Arizona's Own Espresso Pundit

If you Can't fix the Present...Rewrite the past.

Let's face it.  Every political "reform" for the past 25 years has backfired.  In the early 1980s, Arizona had a relatively moderate legislature dominated by a bipartisan group of "great" leaders like Burt Barr and Art Hamilton.  We can debate whether or not that was a good thing, but "Reformers" who don't like the current system will point to that sytem as the Holy Grail. 

"Reformers" started tinkering with the system and now we have a legislature that's two thirds Republican--90% of whom are self-described conservatives.  So whenever someone comes up with a new proposal to "fix" the system, take a moment and ask them how campaign finance reform, Independent Redistricting, Term Limits, Clean Elections and allowing Independents to Vote in Primaries has worked out for them.

The latest fiasco is the Independent Redistricting Commission.  The Commission is an obvious disaster.  It is far from Independent; it's conducting major business behind closed doors; the Attorney General has already begun an investigation in the Commission's Executive Session Open Meeting violations.  And, of course, the current lines that everyone are complaining about were drawn by the last "Independent" commission. 

Insiders don't even pretend that the Commission is independent.  When Republicans complained that the Chairwoman is a Democrat in Independent's clothing, what was the Democratic response?   Republicans were asleep at the switch; they didn't do their ground work etc.  What does this mean?  It means that--according to political insiders--Republicans did a bad job of finding a stealth Republican who could serve as the "Independent" on the Commission.  The Democrats meanwhile, did a great job and their candidate is now voting with the other Democrats on the Commission.  Game Over suckers.

That's transparency?  That's the elimination of gamesmanship?  That's reform?

The entire concept is a failure.  So if you are in the media, how do you defend the current system?  Easy, just make stuff about the previous system.  On saturday, the Republic wrote an editorial that both chastised the current Commission and defended current structure.  Check out this sentence:  Redistricting used to be a cozy game in the bowels of the Legislature, where lawmakers drew district lines to protect their own turf.

The polite term for that sentence is "fiction."  The colloquial term is more scatological.

They don't like the present, so they simply rewrote the past.  I was in the Legislature during the 1992 redistricting process and we held dozens of official public meetings throughout the state.  Then individual legislators--who of course were going to vote on the final maps--held their own meetings through out the state.  And who did they listen to?  Constituents.  That's because if you drew lines that ticked off your constituents, they took it out on you at the polls. What's the average voter's remedy under the current system?

Oh, by the way, the vote in 1992 was bi-partisan. 

So the process was much more open than the current process and since 90 people were voting on the ultimate maps, it was by no means "cozy".

The current process is opaque, secretive, riddled with gamesmanship and has probably already violated state law.  Factor in that the current Commission is way behind schedule and is unlikely to have discricts in a timely manner and you have a complete failure. 

So the reformers are flumixed.  Well, here's on little piece of advice.  Don't try to justify the current commission's shortcomings by denigrating the work we did in 1992.

It's Going to Get Worse

Two years ago, I made this prediction on Sunday Square Off.

"I don’t want to be a doomsayer or anything, but it looks to me like the world is headed for financial collapse. 

Let’s face it Americans can’t afford this much government.  The American standard of living is being propped up by government expenditures that are being financed  by nearly one trillion dollars in Chinese loans.  Americans in turn use these Chinese loans  to buy Chinese goods—so our huge trade deficit is financed by our huge national debt.   That’s about as sustainable as investors lining up to flip houses the town of Maricopa.

Voters of both parties support candidates who will give them the most goodies—but the federal government can’t afford to buy your old car, finance your new house, or replace your eighty- year old knee. 
The deficit in president Bush’s final year was an outrageous 400 Billion dollars…the White House projects that in President Obama’s first year the deficit will be four times higher—one point six trillion dollars.

I don’t have a solution.  It’s not like either political party is actually willing to balance the budget.  All I can say is that in the not too distant future, it’s all going to come crashing down and it’s not going to be pretty."

I don't know much about financial markets, but I know a lot about politics and the day after that prediction, I moved a third of my IRA into gold funds--and since then, have earned a tidy 70% return. 

And it's still a good time to buy.

I can assure you that there is no way that Washington is going to fix this problem in time to avoid an economic collapse.  Let's take Arizona as an example.  We had a collapse in revenue at a time when the House, Senate and Governor's office  were all controlled by Republicans--and dominated by Conservative Republicans.  We also have a balanced budget amendment and a cap on debt.  What did we do?  Raised taxes a billion dollars, and borrowed as much as possible.  It took years before we saw real cuts and that was only after we had exhausted every conceivable option. 

Now take that scenario and apply it to Washington.  Is Congress ever going to be as conservative as the Arizona Legislature?  Will the US ever have a balanced budget amendment or a debt moratorium?  The answer is clearly no.  So will the folks in DC ever be able to fix this problem?  No.  They don't have the tools or the political will.  And frankly, the populace won't accept real cuts.  The Boehner cuts are nothing and yet Congress has melted down.

So what's going to happen?  Collapse of the Soverign debt markets.  In 50 years when we look back on the current crisis, the financial collapse of 2008 will only be a point on the time line--just like the crash in 1929 is a point on a time line that goes all the way to WWII.   

How long is the current time line?  I have no idea.  It's possible that Republicans will take over in 2012 and will be able to cut the growth of spending,  bend the debt curve and at the same time repeal the growth-killing policies of the last few decades*.  That may buy us a few years.  However, the current political system can't solve the current economic crisis. 

So the system will collapse and then Washington will eventually have no other choice but to really fix it. 

That's why I was telling people to buy gold two years ago.  That's why I'm telling people to buy gold now.  The current crisis is only a hint of things to come.

I don't know anything about financial markets.  But I know a lot about politics.

*Footnote:  One of the things I do in the real world is work with transmission lines and power plants.  The rule of thumb with a transmission line used to be that building one costs about a million dollars a mile.  That was 10 years ago.  Now the rule is that the PERMITTING PROCESS costs a million dollars a mile.

Nice Ads!

As the newspaper industry's financial position gets more precarious, management finds it harder and harder to disguise the fact that the paper is a corporation that acts just like any other corporation.  They lay off workers, spin their circulation numbers and stroke their advertisers. 

Check out this page from the Scottsdale Zone version of the Republic.  The story is a puff piece about how wonderfull Scottsdale Community College is.  The advertisement below is a paid piece...about how wonderful Scottsdale Community College is.  Come on guys, at least split them up...after all, there are so few ads in that section that there are plenty of optons. 

But wait, maybe it's one big ad.  See that first paragraph?  You can't read it, but it says that this article was submitted by the PR person for SCC.  However, the article is in a format that is indistinguishable from the other articles in the paper and there's no disclosure that this is a paid advertisement.  So did SCC buy the entire page and get to submit this article?  Or did SCC submit an article like an OP ED or a feature and then buy the space at the bottom?  Readers have know way of knowing if the article is really an ad or not.  If it's not an ad then it looks like SCC got to publish its puff piece based on the fact that it purchased an ad below it.  Neither option passes the smell test.

 

 

The Magnificent Seven

I've had a lot of feedback on my Congressional District post.  I predicted that the lines drawn by the IRC will be less competitive than the current lines and that the Congressional delegation will be split 6-3 or maybe even 7-2 for the next decade. 

That's the "real" prediction, here's the Parlay*....the two Democrats will be Pastor and Grijalva and the seven Republicans will be:  Gosar, Franks, Quayle and Schweikert plus Antenori, and Salmon.  Then there's the wildcard:  If the new district is in the East Valley, it will be Adams (even though he lives within a mile of Salmon) and if it is in the west valley, it will be  Stump.  If it's in Pinal County, it will be Babeu.

There's no chance of a central Phoenix seat for Sinema because that would weaken Pastor. 

(Remember that a seven bet parlay pays 75 to 1.)

By the Way, the Congressional Districts are Competitive Too.

The media are peddling the myth that Arizona Districts are not competitive.  Yesterday, I pointed out that the Legislative Districts are about as competitive as they can get.  I neglected to focus on the Congressional Districts because they are so obviously competitive that I shouldn't have to address it.   However I still hear folks complain that we need an Independent Redistricting Commission because the Congressional districts are Gerrymandered. 

First thing you need to remember is that the current Congressional Districts were drawn by the IRC and the 1990 to 2000 Congressional Districts were drawn by the courts, so if you don't like them, don't call for some sort of "reform."

Arizona has eight Congressional Districts and three of them are clearly competitive.  District one was held by Ann Kirkpatrick and is now held by Gosar.  District 5 was held by Hayworth, then Mitchell and now Schweikert and District 8 was held by Kolby and then Gabby.  

The Dems themselves claim that District 3 is competitive and certainly made noise that Lord had a shot over Shadegg and Hulburd had a shot over Quayle.   

Grijalva would argue that his district isn't actually "safe" since Ruth McClung nearly took him out.  I would argue that it's a safe Democratic seat but that Grijalva is such an embarrassment that he makes the seat vulnerable. 

So half of the districts are competitive and half are "safe". Can this be improved?  Nope. 

It can't be improved for two reasons.  First is that people don't distribute themselves randomly.  Rural Arizona is different from Paradise Valley which is different from central Phoenix.  The only way to make an area that is largely Democratic competitive is to mix it with an area that is largely Republican.  Then these communities will fight for their Congressman and one of them will lose and feel disenfranchised. 

Would that be a good thing?  Should we make a district that combines central Phoenix and Tempe with Mesa and Gilbert?  That would be a competitive district represented by either Russell Pearce or Kyrsten Sinema.  Would that be a good policy?  I think it would be better to have the East Valley get its own district and central Phoenix get its own district and have the former represented by Jeff Flake and the latter represented by Ed Pastor. 

But it doesn't matter what I think.  That's because the second factor trumps the first.  Sure, people live in different communities and it would be awkward to put them together, but the key (and the dirty little secret of redistricting) is the second factor...Congressional districts are drawn by race. 

Like I said, I think it's better to have a Phoenix district and a Mesa district...one represented by Pastor and one represented by Flake.  But it doesn't matter what I think.  The Pastor/Flake split is mandated by federal law. 

Congressional Districts have to be drawn to maximize minority representation.  The IRC and the media can talk about criteria...competitiveness, communities of interest (which conflict) and any other factors they want, but that's all a smokescreen.  In reality, they will draw two safely Hispanic seats first and then build the rest of the map around that. 

I didn't say two safely Democratic seats, I said safely Hispanic--and in order to make a seat safely Hispanic, it has to be VERY Democratic.  Democrats have to be packed in and  Republicans have to be carved out.   Check out the inset on the right.  That's the border between Pastor's district and Quayle's district. Why is it cut like that?  To make sure that Pastor doesn't have the Biltmore.  It doesn't matter who draws the lines, Pastor's district can't be competitive.  Naturally, this makes Quayle's district less competitive.  I would argue that Hulburt would have been a lot closer to Quayle if Pastor's district had been squared off at that corner.

In fact, the Pastor and Grijalva districts are SO democratic that the Flake and Franks districts are safe Republican seats and the Quayle district is a leans Republican seat.

So back to the broader map. We have four competitive districts and four partisan districts. The partisan districts are a direct result of federal law and can't be changed.  The new IRC will start with the same premise and will come up with a similar outcome. 

The IRC will be able to play around the edges a bit...District 1 will be very different, we won't know where the new district is for a while and we don't know how Quayle's district will be tweaked, but the core of the map will be the same.

Here's my prediction.  The new maps will actually be LESS competitive than the old ones:  for the entire next decade the Congressional delegation will have six Republicans and three Democrats.  (Frankly, there's a good chance that the split will be 7-2) 

Myth Busters #1: We need the IRC to Get Competitive Districts.

I've heard so many myths spouted by the local media lately that I'm going to run a series to set things straight.  Here's a great example from this morning's Star.

To bring Arizona to the brink of reasoned policy-making, one change may help more than any other: a greater number of competitive state legislative districts, so that voters actually make choices when they go to the voting booth.

The "competitive district" myth has a lot of variations, but it usually runs something like this:  "The legilsature is so extreme because current districts have been drawn so that they are not competitive."  This "fact" is then used to justify having the Independent Redistricting Commission.

Let's dispense with the last part first.  Remember that the current districts were drawn by the Independent Commission, so if you don't like the current districts, you shouldn't like the IRC.  Don't claim that the IRC will solve the problem and then forget to disclose that the IRC created the current problem.

The fundamental flaw in the competitive districts myth is the most basic claim "the districts aren't competitive."  The Star, for its part, concedes that there are about 10 competitive districts.  That's about right.  In the last decade, Districts, 5, 10, 11, 20, 23, 25 and 26 have been represented at some point by members of each party.  Democrats have a good shot in districts 9 and 12 and Republicans have a shot in 17.  Of course, in 2008, Arizona Democrats claimed they were going to take over the House and Senate and claimed there were additional competitive districts. 

I know that 10 to 15 competitive districts out of 30 seems light, but think about it for a second.  How many Democratic districts can you get out of Scottsdale and Mesa?  How many Republican districts can you get out of Flagstaff, the Navajo Reservation and Central Tucson?  People tend to live near people who think like they do.  The only way to make those districts competitive is to Gerrymander them.   

But let's go back to the fundamental question...will competitive districts lead to a centrist legislature?  Of course not.  Each party picks its nominee and then the winner takes all.  So district 26 was represented by Democrat Charlene Pesqueira and then by Republican Al Melvin.  Neither of them are moderate.  If Melvin had lost the last election, it would have been to liberal Democrat Cheryl Cage. 

So the fundamental premise is wrong.  The Districts are currently competitve, the IRC drew them and competitive districts don't yield a centrist Legislature. 

Other than that, the Star got it right. 

Creative Writing 101

Pop Quiz:  You are a journalists and have a great idea for a story, but no actual source--what do you do?  Well, a blogger would just write about the story.  I do that all the time.  Some papers just make up fictional "railbirds."  But what do you do if you are a Republic writer with an interesting story and no source? 

Answer:  Use the "Passive Voice Trick" to create a source. 

Did you see yesterday's story about Greg Stanton?

More than $70,000 in mayoral candidate Greg Stanton's election war chest is being called into question, with concerns over whether the money should be considered an illegal campaign contribution.

So who is the source?  Who is calling the contributions into question?  Reporter Lynh Bui is calling the contributions into question, but she's not allowed to just come out and say that.  She's also not allowed to use anonymous sources, so she solves the issue by making up fictional sources.  It's actually a pretty handy trick. 

If you read the story, you will see that Bui calls upon a few experts for their legal opinions, but those experts aren't the actual source of the story.  There is no source.  She just made it up.  You know, just like they teach you in J school. 

Isn't that the way it's supposed to work?

I thought this was an interesting sentence...

After hitting historic highs this spring, cotton prices are plunging, the result of higher production and lower demand, and forcing clothing makers to revisit pricing plans put in place earlier this year.

Wow, so let me get this straight...the price of cotton went way up, so people bought less of it and produced more of it and then the price went down.  Wow, it's like there's some sort of invisible hand regulating the price...

Now if we could just let this "market" process happen with gasoline, health care, cancer drugs or higher education, we would be a lot better off.

I guess they don't teach law in J school...

In this morning's column E.J. Montini puts on his lawyer hat and explains the Commerce and Supremacy Clauses to Harvard Lawyer Tom Horne.  The results are ugly. 

Mention medical marijuana and all the tough talk about states' rights goes up in smoke.

I've explained the issue in some depth before, and you can click here for a full analysis, but suffice it to say that the medical marijuana issues have been settled by the Supreme Court--and it's the current Supreme Court, not some 1896 decision that's ripe for challenge. 

Guys like Montini may not like the Republican view on medical marijuana and immigration, but the Republican positions are consistent.

Major Layoffs at the Star today.

Reports are coming in that the Star is laying off quite a few folks today--Advertising and Editorial are going to be affected. 

Frankly those layoffs probably cancel out--getting rid of the folks in advertising will reduce circulation, but getting rid of the folks in Editorial will actually increase circulation, so I think the Star's prospects are about the same.