Arizona's Own Espresso Pundit

Glendale Supports Toxic Waste Facility...in Tucson

Talk about a tin ear.  Check this out.

From a Tucson City Council member to the Tucson Symphony Orchestra and Sundt Construction to Shamrock Farms, close to 50 non-profits, businesses and politicians wrote letters in support of the Tohono O'Odham Nation as it seeks to build a resort-casino within Glendale.

Why should Tucson care about this issue?  Easy...the tribe is actually located south of Tucson and the casino will be located in the middle of Glendale.  Dude, that's awesome.  Glendale will have to pay for all the increased traffic, infrastructure and other "secondary effects" of having a casino in the middle of town--across the street from a high school.  While Tucson will benefit from any additional revenue that flows to the tribe.

Seriously, it's in really poor taste for Tucson to weigh in on behalf of the tribe.  The Tribe has found a a way to exploit a loophole in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) to expand gaming and Glendale may be forced to tolerate this intrusion, but for the Tucson community to weigh in is tacky. 

(When the Gaming compacts were negotiated, the Tribes assured the state that IGRA limited gaming to land that the tribes owned before 1988--well before the compacts were approved.   However, the tribe, received money to buy additional land when the federal government flooded tribal land when it built a dam.  Since the Tribe is located near the Mexico border, no one really considered that the Tribe might buy replacement "reservation" in the middle of metro Phoenix nearly 200 miles north of the Tribe's traditional homeland.  One of the tribe's lobbyists assured me that this wasn't a loophole. 

I was going to debate the definition of a "loophole" when he also assured me that building a $600 million resort with over 1,000 slot machines, poker and blackjack in the middle of Glendale was not an "expansion."  The debate looked pretty hopeless at that point.)

Brenda Burns to Run For ACC

Liberty's Apothecary is reporting that Former Senate President Brenda Burns is planning to run for the Arizona Corporation Commission.

Brenda Burns, former Arizona Senate President, has decided to run for the Arizona Corporation Commission in 2010.

She will be a formidable candidate, bringing to the race an impressive resume and experience in the public arena that shows an abiding faith in the free market system.

I agree that Brenda would be a formidable candidate.  I served with her in the House, and I was Chief of Staff of the Senate for part of her Presidency.  She's a relentless campaigner and has the advantage of being consistently underestimated.  She was the first woman to serve as House Majority Leader then moved to the Senate and was the the first woman to be named Senate President. 

While serving as Senate President, she was also elected to be the national President of the American Legislative Exchange Council. (ALEC), so she has a vast national network of supporters.*  She also has a ton of left over money from her Senate Campaigns, so she's going to have a financial advantage. 

It seems natural that she would choose the ACC, she worked on regulatory issues while in the legislature and wrote the legislation that established the Governor's Regulatory Review Council.  Considering that some proceedings at the ACC take up to two years...and some don't get done at all, a little regulatory streamlining would be a good thing.

*Brenda called me one time to ask me for directions to a restaurant.  As I recall, the conversation went like this.  Greg?  It's Brenda, I'm in your old district at Camelback and 44th st. and I'm looking for the Red Lion, John Fund and I are in going to dinner and I can't remember if it's on McDonald or Lincoln."

I remember thinking that her question had summed up a lot of why Brenda had been so successful.  She was still thinking in terms of districts and knew that if she was driving through District 11, and had a question, she would just call someone who used to represent District 11 and ask.  She can do that in any Arizona district and in most states. 

The fact that she was tooling around with a Wall Street Journal Editor while making the call served to convince me that she was in an entirely different league. 

All Speech is Free...but some is More Free than Others.

The First Amendment provides for free speech and a free press, but the Supreme Court has made it clear that the rights are the same; the press is not somehow more free than the individual.  Nevertheless, newspapers seem to think that they are somehow "essential for democracy" and should have special privileges. 

 Here's a great example from Republic Editorial writer Doug MacEachern. 

I'm no fan of campaign-finance laws, but as long as we've got them, former U.S. Rep. J.D. Hayworth needs to report his radio-talk show, a launching pad for his next run for office.

If MacEachern thinks that the use of the media for overtly political purposes is an indication that the media needs to be regulated, he should have filed the proper forms when he and Dan Nowicki used their position on the Republic's Editorial Board to blow up Hayworth in 2006.

The biggest problem in Congress is extreme partisanship, and Rep. J.D. Hayworth, R-Ariz., is among Capitol Hill's worst offenders.

Funny, now that Mitchell has proven to at least as partisan as Hayworth was, MacEachern and Nowicki don't seem to think that "extreme partisanship" is much of a problem any more. 

No New Moderates IV

Phoenix New Times has an excellent piece this week on the unintended consequences of "Clean" Elections.  I've been saying for years that the Clean Elections system empowers the extremes of both the Republican and Democratic Parties and has led to a legislature that is much more polarized than it would be otherwise. 

When I served in the House there were 33 Republicans and 16 of them self identified as "moderate."  Today, there are 38 Republicans in the House and only three or four would have been classified as moderates in 1990.

It's been nearly three years since I started pointing out the unintended consequences of Clean Elections.  I called the post "No New Moderates."  Here's what I wrote in 2006.

Legacy moderates survive but they are endangered.  I've mentioned before that Conservatives always had a natural base and an army of supporters but they couldn't get past the Chamber of Commerce types who controlled the money.  Those gatekeepers are now meaningless.

With equal money, the candidate with the natural base and supporters will beat the candidate who happens to be a lobbyist favorite. 

Allen (and Hellon) may survive one more cycle, or they may go the way of Binder, Mead, Jayne and half a dozen others.  But I think we have seen the end of moderates beating conservatives for open seats.  There may be the occasional throwback, but when the legacy moderates are gone, the breed will die. 

Clean Elections is a poster child for unintended consequences. 

Here's the follow up piece (No New Moderates II) that I wrote later in 2006.

Money used to be the mechanism to separate the wheat from the chafe, the solid candidates from the fringe candidates.  The ability to raise money empowered moderates.  That's gone now. 

Most political junkies will remember the 2008 general election was great for Arizona Republicans--the party picked up two House seats and a Senate seat.  But many people have forgotten that the Republican victories in November were preceded by Conservative victories in September.  Those victories were the result of Clean Elections.  

Here's the post that I wrote about those victories.  Naturally, I called it "No New Moderates III"

Tuesday's Conservative Blowout was another example of a phenomenon that I first wrote about in early 2006 and then again in December of 2006.  Clean Elections empowers conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats at the expense of "centrists" of either party. 

In a pre-Clean Elections regime, Carl Seel, Jack Harper, Al Melvin and Russell Pearce would have raised $500 and their entire campaign would have consisted of hand stenciling signs in their garage.  Now the passionate conservative and his 200 loyal friends have access to funds and a guarantee that they won't be out spent. 

The irony of course is that liberal Democrats like Jim Pedersen and "Common Cause" financed Clean Elections in an effort to empower moderates and dampen Conservative influence at the legislature.  Ten years later, the regime has virtually wiped out the moderate influence in the legislature.

So what's the solution?  What should we do to fix the process? 

Nothing.  I think it's worked out really well. 

A Call for Leadership

It's been over a year since I wrote a post called The Road To Bankruptcy. 

But the easy choices have already been made; the gimmicks will soon be gone; the rainy day fund will soon be spent.  It's time for real leadership.  Instead, the Governor is saying "Nothing Down! No Payments until 2010."

Of course, she'll be gone in 2010 and we will be the ones paying off the credit cards.

Considering that I wrote that post five months before Obama even secured the Democratic nomination, I think it turned out to be a pretty darn good prediction.

So now the legislauture is working on the 2010 budget, Napolitano is indeed gone and Arizonans are still looking for leadership to solve the budget crisis.

The Arizona Daily Star thinks it has found leadership in the House Democrats' budget proposal. 

Democrats in Arizona's House of Representatives last week unveiled a creative proposal for closing the state's expected $3 billion deficit in fiscal 2010.

 

We were pleased to see House Democrats take this kind of leadership initiative.

 

Indeed, I have to give them credit; the House Democrats have proposed an honest budget. They solve the budget short fall by raising taxes--lots of taxes.  They start by raising the income tax rate 13% for the top filers, raising utility bills by $10 to $15 a month*,  taxing warranties and other service contracts and raising the school equalization tax by $250 million.

 

Good for them. 

 

If voters want to see an honest debate about the way the current crisis should be handled, the House Democrats have provided an honest proposal.

 

The Star considers the Democrat's proposal to be a sign of leadership, and think that it's a productive part of the negotiations.  Republican Senator Jonathan Paton has a great idea to take the Democratic proposal even further--put it on the board and see how many votes it has. 

 

The Democrats have come up with an honest proposal and have called for a massive tax increase.  They are getting credit for offering a real solution, so let's see how many of them are willing to vote for it.

 

Senator Barbara Leff is termed out, so the District 11 (Arcadia, Paradise Valley) Senate seat is going to be open.  The house seats for that district are split between Republican Adam Driggs and Democrat Eric Meyer, and the two were only separated by a few hundred votes in the last general election.  Let's fire up the board of truth and see how Meyer stands on raising taxes for his constituents.

 

District 24 in Yuma is struggling economically and currently pays some of the highest electric rates in the state.  That district also has split representation; let's see how Russ Jones and Lynne Pancrazi vote. 

 

The same situation hold in the Oro Valley, north Tucson section of District 26.  Let's see how Nancy Young Wright's constituents feel about her support of a massive tax increase.  I'm sure Vic Williams will give her plenty of chances to talk about it.

 

So light up the board and see if the Democrats have made a proposal that they are willing to stand behind, or if they are just playing one more round of partisan games. 

 

What a great idea.  You know that Jonathan Paton's a pretty bright guy.   I guess they don't call it military intelligence for nothing.

 

 

 

*Democratic analysts claim that charging a 1 cent per KWH tax would cost the typical consumer about $1.25 a month.  But the typical Arizona consumer uses over 1,000 KWH a month** and while I admit that law school decreased my math skills, I think that one cent times 1,000 is more like $10 a month. 

This proposal is especially ironic since utilities are an essential commodity much like food. That means the tax is highly regressive and unavoidable.  An interesting tidbit that I learned in my days as RUCO Director is that poor people oftentimes have higher electric bills than the middle class.  That's because the poor often live in substandard housing that lacks adequate insulation and uses older, less efficient appliances--that means that this tax would be doubly regressive. 

 

 

**One of the comenters claims that the article that I linked to doesn't back up my 1,000 kwh claim.   People, read the articles before you comment.  Here's the key sentence.  "The typical residential customer uses about 980 kWh a month."  Remember that article is from Tucson where it's a bit cooler and the houses are a bit smaller.  The typical Arizona consumer uses over 1,000 KWH a month. 

 

UPdate:  The latest comment says that the Democratic proposal is actually 1/10 cent per KWH.  If so, then the Star got it wrong.  The Star article says that the Democratic plan proposes  "Adding a 1-cent per kilowatt-hour excise tax on nonrenewable energy." 

Seriously, You Can't make this Stuff Up.

Yesterday, the Republic's Craig Harris wrote a story that implied that state government was being short sighted in the way it is choosing to make budget cuts.

A 44 percent reduction in tax collectors and auditors at the Department of Revenue could make it more difficult for the state to go after delinquent taxpayers, possibly resulting in millions of lost dollars for Arizona, a department official said.

Fair enough.

On the same day, Gannett Blog reported that the Arizona Republic laid off as many as 30 employees--all from the circulation department. 

Dude, that's awesome.  A newspaper that has faced steadily declining circulation is bleeding red ink and decides to lay off people from the one department that actually brings in money...while at the exact same time the paper is criticizing the state for laying off workers who bring in money. 

Is Symington Considering Challenging Brewer?

In the wake of Governor Brewer's surprise call for a tax increase, Republicans are openly discussing the possibility of a primary challenge.  Senator Ron Gould, for example, has indicated that he is considering taking her on in the primary.

Today I heard the Former Governor Symington was considering a run.  I sent him an email and asked if he was considering challenging Mrs. Brewer in the Primary and this was his response. 

I deeply oppose tax increases. If Republicans get this issue wrong, they are destined to fail both economically and politically. Jan is my friend. We stood together on many great issues. She supported Ann and me throughout our "ordeal" and we will always have a grateful heart for that. But, I am absolutely shocked that she would be pursuing a tax increase policy in the midst of this economic mess.

Hmm.

One factor that is going to be HUGE in 2010 hasn't been mentioned by anyone in the media yet.  The Primary Election is going to be held on August 31st.  Dude, that's like in...August, when it's 108 in the shade.  The election is going to be decided by the 5% of each party that can't afford to be in San Diego. 

Does that make Brewer vulnerable?  You bet.  The first lesson that I learned when I served in the  House was "Don't sacrifice your friends to appease your enemies."   When a conservative like Brewer raises taxes, the left side of the electorate will still oppose her at the next election, and the right will either sit on their hands, or rally around a more conservative candidate. 

Jane Hull eventually learned that lesson after putting a half cent sales tax for education on the 2000 ballot.  Hull actually was the education governor, but the left never acknowledged it and the right abandoned her in droves.  The American political spectrum is so fractured that if a candidate stands solidly in any camp, he will have at least a 33% approval rating.  The only way to get below that is to abandon your principles.  Hull--a conservative who raised taxes--learned that lesson the hard way.

So yes, Brewer is vulnerable in a primary...but not as vulnerable as John McCain. 

More on that later.

Invasion of the Body Snatchers

The next time I see GOP Chairman Randy Pullen I need to check to see if he's missing a finger.  I don't know who paid the ransom, how much it was, or if Pullen's missing any body parts...I'm just glad that he's back.

Yesterday, the Republican Party published this press release. 

Arizona Republican Party Chairman Randy Pullen today announced that he has named Matthew Roberts Communications Director for the AZGOP.
 
“Matt’s experience with media and political communications will enhance our ability to promote the positive message of reducing taxes, reforming government and controlled state spending,” said Chairman Pullen.

That's the Pullen that I know--reducing taxes, reforming government and controlling spending. 

While Pullen was in captivity, someone was using his computer to send press releases  like this one that actually called for a tax INCREASE. 

The Arizona Republican Party released results from a recent survey today showing strong public support for a temporary 1% statewide sales tax as part of a balanced budget approach.

Now the party has a communications director who "will enhance our ability to promote the positive message of reducing taxes."  Whew.  Welcome home Randy.

Now that Randy's back and calling for tax reductions, I guess we know of a couple parts that the kidnappers didn't cut off. 

And if the Republican Party is planning to send out any more poll results, they would be wise to factor in this one by Rasmussen.

Do you favor or oppose a temporary tax increase to help stem the state’ budget shortfall?

22% Favor
65% Oppose
13% Not sure