Arizona's Own Espresso Pundit

So much for the New Civility.

Demonstrators at the Capitol are becoming much more aggressive.  The media has mentioned the protests but the descriptions are sanitized and unless you spend much time a the capitol, you won't realize what's going on. 

Here's Attorney General Tom Horne walking the gauntlet from his car to the Capitol and back.   I would have trouble taking it in stride as well as he does. Frankly I don't know why the Capitol Police let them get this close.  Sure, there's a right to protest, but state officials need to be able to walk into the Capitol in a secure environment.  Can you imagine if a Tea Party crowd tried to do this to US Attorney General Eric Holder? 

It's come to this...

The people of Libya are fighting for freedom and are being crushed by a cruel dictator.  The world is looking for leadership....and are turning to France.

How embarrassing.

Rios Responds

Earlier this week, I wrote a post about the latest round of allegations that Pinal County Supervisor and Former Senate President Pete Rios doesn't live in his district and has fraudulently claimed thousands of dollars in mileage reimbursements.

The Republic ran the Rios story yesterday and Rios responded this morning.  I thought you might want to read both.  Here's the Republic story.

The state Attorney General's Office is reviewing allegations that Pinal County Supervisor Pete Rios lives outside the district he represents and has stolen thousands of taxpayer dollars by making false mileage reimbursement claims.

Here's Rios' response.

When you have disagreements, it is usually better to settle them face-to-face.  Unfortunately, we are finding out that an anonymous complaint can result in having your name smeared across the media in what is nothing more than an attempt at a political coup de etat.

These are tactics that Sheriff Babeu, PIO Tim Gaffney and their political cronies have stooped to in order to silence Board members who dares to oppose Sheriff Babeu.

Their (or anonymous) allegation surrounds the fact that I have multiple homes within Pinal County.  Do I have a permanent residence in Dudleyville?  Yes.  Do I have a residence in Apache Junction?  Yes.  Do I have a residence in Superior?  Yes. Those have been widely publicized. There is no law against having multiple residences in Pinal County or anywhere. 

I think it's funny that Rios says these things should be handled "face-to-face." When I initially raised the issue 5 years ago Rios said he would "hit me in the gut" the next time he saw me at the Capitol.  I guess that's his idea of handling things face-to-face.  Naturally the current complaint is anonymous.

Where Does Pete Rios Live? III

It's been over 5 years since I first questioned then Senator Pete Rios's residency.  On January 6th of 2006, I pointed out that Rios appeared to actually live in Apache Junction while he claimed that he lived in a 30 year old trailer parked on a friend's lot in Duddleyville. 

He always claimed that the AJ home was just his "session" home, while the Duddleyville trailer was his legal residence.  Some readers were concerned that Rios lived outside his district.  That was never my concern...residence rules for elected officials are pretty liberal.  My concern was mileage.  Rios claimed that he drove back to the trailer every weekend and he charged the state thousands of dollars in mileage reimbursements for his alleged weekend trips to the trailer.  Rios responded to my post by saying he would "hit me in the gut" the next time I showed up at the Capitol. 

Then a few years later, when he ran for the Pinal County Board of Supervisors, Rios' Democratic opponent made the same charge.  She claimed that he actually lived in Apache Junction--which while in Pinal County, was out of this Supervisor District--instead of the double wide parked on a friend's property in Duddlyville.

I wrote about the story here and I would encourage you to read it for background.

Now, someone who lives near Pete's Apache Junction home has noticed that he seems to live there full time and filed a report with the Pinal County Sheriff's office.  The report alleges that Rios lives outside his district and that his claims for mileage are fraudulent. 

The Pinal County Sheriff has declared a conflict--after all Rios is the Chairman of the Pinal County Board of Supervisors--and has turned the case over to the Attorney General.

The media and law enforcement have ignored the story for years.  And if the story was just about his legal residence, it probably wouldn't have legs.  But the allegation here is that Rios fraudulently claimed thousand of dollars of mileage reimbursements.  That's a serious charge and one way or another, it's time to get to the bottom of it. 

Coming Soon To a Theater Near You.

I've never understood why legislators fall for the motion picture tax credit scam.  Here's a fun parody of phenomenon. Here's the original You Tube version in case you can't see the whole thing on your screen.

"Hidden" Tax...or overt Bias?

Pop Quiz:  You are doing your taxes and you realize that you get an exemption for every kid that you claim...well, what's the IRS going to do, count your kids?  So you slip an extra name on the form.   Voila, young "William" takes you from owing taxes to getting a refund. 

That used to be pretty common and Congress eventually got wise to this practice and added a requirement that taxpayers include the social security numbers of all "dependents."

Here's the quiz part.  You are journalist covering this story.  How do you describe what happened?  How about calling it "a potential tax increase for many families."

Really?  If someone is clearly violating the law and Congress (or the Legislature) tightens up the reporting requirements to make it more difficult to cheat, is that a tax increase?

I think not.

So how about a local case.  Check out this article from this morning's Republic

Deep in (sic) law that hands out tax breaks to businesses is a potential tax increase for many Arizona homeowners.

First some background.  Homeowners automatically get a "rebate" of about $600 on their property taxes.  The problem is that many of them don't actually qualify.  If you own a home--or multiple homes--that you are renting out, then the rule is that you only get the rebate on the home that you actually live in.  The same is true for vacation homes.  You don't get a rebate for your home in Sedona if you also have one in Phoenix.  It's also true for banks.  They don't get a rebate on their huge portfolio of "other real estate owned" (ie. foreclosed) properties.

However, many people don't know the rule and some people break the rule.  So the Legislature is now adding a paperwork requirement to the existing rule---and the media calls that a tax increase. 

While that just seems like shoddy reporting, there's actually something more sinister going on here.  Check out that first sentence again.

Deep in law that hands out tax breaks to businesses is a potential tax increase for many Arizona homeowners.

Leaving the typo aside for a moment, isn't it still a really awkward sentence?  Why is "deep" in there?  That's an effort to imply that the provision is secret.  And why the non-sequitur about "tax breaks to businesses"?  That juxtaposition is in there so that readers will get this message:  "The legislature is cutting taxes for bussinesses while raising taxes for homeowners...and they are doing it in a sneaky way so that you won't notice..."

None of this is actually true because this isn't a tax increase.  It's a change in reporting requirements for a law that has been on the books for many years.

This isn't an isolated incident.  It's part of a theme.  The legislature gives huge tax breaks to homeowners--they are in a much lower bracket and they get the rebate.  The legislagture even created a special rate for Historic residential property that's half of the already reduced rate.  (That's the rate the article's author Mary Jo Pitzl enjoys.)

The legislature has made up for this lost revenue by creating a business property tax rate that's 250% higher than the residential rate.  That gives Arizona one of the highest business property tax rates in the nation and puts the state at a competitive disadvantage. 

Any time that the legislature attempts to change the business rate, the newspapers claim that Legislators are shifting taxes to homeowners.  Here's an example from Howie Fischer.

Republican legislative leaders are crafting plans to shift property taxes now paid by businesses onto the backs of homeowners.

Fischer's article is misleading because it fails to point out that business tax rates are two and a half times higher than residential rates and that homeowners get a rebate...and that historic residential property pays half of the already reduced rate.  But Fischer's article is at least technically accurate.

Mary Jo's article is simply wrong.  There was no "potential tax increase" provision in the bill--deep or otherwise.  A provision that makes it harder for people to cheat on their taxes is not an increase.

But that wouldn't fit the broader narrative would it. 

Not that they are biased or anything.

Best Flak Job Ever

Many of you know that I work with a great group called the Foundation for Blind Children.  FBC is looking for a full time PR person.  Since so many Espresso Pundit fans are also in the media, I thought I might post the job opening.  Resumes go straight to the FBC Director and are held in strict confidence.

Foundation for Blind Children, a high profile, nationally recognized non-profit recently featured on NBC's Today Show, NBC Nightly News, the front covers of USA Today and the Arizona Republic is currently seeking an experienced Public Relations and Marketing Manager to join our management team.  A hands-on, strategic leadership role within the organization, this position will lead the development of our overall marketing and PR communications strategy.

Resumes can be emailed to mashton@seeitourway.org.

Russell Pearce Attempts Moderation...and gets Slammed.

There are two trends that have been working behind the scenes at the Capitol.  The first is the need for enhanced security in the wake of 9/11 and the Giffords Shooting.  The second is the blurring of the lines between traditional media and purely online sources.

These trends don't seem related, but they are.  That's because the ever declining media keeps running up against the ever increasing need for enhanced Security.  This came to a head a few years ago when the Senate President Bob Burns closed the Senate Press Room. 

The Press room took up a large room on the first floor, the Senate had to hold caucus on the second floor...past security and right next door to the Senate President's office.  That would be fine except caucus is open to the general public, so it was difficult if not impossible to maintain any security.  Bob Burns decided to move all the public meetings downstairs--which is entirely open to the public--and he needed the press room. 

There were other reasons to close the press room as well.  For one thing, the reporters had trashed it so it looked like Animal House.  Also, there were very few reporters down there anyway--the Gazette, Citizen and Tribune are gone.  The Star doesn't send anyone to Phoenix any more and the Republic has gotten smaller and smaller.  Plus, with the advent of WI FI and cell phones there was no longer any reason to set up separate workstations for reporters.  And perhaps the biggest reason to close the press room is that it's hard to define a reporter now.  How do you differentiate between the Guardian and Sonoran Alliance? 

So Bob Burns closed it.  He didn't make it smaller; he didn't relocate it; he didn't insist that they clean it up.  He closed it.  Naturally the reporters were outraged and folks lamented the radical conservative who was violating everyone's free speech etc.  Boom.  Big story...but only one day.

Burns left one thing intact.  He continued to allow reporters to have access to the Senate Floor.  Most people don't realize how big a deal it is to have access to the House or Senate Floor.  When I was Chief of Staff at the Senate, I didn't have access to the House floor--despite being a former member. 

But Burns continued to allow the media to have floor access.  Of course, they don't need floor access because they can simply call or email the Senators and--if they are still hoping to ambush them--can track them down in Committee. 

When I was in the House in the 1990s and when I was staff for Senate in 1999 and 2000, the press was allowed on the floor, but they generally stayed on the sidelines near the special tables that were installed for their benefit.  I don't know if this was a rule, or simple courtesy, but they stayed on the outskirts.  Now, the media like to swarm the members at their desks as soon as the gavel sounds. 

Here's where Russell Pearce's experiment with moderation comes in. 

Pearce asked the reporters to--gasp--stay on the edge of the floor.  Naturally, they wrote stories screaming that he had "restricted the media's access."

Arizona Senate President Russell Pearce has instituted new restrictions on media access on the Senate floor.

Pearce naively thought that the reporters' concerns were legitimate, so he gave a real response to their faux outrage.

He said that reporters have long enjoyed access to the Senate - maybe too much access: "Reporters have had unfettered access, now it's been scaled back a little."

That's exactly right, but he still got all the headlines about restricting access etc.  So much for compromise.  What would have happened if he had kicked the reporters completely off the floor?

Same thing.  Same faux outrage, same lame story about "restricted access".  Maybe the story would have included a feature about how uncomfortable the chairs are in the gallery and the hardship the media face when they have to take that extra flight of stairs...oh the humanity.

So Pearce should have simply kicked them off the floor.  But no.  He decided to ask them not to mob the members on the floor.  His attempt at compromise got him the exact same outrage that a bold move would have generated.

That's a great lesson for conservatives.  A tentative move will yield just as much criticism as a bold move.  So don't make small cuts, make large ones.  The protest will be the same.   So don't tinker with Board of Regents, sunset them.  Don't amend "merit" selection, overturn it. 

And for gosh sakes don't ask the members of the press corp to wait politely near the edge of the floor--like staff and pages do--kick them off the floor.  Make them sit in the gallery like everyone else.  Sure, you will get a negative story.  It will say:"Pearce restricts media access to Senate floor", and will contain the same faux outrage as the last stories.

It's a cheap lesson. 

Don't forget it when it's time to make some real changes.

A Whiff of Grapeshot

University Presidents Crow and Shelton have built empires while treating Legislators with contempt and complaining about budget "cuts."  Instead of reigning in the bad boys, the Regents have enabled them by providing political cover and tuition increases.  Tuition is now unaffordable, many degrees have no economic value and the schools now face real cuts.  Legislators have grown increasingly frustrated at Crow and Shelton, but the Regents provide a layer of protection that insulates the Presidents.

So now the Legislators are going after the Regents.  Here's what I said about it at the time.

Well, there's nothing like a whiff of grapeshot to get someone's attention.  The Regents held an "extraordinary" meeting today and here's what they decided.

“The Regents considered today very real and painful base-budget spending reduction proposals for each of the three state universities,” said Arizona Board of Regents Chairman Anne Mariucci. “Arizona families and students deserve no less than the Regents’ full consideration of university spending cuts that go beyond what was once thought possible, just as Arizona families and businesses have been required to implement.  Tuition increase options can and must be considered only as an option of last resort.”

What?  No knee jerk tuition increase?  No comparisons with Mississippi?  No quotes from Robert Shelton about the evil dismantlers in the Legislature?

The Regents are beginning to understand that the Legislature is unhappy and the people are unhappy--and that's a bad combination. 

The Regents finally understand that their very survival as an institution depends on how they handle this crisis.  Now that they have realized that they need a new approach, they need to understand one more thing...

...they've got the wrong guys running the Universities.

Take a Deep Breath...

I think we should step back, take a deep breath and remember a few details: There's an element of "he said, she said..."  The underlying relationship is over.  The parties have apologized.  This needs to run a full legal course...and no one has even been charged.  It shouldn't be tried in the media. In fact, it's already old news.  And, ultimately, the courts and the voters will decide. 

So I think that any calls for Representative Daniel Patterson to resign are premature.  Naturally, I'm talking about this.

What did you think I was talking about?

Post Script.

Sen. Aboud and the rest of the Senate Dems have no credibility on this issue because of the way they ignored Rep. Patterson.  However, Senators Gould and Crandall have called for Bundgaard to step down as Majority Leader.  That means it's over.  Scott can try to hang on, but a Majority Leader has no institutional power.  He serves at the pleasure of the caucus and if they no longer have confidence in him then he has to step down.  Scott will figure that out later this week. He would be smart to exit with some grace and not force the caucus to vote him out. 

Bundgaard supporters are claiming that Gould sees Bundgaard as a political competitor for a possible run at Trent Franks' seat.  That's ridiculous.  While Bundgaard my be able to complete his term and it's possible--but unlikely--that he could get re-elected*, there's not a snowball's chance that he's a viable Congressional candidate.

Footnote:  If Bundgaard runs for re-election, Harper will take him out.  They despise each other and the only reason Harper left the Senate was that he was term limited.  Absent the term limit issue, Harper probably would have defeated Bundgaard in a head-to-head match up in 2010.  But I can't imagine Bundgaard beating Harper now.