poor consume at a disproportionately high rate.  And who does the money go to?  The 310,000 people who would otherwise be removed from the AHCCCS roles.  And since there are about 1.3 million people on AHCCCS*, those 310,000 represent the highest income tranch of the current AHCCCS population. 

Of course, the proposal isn't really about the poor vs. the middle class.  The proposal is more about the financial security of the hospitals.  Of course, that shouldn't surprise you much...after all, the proposal is from the Hospital association. 

Post Script:

Folks from Donna to Warren Buffett have done a great job equating "Regressivity" with "Fairness."  After all, why is it fair that a guy living in poverty pays a higher percentage of his income in taxes than a guy living in Paradise Valley?  That sounds like a good argument, but it's actually a statistical and rhetorical trick.

Take the guy who lives in poverty.  He pays very little actual tax--primarily on tobacco and if he lives in Phoenix a new sales tax on food.  He probably pays no income tax or property tax.  Of course, what little tax he actually pays can look like a fairly high percentage, because he has almost no income.

But what does he get from the state?  Well, if his kids are in school, the state pays about $8,000 per year per kid to educate them and his family has free health care that's worth another $5,000 to $10,000 a year.  So if he has 3 kids, he receives about $30,000 a year in direct services from the state.

And the guy in Paradise Valley?  He gets the same basic services that the poor guys gets, but he surely has health insurance and his kids are likely grown, or they went to private school.  So he pays income taxes and property taxes and gets almost nothing in services while the poor guy pays taxes on his cigarettes and gets $30K a year in direct benefits.

That's fine with me.  We live in a democracy and the people say that wealthy people should pay more so that poor people have a better standard of living.  I'm OK with that.

But stop whining that it's unfair!  Stop telling the poor guy with his free school and his free healthcare that he's being abused by the process because he pays $2 a pack tax on cigarettes.  And stop lecturing my about how heartless I am to support such an unfair system.

Finally, if you think it's bad that poor people pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes...stop supporting tax increases on poor people.

Footnote:  There are currently about 1.4 million people on AHCCCS.  When I was in the legislature, there were about 80,000.  Over the last 20 years, the system has morphed from a safety net for the poor into the preferred form of insurance for 20% of the state's population.  That policy shift has had remarkably little debate.   

That was Fast...

Things are quickly falling apart for Andy Thomas.

Last Friday I mentioned that under Rule 3.8, Prosecutors must uphold special ethical requirements.

So when Judge Leonardo referenced Andy Thomas's "attempts to gain political advantage by prosecuting those who oppose him politically...", the judge was pointing out an obvious ethical violation. 

I guess I wasn't the only one to notice that point.

PHOENIX -- The Arizona Supreme Court has appointed a special investigator to look into accusations of misconduct against Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas.

That's bad, but it's not the end of Thomas's troubles.  The next shoe is the tort case. 

Malicious prosecution is a tort and if a civil litigant obtains a ruling that Thomas abused his office, it could cost the County tens of millions of dollars.  Multiply that by the number of people whom Thomas has targeted, intimidated, abused or prosecuted and we are dealing with a very large number indeed.

So what's next?  Actually, it's what's NOT next.  Thomas can't possibly resign to run for Attorney General.  Frankly he will be lucky to be an attorney by the time he would take office--and by resigning, he would lose the resources and protection that his office affords.  So he's going to stay at the county and hope that his office can continue to pay his legal bills.

So what are the implications...?  Well, for one thing, there isn't a conservative Republican in the Attorney General's race.  Remember that with an August 24th primary, Conservatives are assuming that they have a turnout advantage.  I like Tom Horne, and I've worked well with him, but he's not a favorite among Conservative voters. 

So someone is going to jump in the race pretty quickly.

All Your Base Are Belong to Us.

Prop 200, the proposal to raise the bed tax, is on the ballot in Scottsdale today.  Since there's no organized opposition, the tax is paid by non-residents and the election is at such an odd time, it's a good bet that the tax is going to pass--unless, of course, it doesn't.

If the tax fails, you can add "vote by mail" to your list of Democratic Party reforms that have backfired. The  list is getting rather lengthy--Campaign finance "reform", clean elections, term limits, Prop 105, opening primaries to independents and Independent Redistricting have all been overwhelmed by unintended consequences.

Which brings me to early voting.  Let me be frank, in the modern era* Democrats traditionally wanted to make it as easy as possible to vote and Republicans traditionally wanted voters to be more, well, motivated. 

The theory is that for most elections, the core Republican base is a bit larger than the core Democratic base, so in a low turnout race, the advantage goes to the Republicans.  Democrats responded with devices like "Motor Voter" which allowed people to register to vote when they obtained a driver license and "vote by mail" which they hoped would tip the balance by bringing more Democrats to the polls. 

It hasn't worked out that way.  In fact, while my only evidence is anecdotal, it appears that the "permanent early voter list" is quite conservative.   

That's especially true in ultra low turnout elections.  Think about the Scottsdale election.  It's timed just like a classic school bond override election--second week of March or April, when no one is paying attention.  In the old days, the only ones who showed up to vote in the bond override elections were the public employees and bond lawyers who benefited directly from the tax increase.  In other words, the turnout was so low that only the hard core of the Democratic base went to the polls.

Now the entire permanent early voter list gets a ballot.  The Scottsdale tax increase should have sailed to victory with an 11% turnout.  But with vote by mail, the turnout will be more like 40% or even higher--and who are those incremental 30%?  Motivated (read "Conservative") Republicans.  The days of the spending lobby dominating ultra low turnout elections is over. 

Which naturally leads me the Billion dollar tax increase that the legislature has placed on the May 18th ballot.  That would traditionally be an Ultra Low Turnout date.  Ten years ago, we could have expected that a tax increase on a low turnout date would pass with turnout in the mid teens as the spending lobby made sure that their members voted while no one else bothered to show up. 

However in May, we are likely to see unheard of turnout for an off cycle election and those incremental voters will be Republicans.

We'll see what happens in Scottsdale today--again, with no opposition and non-residents paying the tax, Prop 200 should pass.  But if it fails, you can thank the reformers who made sure that voters automatically received a ballot for each and every election--including pre-paid postage for those who don't want to pay more in taxes, or even pay for a stamp.

*Footnote:  Naturally if I'm going to say that Democrats want to make it easier vote, I have to confine the discussion to the modern era. That's because the from 1864 to 1964, Democrats went to great lengths to ensure that the only people who could vote were white people. And devices like all white primaries, poll taxes, grandfather clauses and literacy tests obviously had a dampening effect on turnout. 

We only advertise to kids who already smoke...

Did you see the advertising train wreck in Sunday's Republic?  Check out this ad--the left side is The Republic itself, touting its "Media In Education" program.  That's the program in which sponsors pay to put newspapers in schools as an educational resource--which is a great tool to prop up sagging circulation numbers.   The advertisement features a young boy in a suit reading the financial pages.    The ad next to the "Media in Education" ad is for a website that sells cigarettes on line.  Just the type of thing we want our elementary school kids to see in the paper.*

(Frankly, I was surprised to see cigarettes advertised at all.  I guess I'm behind the times, but I thought print advertising of tobacco products was illegal now.)

*Footnote.  Once while touring my son's Junior High computer lab, I logged on to AzCentral and the pop up ad was for Bourbon Street Circus.  Notice also that the title of the cigarette ad isn't punctuated correctly.  Normally I wouldn't point that out, but it's part of a sequence in which the Republic is touting the educational value of newspapers. 
 

Unfolding Indeed...

Last January I wrote that the biggest story of 2010 was about to unfold. That's the post in which  I pointed out that the investigation of Joe Arpaio was also focusing on Andrew Thomas.

Friday's Republic had this page 1 confirmation.

For months, federal investigators have focused their investigation on conflicts among county officials on Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Chief Deputy David Hendershott. The Arizona Republic has learned FBI agents are now also questioning potential witnesses about County Attorney Andrew Thomas' role in prosecutions and lawsuits against elected and appointed county officials.

I made clear in the original post that we don't know for sure what's going to happen--after all, Grand Jury proceedings are secret.  And I was certainly wrong about the timing. 

However, I doubt that I was wrong about the final result...federal investigations lead to federal indictments. 

If you are wondering if there is any substance to the allegations, consider what happened when Thomas himself hand picked a Republican prosecutor from Yavapai County to look into some of his cases.

A prosecutor testified in court Tuesday that Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas and Sheriff Joe Arpaio abused their powers in carrying out criminal investigations of county officials.

Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk also alleged that the sheriff wanted to use grand jury subpoenas to pry into the lives of county officials in hopes of charging them with crimes.

So what happens next? 

Well, first--like always--I will get flamed in my own comments section and on Sonoran Alliance.  Then the FBI will dutifully take down all the Commenters' IP Addresses and add them to whatever file they have on the minions at the County.

Then the people who have been investigated, indicted and ultimately exonerated will realize that malicious prosecution is a tort and the county has deep pockets...

And of course someone will point out that it's an ethical violation for a prosecutor to act when he knows there's not probable cause.  I'm sure that one of the freshly exonerated targets will be mentioning Rule 3.8 to the Bar. 

And what's next?  I don't know...Prison? 

(By the way, I don't think that things are looking very good for the aforementioned minions either.)

Now THAT's Accurate

Last week, I pointed out that the E Verify program is accurate 97% of the time, but a national media story spun the statistics to make it look like the system was innacurate. 

The Republic's Daniel Gonzalles has written a follow up story in which he does an excellent job describing the test results. 

Ninety-three percent of the cases checked were legal workers or U.S. citizens who were accurately identified on the first try.

The Westat report, which surfaced last week, found that E-Verify does falsely reject some U.S. citizens and legal workers but only 0.7 percent of the time.

E-Verify, however, does a poor job of preventing illegal immigrants using stolen identities from getting jobs, the report found. Westat estimated that 54 percent of the illegal immigrants run through E-Verify are wrongly deemed authorized to work, or about 3.3 percent of the total, because of identity theft.