To read or not to read, that is the question.

Criticism without the facts doesn't weigh well with Arizona.

Obama would never be good at Texas Hold em.

The world is agog with Texas Hold em, the poker of champions game now seen throughout the world thanks to the Internet and television. Literally tens of millions play online on any given month. Well folks, it looks like our President Obama needs to take a few lessons from the pros as he is sadly lacking in poker skills. Can you imagine starting a hand out by telling everyone at the table that you have a weak hand but will try to play it the best he can. That’s exactly what he has done over the past several months as he represents this country to other leaders of the world. He, and now all of his subordinates, seem to start all meetings or discussions with an apology for how the United States has treated them over the past decades. Most recently of course is the White House dinner for Mexican President, Felipe Calderón, where Obama got thing started with an apology for the misguided immigration laws enacted by Arizona. Well in “hold em”, a weak bet demonstrates a weakness in holdings and the opponents usually come out blazing with a raise that runs you off with your tail between your legs. In Obama politics it has the same effect. Every leader of every country now feels entitled to rag about any and everything we do or have done in the past.

Mexican President Calderón stood before Congress this past Thursday, the 20th of May, sharply criticizing Arizona’s “tough new immigration law”. He then went on to chastise the United States for it’s refusal to ban assault weapons, which he claims are being used by the drug cartels in their violent shootouts in Mexico.

The article in the Arizona Daily Star quotes him as saying "I strongly disagree with the recently adopted law in Arizona," and continues with it being "a terrible idea using racial profiling as a basis for law enforcement." You also should note that the article points out that most Democrats stood and cheered as these remarks were uttered. Sorry about singling out the Democrats for cheering but it appears that most Republicans were absent; probably because they had been provided with a draft of the speech beforehand.

As to the charges about the assault weapons coming from here I can only offer some research for you to make up your own minds. A February article in The New Yorker details the antics of wealthy Syrian arms merchant Monzer al-Kassar, who on one sunny morning in 2007, met with two Guatemalans, named Carlos and Luis, who arrived at his front gate. Kassar was expecting them. He had agreed to sell them several million dollars’ worth of weapons for the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia—the South American narco-insurgent organization known as the FARC, which the U.S. State Department considers a terrorist group. One only has to look online to find literally hundreds of arms dealers yet Calderon has the audacity to blame us for the problem. President Calderón  and Obama appear to be “two birds of a feather that flock together” as they both seem bent on blaming others for their inability to solve problems.

So Mr. Obama, President sir, if it is not too late, I suggest that you pick up a couple of books on Texas Hold em and take a few tips from those guys.

Maybe we elected the wrong Obama?

I respectfully suggest that President Obama needs to spend more time consulting with his wife, Michelle, as opposed to Janet Reno and Eric Holder before he responds to questions regarding the immigration laws. I watched with admiration as the first lady fielded a question from a second grader on the subject. Actually, I came away thinking that perhaps we elected the wrong Obama. However, the question was directed at the administration, thus the country, as opposed to Arizona so I might not have heard something as conciliatory if that had been the case. I do say that it is fair to give her the benefit of the doubt, don’t you agree?

Mexican President needs a little brushing up, or possibly a “dressing down”.

Mexico’s President Felipe Calderon jumped on the band wagon yesterday and took the opportunity to “whoop” up on President Obama over the Arizona immigration issue. And unfortunately, our President “woosed” out on us, again. Is it just me, or do you get the feeling that our President Obama has an ax to grind with America?

Before President Calderon sounds off about immigration reform in our country he should sit back and take a look at his own country. In retrospect it appears to me that what we have here is a clear cut case of the “pot calling the kettle black”, no pun intended. I am not defending our laws on the basis of what the Mexican laws are, just pointing out that one should be mindful of the disparity before jumping on the “whoop Arizona” bandwagon.

So maybe, just maybe mind you, with a little “brushing up on” his own pot he will be less inclined to “dress down” ours?

Do we really need Sarah?

I see that Governor Brewer has solicited the assistance of Sarah Palin for support of our improved immigration laws. Maybe she just needs to send us a couple of her “grizzle bears” to enforce the border as opposed to actually showing up. Although I like her spunk, Palin’s that is, I don’t think we need the ex governor of Alaska meddling in our affairs.

Democrat candidates for Arizona’s AG won’t defend SB1070 if elected.

Well shut my mouth. I see in the Saturday Star that all three of the Democratic candidates for the Arizona Attorney General office are of the opinion that our new SB1070, is unconstitutional. I am wondering if they came to that conclusion in the same way that the US Attorney General , Eric Holder, did; by what he heard on TV or read in the newspaper? In researching for candidates running for the AG office I went to Ballot Pedia which list 6 candidates, 3 Democrats and 3 Republicans. I note that two of the three Republican candidates state that they would defend the new law, actually one says that he would “vigorously” defend the new law. I was unable to find a website for the third candidate.

Do you reckon that fear of reprisal from the Hispanic voter has anything to do with their decision? Wouldn’t you think that it would be better to appeal to the silent majority who are in favor of the bill?

Who needs to read the law to clearly understand that it is unconstitutional, not me of course, as I just take my lead from NBC, CBS or ABC?

When our Commander in Chief. President Obama, states that the citizens of Arizona have enacted “misguided legislation”, do you get the feeling that we may be wrong? And when the US Attorney General, Eric Holder; the primary individual responsible for advising the President on legal matters, is heard answering Congressman Ted Poe’s (R-TX) question on whether or not he had read the new law by saying that “he had glanced at it”; do you get the feeling that something might be amiss here? In fact AG Holder stated that, “I've only made -- made the comments that I've made on the basis of things that I've been able to glean by reading newspaper accounts, obviously, television, talking to people who are on the review panel, on the review team looking at the law”.

Arizona’s population is comprised of approximately 500,000 illegal immigrants, or about 10%. It appears that approximately 70% of the “legal” American citizens are in support of Arizona’s new law, yet all we hear about is the negative side of the shouting minority. Do you ever get the feeling that public television has a tendency to lead us down the primrose path? The long and short of it is that the “law is the law” and it should be respected by all.

For my final 2¢ worth let me just say; wouldn’t it be nice if we heard our President say something like, “Arizona is the hotbed for illegal immigration, drug importation and people smuggling and as your President I am going to do everything within my power to assist them in solving their problem, because their problem is our problem. And, that includes directing the US Attorney General to read through their new law and quit taking pot shots at it as that is what I am going to do. We need to become part of the solution as opposed to part of the problem.”

Polls continue to show support for Arizona immigration law.

In spite of California putting the hex on us, 2 major polls across the nation show widespread support for SB1070. There also is a CBS/NY Times Poll that shows 78% of “us” agree with the need to stop illegal immigration. The “us” I used came from the lips of none other than CBS’s own Katie Couric. Suppose that was a “Freudian slip”????

Why is there such a hue and cry over something as simple as the “Rule of law”? Although there really is no precise definition, and its meaning varies between different nations it shouldn’t take a Rhodes scholar to figure it out, should it? The long and short of it is that laws are created by nations and their citizens are expected to abide by them. If it is the opinion of the masses that the laws need changed, then they have the option of proceeding with a systematic approach to changing them.

Maybe we need to review a little background on the Rule of law in Mexico. Unfortunately, this document is long and tedious to say the least, so I have taken the liberty of presenting a short snippet in an effort to help me better understand the Hispanic as they might relate to the “Rule of Law.

“Plagued by doubts regarding the cost, timeliness, and fairness of legal procedures and remedies, Mexico’s citizens and merchants frequently attempt to structure their personal and business affairs around informal and/or reputation-based networks of familial or personal contacts, thereby precluding the formation of the arms length credit and transactional relationships that lie at the heart of dynamic markets. This long-recognized phenomenon (its intellectual roots can be traced at least as far back as Thomas Hobbes) is implicated in the Center for Development Research’s (Centro de Investigación para el Desarrollo, A.C., or “CIDAC”) observation that “In Mexico, illegality appears to be a constant. There is no absolute divorce between norms and daily conduct.”

Maybe we need to amend our constitution to allow for the Law of Mexico as an alternative to the Rule of law.

A perfect evening out.

I wrote a little blog yesterday on an article I read in the Star titled “Out of the blue”. Within hours of publishing I received numerous comments, all positive I might add, and thanking me for bringing this to their attention. My wife then received a text message from my daughter saying that the individual in the article, Jim Latimore, was the father of one of her old schoolmates. She went on to say that I had met him many years back and was wondering if I remembered? Well, to be honest, I did not, although I confessed to wondering about the name when I read the article. Later yesterday afternoon my daughter called and invited both my wife and me to dinner with Jim and his wife Pat at a local Mexican restaurant; his favorite I was told.
What an experience is all I can say. Here is an 89 year old gentleman who honestly looks more like 70, who still has a sparkle in his eye, a spring in his step and an affable smile. After being seated it was just a matter of time until my daughter asked why she had never heard about World War II and he replied that he didn’t think it was worth talking about. He and Pat are headed out to Belgium shortly to meet up with the other 2 survivors of his B-24 crew, who will then be honored by the residents of the town of Leefdaal in Belgium. And no, we didn’t hear a lot of war stories as he always seemed to put the focus on his crew, the townspeople and the “smiling schoolboy who had come with his grandfather to greet the Americans”.
Oh, his favorite was a red chili burro, enchilada style.

Star’s headlines are causing heartburn or is it just me?

The Star again runs what I consider pornographic photos of Hispanic students, this time locked arm in arm, forming a barricade to prevent a meeting between school officials and State Superintendent of Schools, Tom Horne. Continuing their ongoing practice of front page coverage for students that walk out of classes and involve themselves in protests and confrontations with law enforcement agencies is lacking in sound moral judgment, let alone proper journalism in my opinion.
Certainly one can question the use of the term “pornographic” but only if one questions whether the photo does or does not depict the act in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction. It’s time to take the students that continue this charade, a very small minority I might add, off of the front page and put them back in the classroom where your and my tax dollars are earmarked.
A recent blog, today actually at 11:45AM, and by a Star employee seems to support my position. Read it and see if you concur.
Stop giving them front page notoriety and they will stop the childish antics.

County raises fees rather than cut expenses.

The Star carries yet another article on raising fees as opposed to cutting expenses. It (article) also pinpoints another fact of political life; the Board of Supervisors approved the fee increase Tuesday on a 3-2 party-line vote. Democratic Supervisors Ramón Valadez, Sharon Bronson and Richard Elías voted for the increase. Republican Supervisors Ann Day and Ray Carroll voted no.

Whether we like it or not, the only way to cut expenses is to expel Democrats from office. The Democratic Agenda states that “every American, whatever their background or station in life, should have the chance to get a good education, to work at a good job with good wages, to raise and provide for a family, to live in safe surroundings, and to retire with dignity and security”. I cannot argue or fault this agenda except that history supports me when I say that "what it fails to state is that they will raise taxes on ever class of individual to see that their goals are attained.”

Sorry to be the one to continue to “cry wolf”, but I again reference the quote regarding the fall of democracy; “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.

Think that I am a little paranoid on this issue? You can bet your sweet tush on it! Just check the Star today for City of Tucson’s plan for raising the city sales tax. The voting council is made up of 5 Democrats and 1 Republican and has essentially been controlled by the Democrats since 2005. The city budget has almost doubled in those last 5 years and they have grown the government at a greater rate than that.

On a larger scale, a much larger scale I must add, the Star buries the article on additional expenses to the new Obama health care costs that raise the costs by $115 billion to over $1 trillion.

So it is just business as usual for the Democrats in control, “tax and spend” with nary a care about you or me; except of course that they profess to be doing what they do for the good of the community. Doesn’t anyone think about balancing the budget by reducing expenses instead of raising taxes?

Oh, by the way. If cutting teachers and supplies isn’t bad enough, the TUSD Governing Board approved a salary change for the superintendent's Cabinet members that will result in an additional $2,000 to their current $6,000 community-service stipends.

For my 2¢ worth, we need to review our voting habits, urge our politicians to cut spending and stop taxing, and last but not least: VOTE NO ON PROP 100.

Deserving tribute to our military guys and gals.

The Star carries a front page article today entitled “Out of the blue” that I encourage all of you to read. If you are not a subscriber you can read it on line by clicking here. It is a gentle reminder of the everyday perils that our military men and women are faced with as they continually are placed in harms way on our behalf. It is not my intent here to argue for or against our current engagements, but rather to have each and everyone one of us pause for moment and consider their roles in our everyday life. I believe that the last paragraph sums it up: Among Leefdaal residents, especially the elderly, "appreciation for the sacrifice made by the Americans and the British is still evident today," he said. "It is thanks to the sacrifice of Allied soldiers that we are able to live and enjoy a free and luxurious life."

Educating our children hinges on Prop 100, or does it really?

Star feature headline continues scare tactics on school cuts even if Prop. 100 passes. The inside Editorial Page continues with scare tactics “to preserve help for the elderly”. Yesterday’s “Fitz’s Tucson” spends half of the editorial deriding voters who dare VOTE NO on Prop 100. Doom and gloom for our children’s education is posted everywhere we turn, especially if we believe everything that the proponents of Prop 100 puts out there; including the mass print contributed by the Star, a major supporter.

But let’s just take a minute and review the facts. Prop 100 is supposed to go a long way in continuing the quality of education we offer our children, or so say the proponents. But just what is a quality education here and in the rest of the United States. Lets take a look. I gathered the following data from NationMaster.com, specifically under their “Statistics” section and I think you will find them rather interesting to say the least. You will also find other similar or equal statistics at OECD, but I used NationMaster since they are very clear.

The overall assessment gained from this research is that we only rank in the top 5, worldwide, in 4 categories of the 10 categories reviewed. We are 5th in Primary teacher starting salary, Primary teacher salary(after 15 years), “Dislike school” categories and 2nd in the “Find school boring” category.

Its all down hill from here as we place 14th in Scientific literacy and Grade 12 advanced math: 15th in Reading literacy, Grade 12 advanced science and 18th in Math literacy.

I next looked at spending as a percentage of GDP and one of the interesting things was that, although we did rank #1 in GDP, we ranked 37th, tied with Austria and Estonia, when it comes to spending for education as it relates to GDP. We spend 5.7% of our GDP towards education.

While you are reviewing these sites pay close attention to all of the countries that just beat the living day lights out of the “quality education” we are depriving our children from if we don’t spend more money. Quite clearly we throw more dollars at educating our children than any other country in the world, yet we can only finish in the top 14 in “disliking school”, “school is boring”, “Paying both our primary and tenured teachers”.

If per chance you recall an earlier publication I put out wherein we see that our students rank dreadfully poor in all of the above categories, except perhaps, disliking and finding school boring.

Do you honestly believe that spending a billion dollars a year more; actually only 2/3 of a billion, will give our children the help they need to learn more than they currently do?

VOTE NO ON PROP 100 and lets get on with finding a real solution to sparking their interest.

City of Tucson spending way too much money.

Today’s Arizona Daily Star front page highlights the plight of the Tucson taxpayer and the uphill battle against “big government”. The articles overall assessment of City spending is that the city budget has grown more than double the inflation rate and nearly 5 times faster than the population. We all need to take a few minutes and read this article as it reflects the situation of all cities and counties as well as the State of Arizona. Every department within the scope of the City’s budget shows dramatic year over year increases which only demonstrates the desire of each department head to succumb to the “Parkinson’s Law” syndrome . The article goes on and graphically paints a picture of how the City of Tucson’s tax and spending appetite has far outpaced the city’s growth over the past 10 years.

One wonders just how much of the Prop 100 sales tax will go to offset some of these costs since one-third of Prop 100 funds are ostensibly ear marked for be used for health and human services and public safety. Since most state funds are apportioned to counties and states does that mean they will flow down to fund these voluminous expense? We also need to be concerned with the City Manager's recent proposal to raise the sales tax by 1/2¢ which if done will raise our city sales tax on purchases within the City limits to 10%. And yes, that is 10% of your after tax earned income, not your take home pay. We don’t think of it that way do we? No, because the proponents of Prop 100 use gross earnings in their examples in order to minimize the impact.

So now maybe it’s time to tell the City of Tucson, “no mas, no mas” and do the same to Prop 100, “no mas, no mas”.

VOTE NO ON PROP 100.

Editorial argument confirms math deficiencies in Arizona.

The Stars editorial section contained a “letter to the editor” from one Leslie McGee chiding the math of a previous writer, one Tom Jenny. Jenny suggested that passing Prop 100 would boost the tax burden of the average household by approximately $400 a year. Leslie, after a semi-convoluted example arrived at a figure of $72 for a typical Arizona family. Now that is a pretty substantial variance wouldn’t you say. Notwithstanding the results lets take a look at some published statistics and you can draw your own conclusion.

Before we start I need to lay out one simple ground rule, and that is “the more you earn, the more you normally spend and thus the more tax you pay”. We also need to understand that I emphasize average here and the word “average” covers the spectrum from dirt poor to really rich. Fair enough? In our discussion we also need to note that Tom Jenny uses the term “household” while Leslie McGee changes the dialogue and uses “family”. I am not sure if this is an oversight but there is a vast difference when used in context of the discussion. I will use the term “family” for the sake of comparing “apples to apples” since in my opinion comparing “household” to “family” is more of an “apples to oranges” approach. And besides, the U.S. Census Bureau uses “family” in their studies as they clearly make a distinction between the two.

I will start out by doing the simple math, the same math that the University of Arizona is now being forced to provide for incoming freshman who do not meet the math skills necessary for enrollment. We find that the current population of Arizona is 5,130,632 and is comprised of approximately 1,613,406 family’s. The math as I did it is as follows: 5,130,632(Arizona’s published population) ÷ 3.18(Arizona’s Average Family Size) = 1,613,406 family’s. The proposed revenue to be generated by the new tax from Prop 100 is $1B, that’s “B” for billion, or written as $1,000,000,000. Dividing the $1B by the estimated 1,613,406 family’s gives us $620 per family. Now what is so hard about that? All that I can surmise is that both Tom and Leslie pulled the numbers out of “where the sun doesn’t shine” in an effort to get a hurried letter off to the Editor???

In case they did do the research, then I can only suggest that they need to enroll in the University of Arizona’s new sub-class math course.

And no, I do not support the average $620 annual increase in sales tax. VOTE NO ON PROP 100.

Why all the fuss about SB 1070, Arizona’s new immigration law?

You are all pretty lucky to have me do the research for you. After countless hours of research and reading, double checking and cross checking, the new law boils down to one simple fact. “Arizona law enforcement officers are now legally able to enforce the laws of the land”. Don’t want to take my word for it; okay, go ahead and read for yourself. I would suggest that you start with the “short version” and as you digest this you can jump ahead to the “long version”.
Well, what do you think? Maybe I can help out a little, so just follow along:

1. The bill starts out by amending Title 11, Chapter 7, Arizona Revises Statutes(ARS) by adding an Article 8, which states “that no one in Arizona may adopt any policy that limits or restricts the Federal Immigration Laws”.
2. Next they amend Title 13, Chapter 15, ARS by adding section 13-1509 to read: 13-1509. Trespassing by illegal aliens; assessment; exception; classification
      A. IN ADDITION TO ANY VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, A PERSON IS GUILTY OF TRESPASSING IF THE PERSON IS BOTH:
         1. PRESENT ON ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LAND IN THIS STATE, and is
         2. IN VIOLATION OF TITLE 8, UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(e) OR 1306(a)
            Section 1301(e) says that “The Attorney General and the Secretary of State jointly are authorized and directed to prepare forms for the registration of aliens” and 1304(e) states that “Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section.”   
            Section 1306(a) says “Any alien required to apply for registration and to be fingerprinted in the United States who willfully fails or refuses to make such application or to be fingerprinted, and any parent or legal guardian required to apply for the registration of any alien who willfully fails or refuses to file application for the registration of such alien shall be guilty of a misdemeanor”.        
3. Next they amend Title 13, Chapter, ARS Section 2319 by inserting E. which states: “NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A PEACE OFFICER MAY LAWFULLY STOP ANY PERSON WHO IS OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE IF THE OFFICER HAS REASONABLE SUSPICION TO BELIEVE THE PERSON IS IN VIOLATION OF ANY CIVIL TRAFFIC LAW AND THIS SECTION.
4. Next they add a provision making it illegal to stop on any road and block or impede normal traffic movement for the purpose of attempting to hire someone. It also makes it unlawful for an illegal immigrant to apply for work, or perform work for an employee or independent contractor in this state.
5. Next is a provision making it a criminal offense to knowingly transport an illegal alien and if they do and are caught their vehicle can be immobilized or impounded.
6. Next they amend Section 23-212 and 23-212.01 to make it an affirmative defense for employers if the employer is entrapped.

7. And last but not least, there is a provision to reimburse County Jails for costs relating to this legislation.

Well, in a nutshell, what do you think. Remember the last time you were stopped for a traffic violation? Out comes the wallet and then into the glove box. Down went the window and in a pleasant voice the officer usually says: “May I see your drivers license, registration and proof of insurance, please”. Maybe not exactly like that but close enough don’t you think. Do you recall being “racially profiled” or do you recall being “pissed off” because you got caught? Probably the latter, right? When they wrote the traffic laws we didn’t get to protest or get out of school to go down to city hall and picket. Times have changed, haven’t they.
A quick wrap up here goes something like this:

Arizona recognizes that the immigration laws as established by the United Sates of America rules over state law. If you are on private or public land and commit a crime you will be arrested, even if you are an illegal alien. And if you are an illegal alien driving in Arizona, and violate a traffic law, you will be stopped and asked to produce identification just like every other person. And if you are standing on the street soliciting without a license in Arizona cities you will get busted as will the person who stops and talks with you.
Getting close to the end we find that the law provides for people smuggling to be a criminal offense. Oops, that for Australia, Indonesia, the Philippines, and realistically Mexico and South America.
The final part of the law is geared towards employers hiring illegal aliens and their protection from being entrapped.

So what do you think of the new law now. Does it really give cause for the asshole Congressman, Raul Grijalva, to call for a boycott of the state who pays his salary? Are you ready now to go out to the picket line and join the high school crowds who don’t earn a living yet, or pay property taxes, or maybe the U of A crowd(300 out of 30,000+ enrolled) urging the University President to call for repeal of a law supported by 70%+ of the taxpayers. Maybe President Shelton sees the light. And remember, the schools get paid on a daily basis for attendance, so although they do not encourage the students to participate in a protest, they are reminded to encourage them to show up for attendance before they leave class.
Or do you think we should wait for Obama and his administration to take the lead? And what about that “saving grace” fence that is over 500 miles long and nearing completion?
On a final note, don’t forget to “VOTE NO ON PROP 100”. Remember the Alamo, or maybe I should say Greece. It is heartbreaking when you have to wean, but it must be done.

New gun control proposed by New York’s Mayor, Michael Bloomberg

Now that terrorists cannot fly, our Congress is taking a new approach to implement new “gun control”. In a novel twist on gun control, and obviously with nothing more important to do than travel to Washington, New York’s mayor went up the hill to ask for a change in the laws that denies terrorists the ability to fly but allows them to purchase firearms. I have not studied the new bipartisan bill introduced by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) to make certain that background checks required to purchase guns also include a cross-check of the federal terrorist watch list. Their legislation would also allow the FBI to revoke a firearm registration for any person who is added to the list. In the Time Square bombing incident, the suspected bomber, Faisal Shahzad had purchased a gun in Connecticut about two months ago.  I wanted to get a better understanding of the implication of the proposed legislation so I researched the gun laws of Connecticut and found the following:

“It is unlawful to sell or permanently transfer a handgun to any person who is forbidden to possess a handgun, or to a person under 21, and

No person, firm, or corporation shall sell or transfer any pistol or revolver unless an application provided by the Commissioner of Public Safety is filled out. There is a 2 week waiting period from the date of the application.”

Since it appears that the suspect was just added to the “known federal terrorist list” it would not have prevented the sale of the gun. On the surface this proposed legislation appears innocent enough but you know how these politicians have a knack for making a mountain out of a mole hill. I strongly suggest that those of you who are interested in your ability to own firearms do a little research and let your voice be heard.

Sell your soul to the company store.

My “Blog site” is provided free by Google, and it looks like they get to place any and all advertisement they deem necessary for this service. So, for the record, I do not endorse any of the ads. I will be moving my blog to a self hosted site when I get smart enough to figure how to do everything that they allow me to do. That way, I can control who and what goes there, “totally”. And yes, it also means I get to keep the advertising dollars, if per chance there are any.

First is Greece, then Portugal, Spain and Ireland and US next?

All broadcasting stations are currently focusing on the Times Square bombing while the real “time bomb” is the economic crisis in Greece. Greece, of all countries has fallen prey to the glut of “big government spending” and the is succumbing to that age old adage regarding the “Downfall of Democracy”. The underlying context of this philosophy states that “A democracy will continue to exist up until the voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority will always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship.” One only has to review the current affairs in Greece to relate to the situation in Greece. Rioters and protest marchers invade the capital because the steps being taken by the Greek government centers mainly on the over abundance of government workers. The package will cut public-sector wages and pensions for three years, a step necessary because they expanded public-sector employment so much that nobody even knows, for sure, the actual number of government employees.

While Greece flounders in self imposed strife, Portugal, Spain and Ireland lie in the wings awaiting a resolution before they drop their own bomb. However, it is fairly certain that it will impact us here in the states at some point in time, but will we be up to the task at hand. One can only hope for the best in light of a rising government employer, gross borrowing to feed the entitlement programs and runaway spending.

TUSD president says “no” to boards budget cuts

Our Red Star, my new name for the Arizona Daily Star, ran a scathing article in today’s Editorial section regarding the TUSD boards appetite for quality food. That’s quality food for board members, not students. The Red Star hits it right on the nose when it states that “People inclined to vote "no" on Proposition 100, the 1-cent-per-dollar temporary sales tax that will be on the ballot on May 18, can point to it as evidence that schools don't need a new source of money - and that our hard-earned dollars would just be wasted by school district bigwigs anyway.” And yes, that is exactly what those of us that oppose Prop 100 think..

It is apparent from reading this article that the top of the food chain will not put up with any further reductions to “their” budget. This mentality notwithstanding that Board member Bruce Burke, who brought forward the plan to cut the board's office staff from three full-time positions to two for the next fiscal year, put it in perspective: "We have a ratio of staff to board members that is literally three times or more any other district in the state.

It is hard to fault the board since they are only playing follow the leader; that being Pima County, which has a debt burden that is double that of all other Arizona counties combined!

I guess that the only way to get the message across is to “VOTE NO” ON PROP 100”

City of Tucson sues State of Arizona over SB 1070 law

The City of Tucson, struggling to stay afloat fiscally, plans on suing the State of Arizona in an effort to ward off any economical impact that may be forthcoming because of the new law requiring law enforcement agencies to uphold the Constitution. Council member Regina Romero was quoted as saying that the new law is un-constitutional, and the lawsuit will not cost the taxpayers. I checked on councilwoman Romero’s website and it fails to note in her biography that she holds a law degree or has ever served in a position to interpret the Constitution so I am unable to shed any light on her accusation regarding the constitutionality issue. The city council members say that this law suit will be accomplished at no cost to the taxpayer; presumably because we already pay to keep the legal staff on hand. Obviously the lawyers are just sitting around waiting for something to do because, as we all know, if there is nothing to do then we might be out of a job. No, that only happens in the real world, not the world of government.

This same issue surfaced a week ago but the City Council was unable to get enough support for the action. However, they appear to have bent to the noisy minority and found the necessary votes to get it passed this time around. Councilwoman Shirley Scott didn't explain her shift, but before her vote, Scott noted only the San Diego City Council had voted to oppose SB 1070. Do we really care what the city of San Diego City Council thinks. I am of the opinion that more Arizonans go to San Diego and spend money than do San Diegoans coming to Tucson, agree?

Mayor Walkup referenced a conversation he had with the mayor of Portland, Oregon and the possible effect SB 1070 could have on a contract for our $180 million “streetcar project”. What is at risk apparently is the possibility of the Oregon Iron Works, located in Clackamas, Oregon, of walking away from a $26 million contract for the new streetcars that the City of Tucson is prepared to sign. Now that would be a first. Does Mayor Walkup really believe that the citizens of Tucson believe that cock and bull logic? Give us a break Mr. Mayor.

Regarding the “streetcar” project, you might find the City’s arithmetic rather interesting. The original announcement for the project shows $88 million coming from taxpayer monies and $75 million to come from federal grants. The total of $163 million suggests that anything left after construction and equipment is paid for can be used to pay operating costs in the early years. If the mayor says our project is expected to cost $180 million I would like to know where the extra funds are going to come from?

Maybe, just maybe, the mayor was able to attach a rider to Proposition 100; just another reason to “VOTE NO on PROP 100.”

New York Governor David Patterson confuses budget concerns with illegal immigration.

The Arizona Daily Star reports today that New York’s governor will create “the nation's first "pardon panel" to investigate requests of legal immigrants facing deportation because of past convictions”. Gov. Patterson goes on to defend his stance by referencing how the nation is embroiled in conflict over an Arizona law that critics say would encourage racial profiling. Isn’t there anything that a politician wouldn’t do to get more votes? However in his defense I recall that he might not be running for reelection because of personal problems.

New York faces a major financial crisis just like every other state, except because of its sheer size, it is described as a “black hole” One can only surmise as to how the governor plans on funding “the nation's first "pardon panel" when he is having to furlough state employees to save money. Maybe he looks at it through Obamanomics; you know what I mean, the economics that suggests that $5 billion is miniscule when looked at in context of $1 trillion.

I think the real concern here should be, that while Arizona’s new immigration law basically does nothing more than require it’s law enforcement branches to enforce existing federal laws, the Patterson approach is to figure out ways to get around the laws. The current federal legislation Congress passed in 1996 made longtime residents subject to deportation as "aggravated felons" for offenses such as marijuana possession. The only recourse for these “felons” is for them to be granted a pardon, which is exactly what Gov. Patterson is proposing.

Maybe Gov. Patterson should just appeal to the good hearts on New Yorkers and have them show up and picket the Immigration and Customs Enforcement offices in New York. Lord only knows that New York needs them, both financially and from an electorate stand point. Or maybe, just maybe, he should call for a boycott of all business within the state. You know, something like the idiot Congressman from Arizona did.

And before I get away, let me remind you that on May 18, Arizona has an election to raise taxes on each and every citizen in an effort to offset bad management by our state and local governments. Their underlying guise is that without the increase we in essence will stop teaching our children. We are led to further believe that our schools will be out of business and our children will be left to run the streets. In reality what will happen is that the school systems will wake up to the fact that the citizens of Arizona are going to say enough is enough. We are not going to continue to throw good money after bad and if the school districts don’t shape up, they will be shipped out.

So, as I continue to say, VOTE NO on PROP 100.

TEP moves ahead on it’s solar project

The Arizona Daily Star reports today that Tucson Electric Power has received support from the Arizona Corporation Commission(ACC) for $14 million worth of new solar-energy projects proposed by Tucson Electric Power Co., including expansion of the company's massive photovoltaic array at Springerville. This move towards an alternative energy source, if final approval is give, will be funded initially by adding surcharges to all customers monthly bills starting next year. Starting in 2012 the costs would be shifted to TEP’s basic rate as opposed to being a surcharge and thus would seem to go away. It appears that we are on our way towards accomplishing a meaningful approach to alternative energy, which I am sure all of are in agreement with.

However I do have a few concerns and questions that need to be addressed. It appears that the plan would spread the costs over 20 years, while the surcharge is adjusted annually to pay for pending projects or programs like customer rebates. One question has to do with the ongoing surcharge and that is if it is open ended for as long as TEP continues to add new projects? It appears that this original surcharge is to cover the $14 million now being developed but there is no estimate of what might be scheduled in the future or what their costs would be.

My next question is who actually is developing the projects and who owns them? Are these private entities that will actually own the projects and are working in conjunction with TEP or is it actually TEP? If it is private enterprise why are customers paying to capitalize their “for profit” venture?

And finally, TEP sells large blocks of wholesale power to other energy suppliers and I am wondering if these major buyers have to pay the surcharge same as the “regular” customers or are they going to be exempt? If exempt, please explain why.

Pima County residents are in for another shellacking with increased taxes.

Today’s Arizona Daily Star sends a clear message to residents of Pima County that the “tax and spend” mentality continues with our governing arm. The 2008-2009 county budget called for expenditures of $1,377,529,268 as adopted by the Board of Supervisors while the 2009-2010 budget called for expenditures of $1,387,871,873.

The Star reports that County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry’s recommended $1.435 billion budget for the next fiscal year also includes higher property-tax rates. But still, the county expects individual property-tax bills to be lower due to declining property values. This new budget, for the year 2010-2011, equates to a modest 3.5% increase and on the surface looks reasonable; but is it?

One only has to consider the language of this statement in order to experience the financial pain that we are in for. Let’s just take a quick look at what I think we are in for over the next few years.

Mr. Huckelberry says that how much higher our property taxes will be depends on the May 18 sales-tax election, also known as Prop 100. If Prop 100 fails to pass then our property taxes will go up substantially higher than if it were to pass. In either event, pass or fail, our property taxes are going up. And for what reason one might ask? Simply to feed the appetite of growing the government folks and where does a huge sum of our tax money go: “to pay for debt service” incurred by our county government. In June of 2009 the Pima County’s total debt equaled $757 million, whereas all county debt statewide was $1.15 billion. This means that Pima County’s debt burden is double that of all other counties combined!

I am not here today to bash Republicans or Democrats, but one gets a little suspicious with how these budgets get approved. Historically the party with the majority wins the battle and over the past several years that has been that Democrats. The article goes on to say the Republicans Ann Day and Ray Carroll are fighting against the rising public debt but their counterparts express support for the additional spending as “wise spending”. Hell folks, in my humble opinion, that what Democrats do; “advocate spending” and favor minimum wages and increase taxes on wealthy. On the other hand Republicans believe that taxes shouldn't be increased for anyone and wages should reflect the free market.

The 2004-2007 housing and financial fiascos brought in huge amounts of revenues to cities, counties, states and federal governments and what did they do with all of that money? They created new departments and new entitlement programs and grew the government at a phenomenal rate. In Arizona the state government doubled in size and budget and city and counties tagged right along. Now that the revenue has dropped substantially their solution is to seek ways to raise revenue, with nary a thought given to real downsizing. I say “real” because they find ways to meet and happy medium of raising taxes and revenues from services such as garbage collection, water and sewer, licensing requirements etc. Its just one big shuffling exercise that allows each department head to maintain his little fiefdom.

Prop 100 is the latest in an attempt to tax us into submission. Under the guise of “depriving our children” of a decent education they are proposing a 1¢ sales tax increase and the Star is one of it’s biggest proponents. This is the same Star that doesn’t understand the difference in being an American or just someone being in the US. Don’t forget the “grain of salt” theory when reading any publication, hearing any news outlet, listening to politicians(especially politicians) or trusting government.

And just as a reminder, do your homework, and I guarantee that you “WILL” vote “NO” on Proposition 100.

Journalism or Sensationalism?

Monday’s Arizona Daily Star ran an eye catching headline entitled “American is focus in Krentz killing”. Wow, what a turn around in events for the investigation and a boon for the Star’s attack on the new immigration laws recently passed in Arizona. However, the Star ran a retraction on the front page today saying that the use of the word American was incorrect and that the original article said the suspect was believed to be in the United States. The Star’s retraction goes on to say that the original was changed to “American” in the editing process. A definition of journalism suggests that it is “the style of writing characteristic of material in newspapers and magazines, consisting of direct presentation of facts or occurrences with little attempt at analysis or interpretation.” Note the operative words “consisting of direct presentation of facts or occurrences with little attempt at analysis or interpretation”. Now we look up the definition for sensationalism and lo and behold what do we see?

Definitions of sensationalism on the Web:

• subject matter that is calculated to excite and please vulgar tastes
• the journalistic use of subject matter that appeals to vulgar tastes; "the tabloids relied on sensationalism to maintain their circulation"

Now you all tell me, does the article as written by Brady McCombs in the Star, fall in the category of “journalism” or is it “sensationalism”?

Maybe we all need to take what we read in the Star with a “grain of salt”. What say ye?

So many issues and so little time.

Illegal immigration, financial reform, a massive oil spill in the gulf, a failed bombing attempt in Times Square, and who and what to vote for in November. They all add up to a Politicians delight in an election year as there is no better way to take the heat off of Congress and their liberal tax and spend agenda.

Congress immediately goes on the offensive by putting a spin on Arizona’s attempt to strengthen their borders by attacking their new laws. They put Goldman Sachs on the hot seat for their alleged role in the financial meltdown and now we see them institute law suits and government oversight on BP because of the disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Fortunately for Goldman Sachs, Warren Buffet, one of President Obama’s staunchest backers, has sided with Goldman Sachs.

In reality what we need in trying times Mr. President, is leadership, the kind that provides solutions and gets things done, not leadership that points fingers and assesses blame. I ask you to review the requisites of leadership and grade yourself.

A disastrous oil leak is sending a “time bomb” towards our gulf state’s shores and as yet the Federal government has failed to act. Thanks to the leadership of Louisiana Governor, Bobby Jindal, steps are underway to stop the devastation.

President Obama says that he and Congress are so drained of energy from slamming through their priority health care bill that there is not enough support for attacking the illegal immigration issue. Yet we see the top positions within the administration, including President Obama and VP Joe Biden, seem to have enough energy to run around the country stomping on our governor for signing legislation that had an overwhelming support of the electorate. Consider this: The Arizona plan is popular. According to Gallup, 51 percent of Americans who have heard of the law support it. Only 39 percent oppose the legislation. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton jumps on the criticism bandwagon along with Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano and US Attorney General Eric Holder. It’s good to see that they all sing from the same choir sheet, don’t you agree? No one questions the need for meaningful immigration reform but we do question the ability of Congress and the present administration to tackle the problem, especially in light of this being an election year. Unfortunately all we will get is posturing, political preening and rhetoric, I kid you not.

And unfortunately the same goes for meaningful financial reform. One only has to see the amount of money that banks and Wall Street donate into the political coffers to see that “meaningful” reform is definitely out of the picture. Political reform continues to be vogue and will plod along, as will the misdirected attack on Goldman Sachs, one of the biggest contributors I might add.

And last, but certainly not least, we have Proposition 100 here in Arizona. The “hue and cry” that we are going to deprive our children of an education and that we will have to open the jail cell doors and let all of the convicted criminals go free starts to mount. Every individual and organization that will lose funding is out on the street clamoring gloom and doom. Proponents continue to use as their primary threat how poorly educated our children will become if we do not pass this new tax. They continue to stress that it is a brief, 3 year time period tax that will solve our problems. If you believe that then I have a bridge that I want to sell you. For the sake of this discussion let’s just focus on the “poorly educated children” aspect of the additional funding. The proponents say that the additional revenue will provide our students with a better learning opportunity and allow us to hire more teachers. Give me a break. Our students grades, on average, have consistently gone down hill for the past 25 years and all we have heard is that we need to throw more money at the problem. We hear from the teachers union that our teachers are underpaid and overworked. Not so.

Today’s Arizona Daily Star features two “letters to the editor” that respond to an article ran a week or so ago regarding the Sonoran Science Academy. That school is an Arizona based charter school that was ranked as the Arizona charter school of the year for 2009 and ranked 103rd best high school in the U.S. by Newsweek. Research shows that the school receives most of it’s funding based on the same formula that are used for public schools and their teachers are paid at or maybe less than public school teachers. The argument from the opponents of this school seem to take on a “racial profiling” argument in that many of the teachers are foreigners, specifically from Turkey. They are said to have heavy accents and it is hard to clearly understand them. Teachers that students cannot understand yet they learn at a higher level than do the students for the opposing side. Go figure.

It doesn’t appear to me that lack of funds drives the learning curve, does it to you? Of course not.

I urge you all to “VOTE NO” on Proposition 100.