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.