REACTIVATING SOON

This blog will become active again soon -- certainly in time for the new legislative session. Emphasis will be on East Valley politics and government.

Picture's Worth A Thousand Words
The front page picture in today's Arizona Republic (Monday, June 8) couldn't have been more apt. Five legislators standing or sitting around awaiting, as the caption tells us, for "a House vote Thursday on a budget."

That's what most Arizona legislators have been doing for the past five months: Awaiting instructions from their so-called leadership on what budget to pass. It's a sorry story of democracy crippled by inertia and in the hands of a few people. The result is a Republican legislative budget package that is a disgrace; an assault on basic services while protecting special interests.

The Arizona Republic has done a credible job the last week or two in providing information on how the budget plans of Gov. Brewer, the Legislature's Democrats and the Legislature's Republican majority differ. But the newspaper has failed, so far, to give any accounting of what rank-and-file legislators have been doing for five months.

I ask because my two District 21 Representatives, Warde Nichols and Steven Yarbrough (both shown doing nothing in the picture) have been strangely quiet. (Nichols did surface briefly to help grab more tax dollars for private schools and his own private businesses). With all the idle time these past five months, why weren't they holding forums within the district educating taxpapers on the issues involved in the multi-year budget crisis, and soliciting suggestions on proper priorities.

That's what an involved, active State Representative would be doing. I regret that I don't have one in District 21, and I'm afraid many other Arizona taxpayers have the same problem.

Dowling: Something is way out of kilter
I'm all for vigorous investigation and prosecution of wrongdoing by public officials. But the case of former Maricopa County School Superintendent Sandra Dowling seems way, way out of kilter.

In Novemeber 2006, Dowling was indicted on 25 felony charges, including bid rigging, misuse of public funds and the theft of $1.9 million in public money.

At the time, Sheriff Joseph Arpaio labelled her actions as "repulsive."

So, please tell me how we go from a repulsive public official stealing millions to one who is allowed to plead guilty to a wrist-slapping misdemeanor (giving her daughter a summer job) in full satisfaction of all the charges?

Something had to be woefully wrong somewhere along the way.

The Sheriff's Department spent 11 months investigating this case. Was the investigation badly flawed or, as Dowling charges in a lawsuit, were the two-dozen-plus charges an outrageous example of "malicious prosecution and abuse of process"?

And what about the prosecutor's role. Was County Attorney Andrew Thomas and his staff bamboozled by the charges. Couldn't they see an incredibly weak case, and shouldn't they have done some weeding in November 2006 rather than presenting the whole load -- garbage and legitimate questions about Dowling's conduct -- to a Grand Jury for indictments? Or was Thomas involved in a malicious prosecution conspiracy with Arpaio?

These questions need to be answered because they go to the heart of how justice is administered in Maricopa County. That's why I hope Dowling goes forward with her lawsuit. Unfortunately, I fear that we'll see a huge settlement, requiring county taxpayers to pay millions in exchange for no public disclosure of information.

That would be a miscarriage of justice. We need to know, one way or another, whether we can trust what goes on in the Sheriff's Department and the County Attorney's Office when it comes to investigating other public officials.

Are Arpaio and Thomas dedicated public servants going where evidence takes them or are they creeps using their elected offices to get back at political opponents -- possibly through illegal means? (I suppose there is a middle ground: They could be dedicated public servants who are just inept at building a case that could stand up at trial.)

Let's hope we find out soon.

Republicans take aim at universal health care
In the Legislature, Republicans are moving House Concurrent Resolution 2014 forward. The effort at a 2010 ballot issue would do essentially what one narrowly rejected by voters last year would have done: protect the for-profit health care industry.

The new ballot issue would "Prohibit any law or rule from directly or indirectly compelling any person or employer to participate in any health care system." Freedom of choice. Very compelling. Except there is another way to look at it. If appoved, this would prevent consideration of any type of universal health care proposal in Arizona.

Are we ready to close out that option? With more than a million Arizonans without health insurance, and hundreds of thousands of others in perilous insurance situations, closing any options is grossly premature.

Rep. Phil Lopez (D-Tuscon) had it right when he told the Arizona Republic, "This is an ideologically driven effort because they don't like government, and they don't want government running health care."

America's Worst Sheriff
See what the New York Times Editorial Board has to say about Maricopa's burden. Also, read the Times feature, published Sunday, on Arpaio's new television show here.

How much does Fox pay Arpaio for this show? Does it go into the county treasury? Shouldn't it?

Full-day Kindergarten
Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Service, in the Sierra Vista Herald:

PHOENIX — Incoming Gov. Jan Brewer is balking at eliminating state funding for full-day kindergarten despite the $200 million or more it would save taxpayers.

Brewer, in an interview with Jay Lawrence of KTAR Radio in Phoenix, said she understands the need to look at all the money the state spends, what with a $1.2 billion budget deficit this year and a gap of more than $2 billion next year between anticipated revenues and expenses.

With this and other early indicators, such as her refusal to rule out tax increases to deal with the budget crisis, the Governor-in-Waiting is showing she won't be cornered into predictable conservative positions. She's showing real political savvy. The question is: Will she be able to maintain that tone once she's actually in office and making decisions that count?

Ongoing shame of the Maricopa Supervisors
The East Valley Tribune has done an overview of the ongoing dispute between America's worst sheriff and the activist group called Maricopa Citizens for Safety Accountability (MCSA).

Even though many will find MCSA a little too aggressive for their tastes, what should be of concern to every democracy-loving citizen is the ongoing efforts of Maricopa County leaders to deny the group reasonable ways of making their case. It amounts to surpression of public debate.

MCSA leaders have repeated requested an opportunity to be on the county Board of Supervisors' agenda so they can present issues they have involving Sheriff Joe Arpaio. The board's four Republican supervisors repeatedly have blocked this basic right of access. Shame on them.

Meanwhile, Arpaio continues bathering about this as yet another conspiracy against him.

Now that the election is over, and Arpaio has another four years to hoodwink the public, the supervisors have no excuse -- not even a political one -- not to hear what these citizens have to say.

Put them on the agenda!

Why not have a domestic-partner registry ballot issue?
Phoenix is about to have a domestic-partner registry thanks to a 6-0 City Council vote this week. Phoenix follows Tucson in granting unmarried gay and straight couples hospital visitation rights.

The catch is it will cost couples $50 once the registry begins on Feb. 9. Read the Arizona Republic article here.

While it's a small step, it's the right thing to do. Which prompts the question: Why not have a ballot issue to make the domestic-partner registry a statewide right -- with little or no charge? It would be a good way to take the gay-rights fight public on an issue that is winnable. Even better, pressure state legislators to create the ballot issue themselves. Too many Republican legislators, and perhaps a few Democrats as well, have ducked the issue. They fall back on "marriage is between one man and one women" -- a concept which has widespread public support -- and they rarely get pushed beyond that.

Progressives need to look for better ways to frame issues in Arizona. This would be a good start.

Sheriff, Treasurer balk on budget priorities
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Treasurer Charles Hoskins are balking at a county Board of Supervisors request for suggestions on how they could cut their departmental budgets by up to 20 percent.

Of the two, Hoskins has the flimiest reasoning. According to the Arizona Republic, he sent supervisors an brief e-mail saying "until I have a better feel for how the current investigation of the Board and its employees might go" he won't submit anything.

What's he talking about? The Stapley charges? Supervisors' alleged pushback at Arpaio and County Attorney Andrew Thomas? Hoskins' remark smacks of a political end-run in the style of Arpaio. Hoskins, who has zero public recognition, needs to seek election if he wants to continue serving as Treasurer. Aligning himself with Arpaio's bravado could be his path. But, as Treasurer, he should be in the thick of finding ways to bridge the county's budget crisis. Instead he's playing politics.

Arpaio has an easier case to make, in theory. Law enforcement and jail supervision should be among the county services cut least. Unfortunately, Arpaio has a very public record on wasting manpower and money on his publicity crusades. He's not immune to belt-tightening. A 20 percent cut would almost certainly impact public safety. But supervisors aren't asking for a 20 percent cut; they're asking for priorities with a mind toward worst case scenarios.

Every county department head should already have been doing that. If Arpaio and Hoskins can't identify ways they could cut budgets while minimizing impact, they're guilty of dereliction of duty.

Shadegg’s grand plan: Suspend income taxes

Give Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ 3) credit, at least, for thinking big.

Shadegg wants nothing to do with an auto industry bailout, but he has a grand plan for bringing the economy around.

He wants to eliminate most income taxes, at least temporarily. “While I would favor permanent tax relief, I also believe a substantial tax holiday will do more to stimulate our economy than another taxpayer-funded bailout,” said today in a press release.

Under legislation he proposed Wednesday, individuals making less than $125,000, or couples making up to $250,000, in 2008 would owe no income taxes. Those making more would be a 5% tax break.

Naturally, Shadegg doesn’t say how much this taxpayer bailout would cost, but he asserts that his plan or an alternative proposal to suspend both payroll and income taxes for the first six months of 2009 “would cost dramatically less than the bloated $7 trillion bailout packages peddled by congressional Democrats and the Bush Administration.”

The idea is to let taxpayers decide, through their spending, which business live and which die. His press release doesn’t say which government services and departments must die when hundreds of billions in income tax revenue is jettisoned.

Nor did he adequately explain why he voted against the auto bailout bill when, just a month ago, he explained his vote for the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, by citing auto industry jobs, among others:

“Make no mistake, the vote today was about Arizonans losing their jobs,” Shadegg said on Oct. 3. “I have spoken with small business owners throughout our state, and they are deeply worried. Several have told me that they cannot currently get credit and they do not believe they will be able to pay their employees next week. Automobile sales plummeted by 27% last month and the drop will be double next month—salesmen and mechanics will lose their jobs. Manufacturers cannot get the materials they need unless they pay in cash.”

This Shadegg plan to save jobs is a grand-but-harebrained plan which has no chance of adoption. Memo to the Rep: Come back to reality and get the hell back to work on realistic ways to shore up the economy.

Shadegg has a blue-sky buddy in Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ 6), who also opposed the auto bailout, calling it “simply a very expensive way of delaying the inevitable.”

"With the appointment of a 'car czar,' this legislation is a perfect example of what Friedrich Hayek called the 'fatal conceit' -- the belief that elected officials and bureaucrats can outguess millions of decisions made by independent actors in the marketplace," Flake's post-vote press release said.

Bottom line on Shadegg and Flake: They’re all for letting the market decide. I wonder if their faith is based on the relatively regulation-free environment of market decisions in recent years. Permit me pause before genuflecting to their tainted god of unfettered, crap-shooting capitalism.