Jerry Lewis for State Senate

Tonight, I crossed party lines to attend a meet and greet for Jerry Lewis who is running as a Republican for the State Senate in my legislative district.  He is the same person who took out immigration pariah Russel Pearce in a recall election.  He wasn't in my district then, but the lines have been re-drawn and he's in my district now.  He'll be running against Ed Ableser in November, someone who I've spent some time canvassing for already.

I went into the event tonight already with some expectations.  I figured Jerry Lewis was a moderate, was substantive, and would be someone I could, in theory vote for.    And I do have some concerns about Ed Ableser.  I've been told he's a pretty down the line liberal and I've read that he has missed 40% of his votes.  From Robb:

The Arizona Capitol Times reported on voting participation by state legislators. Most of them voted a high percentage of the time. I leave to you whether that’s good or bad.

The worst voting record in the Legislature by far belonged to Democratic state Representative Ed Ableser. He missed nearly 40 percent of the House floor votes.

When legislators miss a lot of votes, they usually have good excuses – personal or family illness, unusual business demands. Ableser, who is running for the Senate this year, had one I hadn’t heard before: He doesn’t like the legislators the voters in other districts elected.

The Capitol Times quotes Ableser as saying: “They’re nuts. The Tea Party has taken over the state and made it a complete mockery. I’m not going to participate in that.”

Well, now. Perhaps Ableser should ask that the election in his district be delayed – so he can see who gets elected from other districts and therefore how much time he really wants to spend doing the job.

 Back to Lewis, I admit I was kind of taken by him.  He's incredibly nice and engaging (though at times a bit long-winded).  He has an impressive resume.  He has really smart, authentically sharing views on immigration that I'm totally on board with.   He seemed to have a pretty strong libertarian ideology but tempered by a ton of pragmatism.   He actually spent several minutes talking with me and my wife, which is a precious opportunity for me and I'm grateful for it.

I asked him point blank his opinion on Obamacare.  I did make the mistake of prefacing my question with a disclosure that my daughter has a chronic illness.  He gave a sensible answer:  it's the law, let's work with it to improve it, but until the Republicans come up with something better, this is what we have.  Having said that, I got the impression he had a tendency to say what he felt people wanted to hear.

The person who hosted this house party attends my church congregation and invited many members of the church to attend. Someone, who I respect, stood up and gave a tearful endorsement for this person as someone who has a pure and honest heart.  Also, he was, at one time, a ecclesiastical leader of my parents congregration and knew my parents by name.

I can easily see myself voting for Jerry Lewis, but I would love to get a chance to have a similar discussion with Ed Ableser before this is all said and done.  I also can't wait to watch the upcoming debates.

State Budget Crisis

Random Musings has a pretty good overview of the trouble with our state budget explained in great detail here.

I wanted to mainly summarize my reading of the article published on the Morrison Institute website because this is really important stuff.

The article's primary point is that our state is running both a cyclical but more troubling a structural deficit that will be increasingly difficult to resolve. The cyclical deficit stems from our current recession - tax revenue have fallen while at the same time there's an increased demand for government services - stuff like medicaid, etc.

However, the structural deficits are much more troubling because they persist even as we recover and they were primarily caused by:


"Less understood is the depth of the state’s massive structural imbalance, which has arisen thanks in large part to policy choices made during the go-go years of the state’s recent past but which will not soon relent. During the growth years, legislative and executive leaders acted as if the state could maintain a basic level of service provision even as it implemented tax cuts that permanently reduced the state’s revenue base."


How we deal with this structural deficit is key:


"With one-time fixes, gimmicks, and fund sweeps exhausted, budget cuts from this point forward could—if handled crudely—prove devastating and difficult to recover from. Serious discussions among state leaders have included opting out of Medicaid, cutting a K-12 system often cited before the recession for receiving the lowest per-pupil funding in the nation, and significantly reducing funding for the state’s university system. At the same time, if managed well (that is, with a balanced
approach and a sense of strategy and rigor) the crisis might actually prompt innovation instead of just pain.


I'm afraid our political culture here in Arizona is not well suited for dealing with this issue in a sophisticated way and that can have consequences if they aggressively cut services that are critical for the long term growth of our state (schools, say).

Sources of our structural deficits:

Tax Cuts

"Beginning in FY 1993, the state implemented tax cuts in every year through FY 2002, and again from FYs 2005 through 2010 (though in only about half of these years was the revenue reduction substantial). Nominally, the net changes during this 17-year period totaled some $1.7 billion. Adjusting for inflation, population growth, and real per capita economic growth, the cumulative impact climbs to $2.9 billion. All kinds of taxes were cut, but 58 percent of the total in nominal dollars came from the personal income tax.5 "


Spending Increases

"On the other side of the budget ledger, two major impacts on general fund expenditures have occurred since the structural deficit began in the early 1990s. First, funding for school construction was shifted into the general fund in FY 1999, with no additional revenue being provided. The annual expense has been as high as $500 million. Second, in 2000 voters passed two competing ballot initiatives to expand Medicaid by using tobacco settlement monies. However, the specified funding source was inadequate to support the expansions, so additional funding had to be drawn from the general fund. "


All of this has consequences, we've already seen a 20% cut in K-12 spending, 28% cut in university budgets, a cut in benefits to needy families (kicking out 8,200 families) and a termination of support for organ transplants funded by Medicaid.

One very important suggestion:


"Lawmakers should embrace balance as a watchword as they seek to stabilize year-to-year finances and narrow structural gaps. One sort of balance should be a balance of revenue- and spending-side responses. The state’s massive budget gaps simply cannot be responsibly closed with only spending reductions. A second sort of balance is that which arises from diversification of the tax system. The proliferation of tax reductions implemented in the state since the early 1990s have made the revenue system not only narrower, but also more vulnerable to cyclical variations in the economy. State leaders need to commit to a more balanced approach and to making the hard choices on both the spending and revenues sides of the budget to achieve it. "

Vision

The libertarian leaning local columnist Robert Robb had some nice things to say about Terry Goddard.


"Goddard began the diffusion of political power that characterizes Phoenix and the state today. He actually had more lasting influence on Arizona's political future than those most often cited as the dominant figures of that period: Bruce Babbitt, Burton Barr and Alfredo Gutierrez.

If Goddard had played it safe as mayor, he undoubtedly would have been elected governor in 1990.

Goddard, however, forcefully advocated for a series of failed tax-increase proposals: to build a downtown baseball stadium, to transform and restore the Salt River throughout the county, and to establish a county-wide transit system.

In much of this, he was just premature. A downtown baseball stadium was eventually built. A county-wide transit tax was approved. Piecemeal improvements of the Salt River are occurring. In the case of the transit system and Salt River improvements, what Goddard advocated in the 1980s was actually much better than what county residents ultimately got."


I think this is why I am a Democrat right now. I love Tempe Town Lake, I live only a few miles south of it. My daughter's youth choir sang the National Anthem at a Diamond Backs game recently. I took the light rail downtown to see her and the game. I forgot how much I love baseball and I had a blast at the game, despite the cheesy over the top amusement park-like baseball stadium. I also loved riding the light rail and I wish I could take it more often, but I love that it exists.

Baseball stadiums, light rail, highways, Tempe Town Lake, parks - none of these exist without some amount of public government support. But the Republican party presumably would prefer to cut all of this and more. It's the utter-cheapness of today's Republican party that drives me away from it. Its a political party that has started to think small.

I grew up in Yuma, a city that historically has close to the highest unemployment rate in the nation. And my dad was perpetually unemployed or vastly underemployed. We literally scraped by. I cannot tell you the number of times they would say the words: "We can't afford it." And it was always true - they couldn't afford much of what I wanted (even my modest wants were usually unfulfilled.

But looking back, my dad often suffered from a lack of vision. You don't say we can't afford it, you find a way to afford it and then you afford it. I'm speaking of the more worthwhile wants I had growing up - like piano lessons, say. And I can think of times when my dad was able to step it up and afford stuff - most notably when it came time for me to serve a two year church mission. He took on a second job for those two years to pay for that mission, and for that I'm very grateful. So, he had it within him, but too often he used poverty as an excuse (this is my interpretation - there were probably issues going on I didn't fully understand).

I get that we don't want unnecessary debt or burdensome taxes, but that just means to me that you find a way to raise revenue broadly so it has minimal impact, say by cutting loopholes, broadening the tax base instead of simply raising the rates.

This hit home for me one more time today. My oldest daughter was involved in a Suzuki "book promotion" concert today. All of these kids involved in Suzuki violin or cello gathered for a concert at a church in South Tempe. They played in order from the beginner to advanced. The most advanced student played last. She must have been 12 or 13 and she played a solo, the only solo of the day, and her piece was beautiful and inspiring.

To play the violin well (or at all), you need to practice for years, be willing to spend good money on lessons and instruments and music. Be willing to spend the time day after day. And then after many, many years you may be good enough to actually perform something that people will show up to listen to, and not just because they're being supportive because they know they will be inspired, maybe. But you still do it anyway because you're thinking big. You want to create something beautiful - and the cost of doing so is basically beside the point, because beauty really has no price tag.

The Republican party has within itself the ability to think big by the way. I think I understand their ideology pretty well - I lived it pretty passionately for a good 10-20 years.

Republicans believe in the free market but so do the Democrats. Nobody is arguing in any of our political debates that we should nationalize the internet or Apple.

Where the battle lines are drawn are in those areas where the free market is not actively participatory - preserving the environment (some companies do want to preserve the environment, but usually only if and when it benefits them, or its a secondary concern subservient to profits), universal access to education and health care, roads, police, our military.

Republicans want strong and active government in police and in the military but they want to minimize its footprint in other areas. Democrats don't. That's really the extent of the difference between the two parties.

But Republicans are not cruel, most want good schools for everyone, most would be in favor of a diabetic getting access to insulin regardless of ability to pay. They just don't want the government to do it. They rightly believe that government tends to be motivated by more political than altruistic concerns, and in the politician's machinations, winning the next election takes precedent over anything else.

But what are their alternatives - churches and charitable organizations. And I think I understand why - I can see on paper (not sure if the data bears this out) that when a person volunteers time and money to a specific organization they're gong to want to be more diligent in vetting that organization and all of this comes from a place of passion and for a higher purpose. I give a lot of money to my church - I do it because of my faith, but I also have a lot of confidence those funds will be used wisely. This is why I favor eliminating tax loopholes and deductions, but I make an exception for charitable giving. The problem with taxes are they are not voluntary. They are collected by force, so other than through elections, politicians don't have the same accountability that charities do.

But I want to see this explained much, much better and with more vigor by Republicans. If Republicans truly believed that charitable institutions could fill in the gaps for health care, education, libraries, care for the elderly, I would love to see them embrace this fully and explain to me how. And I want to see it employed in practice.

Remove the tax subsidies employers get for providing employee health insurance, which will effectively kill employer provided health insurance. Then show me how through a combination of free market health insurance and charity, I can always get insulin to my daughter. I'm not being cynical here, I want this position defended much more forcefully by the Republicans.

Stop thinking small. In my view, we have more wealth on this good earth than we realize. We can harness our global natural resources, get more out of more people. We can live more abundant lives than we currently are.

Its time our politics reflect that - from both parties.

Ok, so, Its Education We're Going to Defund

Looks like 300 million dollars are going to be cut from our schools and social services. That's just a start, apparently, we've got to get to $2 billion this fiscal year and $3billion in the next. But just to be clear, unless our schools have been burning $300 million dollars in a literal fire, that's going to increase our unemployment rates at a time we already have 9.6% unemployment. I think its clear that this makes it more likely not less that our economy will fall into a double dip.

Even if we can make these kinds of cuts without affecting school quality (which I seriously doubt), even if we are able to find people to fire who are making zero impact on our school quality, those people will be added to our unemployment roles. Those people will have to immediately cut spending, which impacts demand, which will reduce the incentive for businesses to hire and the cycle continues.

For those who think the government stimulus was a waste of money, now as that stimulus expires, we'll see what happens, to some extent, to our economy without it.

By the way, these spending cuts will be offset somewhat, by the Fed's decision to increase the money supply through its monetary policy, which conservatives inexplicably are also against. In that link, Krugman argues that even Friedman is too liberal for today's conservatives.

All of this is worrying enough, but I assume that $300 million (plus the additional cuts still to come) are sizeable enough that it will affect educational quality.

I just ran across this article recently. It is short, but the author tries to pinpoint the source of America's wealth. Here's how the article concludes:

"America does seem to be special in important ways, but it's not always clear what those ways are. A liberal economic order and geographically mobile population are important, but so is the level of education, the promise of social mobility, and the openness of America's borders. It's worth keeping all of that in mind as the country's leaders think about the ways economic policy should change in the wake of the Great Recession."

It's like Arizona read that paragraph and decided to do the opposite of every item in this sentence.

The Propositions - a Recap

As far as I know here are the results of the propositions. I have a pretty long history in being disappointed in state proposition results, but the reality of it is that I win some and I lose some and this year is no different. So, let's go down the line one by one:

Prop. 106

This proposition amends the state constitution to make it possible for for someone to pay for medical services in any way they prefer without having to pay a fine. I totally understand why this passed, but its not clear to me what the consequence of passing it will be. There will be definite conflicts between the language in this proposition and "Obamacare" passed by the federal government and there's enough ambiguity in the proposition, lawsuits are probably the only way to sort it all out. My feeling is that this proposition will waste some state funds but not result in any substantive change to our health care environment. I don't think Arizona has the authority to arbitrarily overrule what the federal government does. Conflicts will have to be decided in the courts.

Ultimately, I still believe people don't fully understand the need for mandates. If people really want to restrict insurance companies from denying those with preexisting conditions or to limit coverage or kick someone off their rolls based on their actuarial models, then by virtue of this restriction, they are essentially insured regardless of whether or not they pay a premium.

If you can wait until you are sick to enroll and still be covered, you were insured. Removing a mandate allows someone to free-ride.

And in essence, we have this ability to free ride right now, at least to some extent. How many people really want to live with the consequences of a society without mandates? Do you want to prove you can pay before being admitted into the hospital or being picked up by an ambulance? Do you want to be refused cancer treatments because of inadequate insurance?

My feeling is this proposition will ultimately have little to no consequence other than giving some lawyers something to do. But Arizonans have a history of of this kind of silliness.

In fact there seems to be a larger disconnect with voters nationwide. We want a bunch of services but we don't want to pay for them. We want stuff for nothing which is why we have this massive debt, and we need to start electing politicians who will call us on this (I blame Reagan by the way :-) ).

Proposition 107, Proposition 113
Prop 107 bans state sponsored affirmative action; prop 113 maintains the legality secret ballot in union elections. First off, its almost high comedy that Arizona passed 107 especially when we may be on the verge of gutting our government to balance the budget. Do our state universities (universities that accept practically everybody) really even use affirmative action?

On 113, I don't get the feeling that our unions have much power in our state, so this proposition does little to change that. In my view, both of these propositions will ultimately have little consequence.

The Rest
The voters agreed with me on the rest that have been decided:

1) Hunting and fishing is not a constitutional right on the same level of speech, press, and worship (phew).
2) No lieutenant governor position will be established (the idea is a good one, but it needs more vetting to make way for independents to run in the general election).
3) And the voters rejected the states attempts to balance the budget by pulling funds from state trust lands and "First Things First."

By the way on failing to pass 301 and 302 we have essentially blown a hole in our budget a mile wide. Voting no on these propositions only makes sense if our politicians are willing to raise revenue through tax increases (something I support). But I'm not sure if the average voter realizes this.

Instead, it looks like we'll ultimately have to reject $7 billion dollars of federal aid, so that we can gut medicaid. Is our goal to drive both migrant workers and the poor out of our state?.

I hope this quote raises more than a few eyebrows:

"The budget is more than $800 million in the hole this year, with another $1.4 billion in cuts needed next year. If you cut all of state government, with the exception of prisons, DES, K-12 and universities and AHCCCS, you would save $820 million."

Those Still to be Decided
Of the three propositions still undecided, legalizing marijuana is the one I care the most about and I'm praying and hoping it fails.

My Ballot Picks

I've been trying really hard this election to stay up to speed on the candidates and I've been doing pretty well. The night before the election I thought I'd might finalize my picks in one post.


My general strategy is to vote Democrat, although in this post I'll tell you the elections I think where the candidates are pretty even.


For reference, here are my propositions.

Here are the Arizona Republic's picks

On to my picks:

My Ballot

Position	My Vote	Arizona Republic's Opinon	Brief Explanation
Senate	Rodney Glassman	John McCain	Rodney Glassman is young, inexperienced, from a rich family, has some question marks in his past, but he's also smart, energetic, polished, and confident. John McCain brought Sarah Palin to the world and may do his part to end it if for some odd chance Palin wins the presidency in 2012. His presidential campaign, in a word, was awful. He's also changing course on a number of issues, trying desperately to reincarnate himself into the Rush Limbaugh of the Senate. This is really more of a no vote against McCain than a yes vote for Glassman (McCain is someone I've really, really liked in the past, so I'm sad to see McCain's career turn this way).
Congressional District 5	Harry Mitchell	David Schweikert	This is one of those elections where two really pretty good candidates are running against each other. Harry Mitchell has a long, deep and substantive record in local politics. A longtime teacher at Tempe High, the mayor of Tempe, a state legislature, and a Congressman for two terms. He's a moderate all the way, every bill he's authored has had Republican co-signers. I'm voting for him because he voted for Obamacare, despite some of his misgivings, he did what was right. Schweikert is young, energetic and a fiscal conservative. I trust (though not sure) he would be sincere in his attempts to act as a counter-weight to Obama's spending. I'm voting for Mitchell, but Schweikert should be a better representative than J.D. Hayworth (who Mitchell beat in 2006) if he were to win. For now, I believe the election is too close to call.
Governor	Terry Goddard	Jan Brewer	Jan Brewer was not prepared to take over when Napolitano left, but after a slow start she's been competent. I abhorred the 1070b signing, but she did defend it with passion. Goddard, though, is a much more competent governor who would defend our schools in the face of a legislature who will try their hardest to cut its funding. The state is facing hard times right now. The schools are already scraping by. Goddard is in a better position to do the right thing.
Secretary of State	Chris Deschene	Ken Bennett	This one is a tossup election for me and admittedly Ken Bennett has more direct experience and is better prepared to take over as governor if for some reason he's called upon. Both seem qualified to assume the responsibilities of Secretary of State. I want greater participation in the elections and I trust Deschene will work harder to reach out to the disenfranchised. I'm going with Deschene.
Treasurer	Andrei Cherney	Doug Ducey	I agree with Ducey ideologically more than I do with Cherney. I just trust Cherney more than I do Ducey. My heart and gut over rule my head on this one.
Attorney General	Felicia Rotellini	Felicia Rotellini	Wow, the Arizona Republic finally agrees with me :-). This is a no-brainer. Tom Horne is a strong candidate, although he does have a lifetime ban from the SEC (for something he did 40 years ago - but still). But this is more about Rotellini - she's incredible, highly qualified, with a sterling record. Arizona would really muff this one if they chose Horne over Rotellini.
School Superintendent	Penny Kotterman	John Huppenthal	Another no brainer. If you're a school reform ideologue with no faith in teachers or administrators and all it takes to run our schools is in-depth knowledge on the latest research (no matter how sketchy or politicized) - Huppenthal is your guy. He's never taught school, but has a long record writing legislative bills on school policy. Kotterman has been an instructor and a administrator, has a deep knowledge of school issues and a comprehensive view on how to improve them. This choice should also be a no brainer.
Corporation Commision	Gary Pierce and David Bradley	Gary Pierce and Brenda Burns	There are three really qualified candidates running from my view (the second Democrat unfortunately passed away). I prefer a little more emphasis on renewable energy than the Republicans will bring to the table, but I'll be happy no matter what happens here I'm sure.
Central Arizona Water Conservation District	"Tim Bray, Frank Fairbanks, Jim Holway, Arif Kazmi, Sid Wilson	Same	I'm placing my trust in the AZ Republic on this one. There are some tea-party candidates running who just want to cut costs and have no background or experience with water. Be sure to avoid those folks.
State Mining Inspector	Manuel Cruz	Joe Hart	Two good candidates - one is focused more on advocacy for mining in the state, the other is more focused on regulation and safety. I'm going for the second.
Legislative District 17 - Senate	David Schapira	David Schapira	David Shapira is much more qualified and knowledgeable on the issues than Wendy Rogers. Rogers skipped their one debate and has a pretty narrow view of the issues facing Arizona generally. Shapira is by far the better choice.
Legislative District 17 - House	Ed Ableser and Ben Arredondo	Ed Ableser and Ben Arredondo	I never did getting around to blogging about this race. The Republicans did not field anybody even worth mentioning once Steve May dropped out (he was kind of a joke as well). Its inexplicable - this district has plenty of Republicans living in it and we've had substantive Republicans representing it in the past. Ben Arredondo is a rock and the better of the two. Ed Ableser is energetic although a bit idealistic apparently.
County Attorney	Bill Montgomery	Bill Montgomery	I really like Rick Romley who lost to him in the primaries. There are no Democrats running. Montgomery was endored by Arpiro which is a big negative for me, but I'm assuming he's competent enough for the position.
Clerk of the Superior Court	Michael Jeanes	Michael Jeanes	Going with the AZ Republic on this one
Justice of the Peace - Kyrene	Elizabeth Rogers	Unknown	She's the incumbent and the Democrat
Constable	Jon Levenson	Unknown	I've met him and his sign is in my yard.
High School Governing Board	Dave Wells and David Schapira	Unknown	Dave Wells is a professor at ASU and seems knowledgeable and energetic. Schapira is also running for the the Senate (part time position) and can use his influence to help Tempe High schools

Why Its Hard to be a Moderate

Because moderate arguments are harder to make.

I was in a lively debate the other day defending Obama's health care plan. And it takes some time for me to defend it because there's a lot to it and my reasons for supporting it (with its flaws) are a bit complicated. In this debate, my friend suggested that if I have to spend so much time defending something, maybe it's wrong? I also sent another person an article that went on for at least 5 pages defending Obama's two years as a president, and he told me he didn't read it because if you can't sum up your position more concisely, if you have to spend that long defending a position, then there may be something wrong with it.

Because the political forces at work are trying to pull you to one extreme or the other

I feel this in my own life a lot. On most issues, I can see good points on both sides and I usually try to find ways to merge these two issues into one. When trying to determine who to vote for, I prefer people who are rationale and reasonable and who seem to have a record of working through compromise with others of different viewpoints.

But its hard because for most people really active in politics, the whole thing becomes a game. Its us verses them, a battle between good and evil. So, right now I happen I find myself being pulled to the left on some issues for very rational reasons, but as I gravitate toward these news sources, its gets easier and easier to be pulled in.

In the end, I just want to believe that most people that run are really pretty outstanding people.

Because an extreme view is just more fun to be passionate about

Gay marriage is a classical example of this. If you're against gay marriage, you are really against it because gay marriage will destroy marriage as we know it. It will depopulate the earth. It will bring about the end of life as we know it. No matter that gays have committed suicide because of bullying inspired by over the top anti-gay rhetoric. No matter that the aids epidemic killed literally thousands through the 1980's who had no institution to support them or guide them toward healthy alternatives.

If you support gay marriage then you really support it. You believe churches who speak out against it are hateful and should lose their tax exempt status.

The moderate view is harder to defend. Of course, I'll say my view is the moderate one :-).

But the church I belong to is taking a complicated view of this complex issue. We have strong religious reasons for being against gay marriage as a religion, but we also have strong religious reasons for being inclusive, compassionate, and charitable toward all.

Bottom line, this issue is complicated and attempts to make it easy tend to be wrong.

Gay marriage is just one issue. I can make the same case for schools, the environment, abortion.


Jon Stewart says it all better than me:

Rally to Restore Sanity.

Loved these quotes:
"We live now in hard times not end times. We can have animous and not be enemies. If we amplify everything, we hear nothing."

Why I'm contemplating a Democratic Party Line Vote

Just to set this up by stating the obvious :-), all but one of the elections on the ballot are state elections (or below). The one exception is the seat for US Congress. State issues parallel national ones in many ways, but also there are some important differences between the two. Unless you're Sarah Palin, foreign policy views are pretty much irrelevant (ok, for Arizona, border issues with Mexico matters - but certainly not the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq).

This website gives a break down on how Arizona spends its money - largely on education and health care (as opposed to the federal government which breaks down mostly among defense, health care and social security).

So, education and healthcare are two of the big issues state politicians must tackle.

But consider Arizona is one of the lowest states in the country on per pupil education spending and that Arizona ranks 41st in the country in overall tax state and local tax burden felt by an individual.

Over the last decade or so Arizona politics has mirrored federal. We have relied on accounting gimmicks and an unsustainable housing bubble to fuel a growth in spending demands even as we cut state and local taxes. Anecdotally, we have a race to the bottom political mentality. One example is seen whenever a big business wants to move into the valley and each city offers sweetheart tax loopholes in an effort to get the business within their city limits.

The housing boom is over and will probably not return. Arizona can still be a growth state but we need to transform our politics to something sustainable. Furthermore, education is our future, we can't endure much more in the way of cuts if we really want Arizona to remain an attractive destination for families with kids. Additionally, if we ever want to to to create a Silicon Valley clone, or something like it, we need to improve our universities.

This all takes money (I'm all for education reform but until someone can show me how great schools can be created with no resources you can't tell we don't need money), so tax hikes have got to be a part of the equation in the balanced budget debates.

But the Republican party has demogogued themselves out of tax hikes largely. They talk about how we must learn to live in a more resource constrained environment.

Jane Brewer did get a 1% sales tax proposition on the ballot which passed overwhelmingly, but if it wasn't for 1070B, she probably would have lost in the primaries at least partially because of that tax increase. So, there are definitely reasonable, smart leaders in the Republican party, but they exist in a pretty toxic political environment right now.

More examples: I probably would vote for Ken Bennett for Secretary of State (he seems like a talented, pragmatic and experienced person) if these were different times. Tom Horne probably would make a good Attorney General. Jan Brewer (assuming she's healthy) has been a decent governor (at least in the second half of her term - she had a rough/slow start). I'm torn between Duce and Cherney for treasurer.

But, ideologically, the Republican party has been stifled by an ideology dominated by tax cutting dogma that usually makes no sense (I'm not against low taxes - but what are going to live without and is it worth it).

They want to turn every issue into a debate between the markets and socialism (including schools). The results have been and will continue to be a race to the bottom for most except the truly well off who will always get access to what they desire. There is a reason why we have a growing income gap in this country.

I definitely don't want socialism. I just want greater access to schools and health care for more people. Keep most everything else private. But education is our future. We need to invest in it.

So, yes, despite some of the tough choices, I'm probably going to go Democratic in this election. The stakes are too high and right now, I don't trust the Republicans.

The State Propositions

My general approach to propositions, when in doubt vote No.

I actually hate the trend we have in the state to put a lot of pretty technical and complex issues on the ballot. If this is the trend, then why do we have a legislative branch? Why not get rid of it and vote for laws by ballot measure exclusively?

Its tiring and ridiculous. Having said that, I did get talked into one yes vote, but my yes is very tentative, I could easily be talked into a no.

I'm a bit torn on the union measure and on the affirmative action measure. I could be talked into a yes on either to tell you the truth.

Mostly, do, my no's are pretty firm.

The Propositions

Proposition	My Vote	Arizona Republic's Opinon	Brief Explanation
106: Healthcare Freedom Act for Arizona	No	No	I strongly disagree with this - its a backdoor way to use the state constitution to weaken Obama's health care law. Federal law over-rules state law and it will waste our resources. By the way, we need mandates - everyone needs to pay for health care if we expect the guarantees we expect and demand.
Proposition 107: Arizona Civil Rights Initiative	No	Yes	I'm soft on this one. Are we passed the need for affirmative action? I personally am not so sure.
109: Arizona Hunting and Fishing Amendment	No	No	Making it a constitutional right to hunt and fish? Unnecessary.
110: Arizona State Trust Lands	Yes	Yes	Seems reasonable to me.
111: Arizona Lieutenant Governor	No	Yes	The idea is a good one, this law is poorly written - it will provide a barrier for independents to run
112: Arizona Signature Filing	No	Yes	There are already too many initiatives on the ballot.
113: Arizona Save Our Secret Ballot	No	Yes	I don't have a strong opinion on this (right now)..
203: Arizona Medical Marijuana Act	No	No	This is just an excuse to make marijuana legal
301: Arizona Land Conservation Fund Transfer	No	No	We can't balance the budget on the backs of our most precious resources. State lands need to be protected
302: Arizona First Things First Program Repeal	No	No	And we can't balance the budget on the backs of our children.

State Treasurer - I can't decide

If you want to feel like you need a shower after watching a debate, watch this one:




On the issues, I have to say I think Doug Ducey makes more sense to me than Andre Cherney.

Here's what I can pull from this debate:

Doug Ducey wants to be a responsible banker of the state's finances, fine. They both do. More radically (but its only slightly more radical), he wants to work with the governor to find ways to entice businesses to move to Arizona. How he would do that? Its unknown. But he definitely wants to use the office to be sort of an assistant to the Governor?

Andre Cherney wants to use the Treasurer's office to audit the state's finances and to expose wasteful state spending. I agree with Ducey on this point, I'm not sure a Democratic Treasurer playing partisan games with what is most likely going to be a Republican controlled legislature is a good idea. I think that's an over-reach and will probably be a pretty ineffective tactic.

He also states he wants to use state funds to invest in Arizona companies to promote clean energy and biotech technologies. Again, I agree with Ducey, this seems risky and not an appropriate use of state funds designated and allocated for schools.

Ideologically, I agree with much of what Cherney advocates - ensure money for schools, I wouldn't mind seeing state funds invested in clean energy and biotech and other areas to spur innovation in the state. I also agree that legislature needs better oversight.

But should the person to advocate for these sorts of things be the State Treasurer? Maybe. But he definitely shouldn't be pushing for ideological causes with state funds. If the legislature wants to allocate a slice of the state funds for these kinds of purposes, it should be decided upon there - the legislative branch working with the governor. The treasurer simply should not be risking state funds in this way.

I also disagree with Cherney that Dean Martin has done a poor job as the Treasurer. I'm not knowledgeable enough to know for sure, but my sense is that Dean Martin is a stand up guy whose done a good job in a touch economic climate. He would have been a much better candidate for governor than Jan Brewer. He gets no blame for the fact that we lost a lot of money because of the stock market crash (everything crashed - there were no safe places to put your money in 2008).

Having said that, Doug Ducey rubs me the wrong way. He's this smooth talking corporate guy who says all the right things but you wonder if he's just telling you what you want to hear. His failure to pay his taxes on time is concerning. I also have heard that there were issues with Cold Stone Creamery - too rapid growth, too many franchises too close together which hurt the individual franchise owners in order to boost corporate profits.

And the way he tried to group Cherney with President Obama and then blame Obama for our recession was dreadful. I realize it was a political ploy, but it was stupid and dishonest (I know Ducey realizes Obama did not drive our economy into the ditch, it was pretty well in the ditch when he took office).

And who cares anyways, Cherney is not Obama. Stick with the issues.

So, it seems like we have the choice between uninspiring candidates for Treasurer, which is too bad.

By the way, I endorsed Barbara Leff for Republican nomination for treasure. I stand by that. I think she would have been the the better choice between these two.

But again, I'm basing this opinion off of one flimsy interview. I'm open to your suggestions.

More on the governor's race from Robert Robb

In this post Robert Robb describes Jan Brewer in a way that aligns with my general (and uninformed) impression of her:

"There is a sense in which Brewer has proven her capacity to manage the office. After a very rough start, she shook up her staff last fall. After the highly experienced and competent Eileen Klein took over as chief of staff, the Brewer administration has marched smartly forward.

Brewer's tenacity got the sales tax increase to the ballot. Real budget cuts were enacted. The management of policy and politics has been in synch and remarkably sound, as the sharp turnaround in Brewer's political standing attests. Obviously standing up for the state against slanderous national criticism over SB 1070 turbocharged Brewer's comeback. But the turnaround was well underway before that."

Honestly, before 1070, I didn't have much of an issue with how she was running the state. And Robb's correct that she did tenaciously defend 1070, its just that this is an issue I strongly disagree with her on, and I felt her tenacity border-lined on unprofessionalism, which the beheading controversy is indicative of.

The budget was a mess and she made the best of a bad situation, and take a look at her resume, she has a deep and accomplished political career highlighted by this:

"In 1996, Brewer ran for chairman of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, defeating incumbent Ed King, and would serve for six years on the board. She inherited a debt of $165 million, and by the end of Brewer’s tenure in 2002, she left Maricopa County in one of the strongest financial positions of any county in the nation.[2] Governing Magazine proclaimed the County as 'one of the two best managed large counties in the nation.'"

But this debate makes it clear, that she's horrible, horrible at public speaking, and a governor has to represent the state and sell ideas to the public.

"Nevertheless, public presentation is part of the governor's job and not a Brewer strong point, to put it mildly. Additionallly, Brewer's inability to master the details of policy raises the question of whether sound instincts are good enough given the difficulties facing the state. (Goddard, for example, was right and Brewer was wrong on the question of whether the state budget has been balanced.)"

Regarding Goddard, Robb has some smart suggestions for him:

"Based upon tonight's debate, Terry Goddard apparently believes the economy is his issue to ride. That's hard to believe. Jan Brewer isn't to blame for Arizona's economic problems. And neither Brewer nor Goddard is going to solve them. There are two arguments that might get Goddard back in the race: he will better protect education spending and he will check legislative excesses. These are believable claims and important to Arizona voters. At this point, anything else for Goddard is playing wiffle ball."

I agree. In the debate, Goddard's attacks on Brewer regarding the economy just didn't resonate with me. No way Brewer was to blame and I think most Arizona voters realize this. And Goddard's suggestions to fix the economy? Well he didn't have any in the debate probably because they just don't exist. Arizona's problems are deep and I don't care whose running this state, they just ain't going to be able to solve them.

But protecting education spending and putting a check on a state legislature that seems to be getting increasingly harsh and increasingly conservative is fundamentally why I'm voting for Terry Goddard.

First Reactions to Proposition 8

My initial reactions on court ruling in California overturning proposition 8 as unconstitutional are feelings of disappointment. Profoundly, this ruling has potentially larger consequences that extend beyond the borders of California affecting every state who has already passed bans on homosexual marriage, bans that the federal courts have now deemed unconstitutional.

I do not want to get into the tricky debate about whether we should equate gay and straight marriage. But let me suggest that this is not and should not be an easy debate. The problem I have with most political discussions (and I'm guilty of this too) is that we never pause to consider the other side. I think the conservative point of view shares some blame in this. If you scream too loud and too long and make thoughtless assumptions about the other side, resorting too quickly to ad hominum attacks, don't be surprised to see these tactics returned.

I guess my biggest worry is that those on the left side of this debate will try to make the case that the case for gay marriage is exactly the same as the case for interracial marriage back in the day. Which follows that churches and other institutions and individuals against gay marriage are making the same bad mistakes as those who made the case against interracial marriages in the past.

I would hope that its obvious or at least that you consider it may be obvious to some that the differences between gender is far more different than the differences of skin color.

And if we start making laws from the bench effectively removing these discussions from the public discourse (no matter how messy or hard the latter course may be) it hurts both sides of this and other issues. You lose trust and you sabotage what a democracy should be all about.

This was the fundamental tragedy of Roe v. Wade, in my opinion. Abortion is a very tough issue, involving tricky, religious arguments about when life begins, when the baby has a claim on civil and constitutional protections. When the courts made this issue all about the woman's rights, it ripped this issue out of the public discourse and actually made it more polarizing not less.

This is different than the civil rights cases, some of which were decided by courts because those were legitimate violations of constitutional rights. Now, how many churches out there ban interracial marriages? Maybe they exist, but they are widely scorned and marginalized.

But many churches do have strong and legitimate religious reasons for being against gay marriage. Does this mean that state and federal law should follow certain church beliefs on this issue? No. But it would be much better if this issue could be decided in a democratic forum and not dictated by judicial fiat.

The judicial ruling needs to be overturned. Lets continue the discussions recognizing that both sides of the issue have legitimate points of view.

Health Care Costs amongst the Chronically Homeless

Loved this article (although somewhat dated now) by Malcom Gladwell about homelessness and the cost of giving them health care, one emergency room visit at a time:

"'O'Bryan and Johns called someone they knew at an ambulance service and then contacted the local hospitals. 'We came up with three names that were some of our chronic inebriates in the downtown area, that got arrested the most often,' O'Bryan said. 'We tracked those three individuals through just one of our two hospitals. One of the guys had been in jail previously, so he'd only been on the streets for six months. In those six months, he had accumulated a bill of a hundred thousand dollars—and that's at the smaller of the two hospitals near downtown Reno. It's pretty reasonable to assume that the other hospital had an even larger bill. Another individual came from Portland and had been in Reno for three months. In those three months, he had accumulated a bill for sixty-five thousand dollars. The third individual actually had some periods of being sober, and had accumulated a bill of fifty thousand.'"

His remedy is really simple but incredible. The fact is the soup kitchens and the homeless shelters are not working because they assume something about homelessness that isn't true. Most homeless are not chronic. The chronic homeless make up a small percentage and they are the toughest cases.

"'If it's a medical admission, it's likely to be the guys with the really complex pneumonia," James Dunford, the city of San Diego's emergency medical director and the author of the observational study, said. "They are drunk and they aspirate and get vomit in their lungs and develop a lung abscess, and they get hypothermia on top of that, because they're out in the rain. They end up in the intensive-care unit with these very complicated medical infections. These are the guys who typically get hit by cars and buses and trucks. They often have a neurosurgical catastrophe as well. So they are very prone to just falling down and cracking their head and getting a subdural hematoma, which, if not drained, could kill them, and it's the guy who falls down and hits his head who ends up costing you at least fifty thousand dollars. Meanwhile, they are going through alcoholic withdrawal and have devastating liver disease that only adds to their inability to fight infections. There is no end to the issues. We do this huge drill. We run up big lab fees, and the nurses want to quit, because they see the same guys come in over and over, and all we're doing is making them capable of walking down the block."

The solution is surprisingly simple. It turns out it would be much cheaper just to put these chronic homeless people up in an apartment and have a nurse check up on them. Provide enough of a support system that they keep their lives stable enough that they don't fall back onto the streets.

But this solution is unsatisfying in our political culture.

"The current philosophy of welfare holds that government assistance should be temporary and conditional, to avoid creating dependency. But someone who blows .49 on a Breathalyzer and has cirrhosis of the liver at the age of twenty-seven doesn't respond to incentives and sanctions in the usual way. "


"That is what is so perplexing about power-law homeless policy. From an economic perspective the approach makes perfect sense. But from a moral perspective it doesn't seem fair. Thousands of people in the Denver area no doubt live day to day, work two or three jobs, and are eminently deserving of a helping hand—and no one offers them the key to a new apartment. Yet that's just what the guy screaming obscenities and swigging Dr. Tich gets. When the welfare mom's time on public assistance runs out, we cut her off. Yet when the homeless man trashes his apartment we give him another. Social benefits are supposed to have some kind of moral justification. We give them to widows and disabled veterans and poor mothers with small children. Giving the homeless guy passed out on the sidewalk an apartment has a different rationale. It's simply about efficiency."

And these are the kind of solutions I love, ones that don't fit easily into political ideology, but political ideologically driven solutions rarely work - they are usually solutions that solved yesterday's poorly understood problems.

Harry Mitchell for Congress

I just returned from a luncheon with Harry Mitchell hosted in someone's home in Tempe. I've never personally met our congressman until today, but I came away pretty impressed. As most of you who know me realize, I'm pretty uncomfortable usually in these sorts of gatherings - with strangers (I did have two friends who were there, the friend who invited me and her husband). But I've been trying to push out of my comfort zones lately, and I'm very passionate about politics.

Also, I had a couple of objectives. Mainly, I wanted to thank Harry Mitchell personally for his vote for our health care bill. He waited until very late in the process before announcing how he would vote. I sent him an e-mail before he did so, urging him to vote for the bill, and he came through, he voted for it. And he took a political risk doing so since he represents a district with more registered Republicans than Democrats.

He also spent some time speaking to the group and taking questions, and there were a lot of them. I had some questions of my own, but there were just sooo many hands up, I just listened.

Here are my take-aways:

1) I know this is probably a prerequisite for any successful politician, but I was extremely impressed that he remembered my name (this is something I'm horrible at) and he did so after a very brief and, from my part, awkward introduction. I briefly introduced myself as he was passing by. Then, a short time later, I was standing near the food spread, and he said, "excuse me Scott, I would like another piece of this ...". Later, when I thanked him for his vote, I told him that I had a personal interest in this issue. I mentioned that my daughter is diabetic and that our current system doesn't deal with people with chronic disease very well. I felt this bill was a big improvement and a good step in the right direction (ok, I wasn't nearly this eloquent). Later, in his speech to the general audience, he referenced me, again by name, when explaining his position on health care. I was impressed with that.

2) He comes across as very humble. He's almost 70, but seems and acts a lot younger. He's been married over forty years. Grew up in Tempe, AZ, was a school teacher at Tempe High. Was the mayor for 8 years. And now, he's finishing up his career as a Congressman. He has no agenda (it seems) other than serving Tempe.

3) He wants desperately to rise above partisanship. He wrote an op ed against Obama's lawsuit on Arizona (I'm torn on this). He has a moderate view on both health care and immigration - he wants to enforce our borders but he also wants comprehensive reform. He supports preserving Bush's tax cuts on estates and on capital gains (I disagree with him most strongly on the estate tax cuts, but I also disagree with him on the capital gains tax cuts). But he has a strong record of being a moderate, working across party lines, and really seems disgusted with the polarization going on in Congress right now.

I don't know much about the Republicans competing in the primaries yet, but I hope to soon. But he definitely deserves another term in Congress.

More on Celebrity

Something that really bugs me about how I'm managing my life and my last Michael Jackson post is that like most people, I'm consumed with primarily national news and enjoy mainly worldwide celebrities. One of my goals is to delve deeper into my community, and we try. We want to consume locally and contribute where we can.

The funny thing even my small professional contributions are on a global scale as well. When you work at a multinational company, the code I write for them is executed by millions of people potentially all over the world (our latest release was targeted for users in England, our next release is heading to France)...

But local events have a pretty big influence over my quality of life. I have to drive by two unfinished condominium towers in downtown Tempe that may never be finished, but leave their shadows across our community. When our local government decides to balance the state budget on the back of our schools, here and here, that effects me.

And I should spend my money on the local art community, the local farmer's markets, local businesses, etc. But most importantly, I should be more aware about what's going on in the state capital building just a small number of miles from my house, and maybe a little, tiny bit less aware of what's going on in cities thousands of miles away.