economics
Arizona Republic reporter Dan Nowicki writes that Senators John McCain and Jon Kyl oppose the sales tax increase that the legislature referred to the May 18 election ballot.
I’m not surprised. Both McCain and Kyl have been pretty darn solid on not raising taxes.
What is more surprising, as I have blogged before, is that a Republican Governor is supporting a tax increase, particularly in this economic environment.
Predictably, the Yes on 100 crowd “couldn’t be more disappointed.”
Eh, what do you expect? Did you really think that two Senators with fairly consistent “A” ratings from National Taxpayer’s Union would support a tax increase?
Did that headline get your attention? It should have. It’s true, by the way. I’m not pro-illegal alien; I’m pro-freedom, and in the current party philosophy, that makes me a libertarian-Republican. While I have serious concerns with the spending addiction demonstrated by many Republicans over the last 15 years or so, I still believe that the Republican Party is better for America than the Democrat Party.
So, I want what’s good for Republicans, and that means the news that Arizona has seen a drop in illegals by more than 100,000 people is bad news.
Wait, wait… let me explain.
In 1965, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act as a part of the legislative push for civil rights. It was intended to make sure states didn’t discriminate against blacks through poll taxes, literacy tests, etc. The federal government determined which states or jurisdictions had a history of such discrimination and essentially took control of the electoral process through a process call “pre-clearance.”
What that means is that if a state makes any kind of change that affects elections, that change must be approved by the U.S. Justice Department. The absurdity of the law, now more than 40 years later, is that a local election panel (in a pre-clearance state) can’t change even a polling site without the Fed’s blessing.
Arizona is a pre-clearance state, purportedly because the state elections process at some point discriminated against Native Americans.
The biggest impact pre-clearance has in Arizona is on redistricting. Before any new boundaries go into effect, the Justice Department must approve.
Without getting into the nitty gritty of the legal jargon and process, the way that this works in Arizona is that districts (both Congressional and Legislative) currently represented by a minority are protected to maintain their “majority-minority” status. That is, the majority of voters in that district must be minorities, which in this day and age is mostly Hispanic.
For example, during the 2001 redistricting process, the first Congressional district drawn was Rep. Ed Pastor’s, because it needed to have a sufficient number of Hispanics in order to pass DOJ muster. Because Hispanics have low turnout in elections compared to others, Pastor’s district had to be “packed” with a larger number of Democrat voters to “ensure” he could be re-elected.
The 2001 redistricting produced two new Congressional districts as a result of population growth. One of the new districts was a majority-minority district in Southwestern Arizona, which Raul Grijalva won. The other was the creation the sprawling 1st Congressional District, originally won by Rick Renzi.
So, what does this have to do with illegals fleeing the state being bad for the GOP?
According to a number of reports, the number of illegal aliens in Arizona is down more than 100,000 in the past year or so. Until last year, it was conventional wisdom that the next census would result in Arizona again gaining two Congressional seats. But with a loss of 100,000 people (yes, the census counts illegals, the census is not a count of citizens; it is a count of people – it’s plainly in the Constitution), Arizona is likely to only gain one Congressional seat.
Because of the need to protect Pastor and Grijalva in the newly-drawn districts, the majority of the Hispanic population would be gerrymandered into one of those two districts, leaving too few minorities to populate a third majority-minority district.
Which means that Republicans, who could have added two seats to their delegation, can only add one. As a Republican, that frustrates me, particularly as we go into a couple of election cycles that will be very good for Republicans. Democrats already hold three seats that should be Republican (CD1, CD5 and CD8), and there is a good chance that all three will be recaptured by Republicans this fall. With Congressmen Jeff Flake and Trent Franks running for reelection, and since CD3 will certainly stay Republican, the shift in the Arizona delegation could go from three Republicans and five Democrats to six Republicans and two Democrats.
If we had those 100,000 illegals back, 2012 could see an 8-2 GOP-Dem delegation.
That’s pro-Republican and pro-Freedom.
My argument that Ron Paul has outlived his usefulness enrages many a Paulite. What they don’t know, is that I was a Paulite long before most of the current Paulite’s had ever even heard of Ron Paul.
You have to know a little about my past to understand this. I grew up in Show Low, Arizona, a small ranching and timber town in the White Mountains of eastern Arizona. There is a lot less ranching and almost no timbering now, it’s mostly vacation homes and tourism.
I was reared by very conservative parents. My first political memory is seeing tears in my mother’s eyes in 1976 with Carter beat Ford and her saying, “We’re going to be beaten by the Soviets now.” Anti-communism was a staple in our household growing up. The two political magazines that showed up in the mailbox were The New American and National Review (I didn’t learn until years later the massive battle between the John Birch Society and William F. Buckley).
When the U.S. Olympic hockey team beat the Soviets, you would have thought I had won the lottery. I was a kid running around the living room with my fists pumping and you would have thought that we had just defeated Communism in one, fell swoop.
I made phone calls for Reagan in 1980, passed out literature for him in 1984 and then reality hit me in 1988 when I realized that Reagan would no longer be the President.
My parents were very skeptical about George H.W. Bush. His history as a Washington insider was a stark contrast with Ronald Reagan’s populism. As the campaign between Dukakis and Bush went on, I felt more and more that Bush would NOT carryon the Reagan legacy.
I turned 18 in the summer of 1988, and the first vote I cast in my life was for Ron Paul for President in November 1988.
For you younger folk, Ron Paul was the Libertarian candidate for President in 1988. I had read up on him in The New American, and read a couple interviews with him. I didn’t really know much about the Libertarian Party platform (I was registered Republican, as I always have been) but his comments about the role of government, monetary policy (yes, I was an early proponent of getting us back on the gold standard – and I still am), and tax policy were music to me. I glossed over the drug legalization stuff and proudly cast my vote for Ron Paul.
I couldn’t tell whether my mother was proud of me or not. She said Paul was more principled but that it was a “wasted vote.” Was it? Probably. But it had an impact on me, because at the first opportunity I had to participate in this great republic (it’s not a democracy) I cast a vote on principle. And I think it set the tone for every vote I have cast since – including my wasted vote for Ross Perot in 1992, and my wasted vote for the Libertarian Harry Browne in 1996. In fact, I was 30 years old before I cast a vote for a Republican for President.
When I was a Congressional staffer I had a lot of fun chiding Ron Paul’s Congressional staff for not being “true” Paulites. For the 14 years I work in Congress I am the only staffer that I know of that actually voted for Paul for President in 1988.
But his time has passed. If there was anything that struck me coming out of CPAC 2010 this last weekend, it was a feeling that Ron Paul’s fans need to focus less on a 74 year-old mediocre Congressman, and more on how to actually affect real change in the political process.
Ron Paul won the CPAC2010 presidential straw poll thus immediately diminishing the impact that CPAC could have on providing conservatives with some direction on who some of our future national leaders might be. Ron Paul certainly won’t be. I’m not saying that to be critical, it’s just a fact.
More and more average Americans are getting involved in the political process through the Tea Party Patriots and other movements. They are real people, with real lives and most have never been involved in the political process beyond voting. The more they learn about Ron Paul, the less he will appeal to him. His dovish stance on the war on terror and his support for earmarking (the gateway drug to huge spending) won’t wear well with newly inspired activists worried about federal spending and the debt. Either you are a fiscal conservative, or you’re not. Unfortunately, Ron Paul is not at the most basic level.
So, conservatives, tea partiers, libertarians… Americans, let’s find those who stick to fiscal conservatism, limited government and less spending and then support them like the future depends on it, because it does.
This is tragic, and hits close to home. I’ve known Tom Stewart for a number of years, and was always impressed by his commitment to the American Dream. He was a guy who put his money where his mouth was, walked the walked, talked the talk. He was a freedom fighter.
No one will ever know how much of an impact he had on conservatism in America, because no one person knows all the different things in which he engaged. What small part I saw in that world was impressive by itself, but I know it was just a smidgen of his influence.
Tom Stewart was a “great American” before being a great American was cool. Not only did he create thousands and thousands of jobs, he worked hard at protecting the system that allowed him to be successful. He didn’t just take his piece of the pie, he made sure there was a bigger pie left behind.
When I learned of his death, it rattled me. Bad. I realize now it is because it is not just the passing of a man, but the passing of era.
Our prayers go out to the families of Tom and Madena Stewart. RIP.
UPDATE
An updated story here. The official statement from SGA below.
SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. (Feb. 15, 2010) – Services Group of America (SGA) has announced that Chairman & CEO Thomas J. Stewart was killed in a helicopter accident yesterday (Feb. 14) north of Scottsdale at approximately 3 p.m.
The company helicopter was en route to Scottsdale Air Park from the Flagstaff area when it crashed in a desert wash.
A total of five passengers were aboard the helicopter when it departed from the Flagstaff area. Authorities conducted a thorough ground and air search of the crash area Sunday afternoon and into the night. They are certain there were no survivors. Authorities are advising that it will take some time to identify all of the passengers.
The cause of the crash is not known at this time and the company is working closely with the investigating agencies.
Stewart, 64, was a long-time philanthropist who supported education and the arts; a community activist championing free enterprise; a life-long adventurer; and a foodservice industry leader.
Services Group of America is a $2.7 billion company which is ranked 157th on the Forbes’ Largest Private Companies in the U.S. list. The company is the parent company of a number of companies including Food Services of America, Systems Services of America, Amerifresh, Ameristar Meats and Development Services of America. The roots of the company go back 40 years when Stewart was building Stevedoring Services of America in Seattle.
He moved the corporate headquarters from Seattle to Scottsdale in 2006.
The company is privately-held and family-owned, a structure that will not change despite the accident, according to Peter K. Smith, president and COO of SGA.
“Tom was first and foremost a visionary,” he said. “He had a clear and concise continuity plan for the enterprise in place and was completely confident in the current leadership team.”
“With our people, our processes and our technology, we will continue our current operations without missing a beat,” said Smith. “That’s how Tom planned it and that’s what he wanted. We continue to be a privately-held, family-owned business that offers the highest level of service in our industries. That will never change.”
Stewart was known for being a deft financier and a calculating risk taker. During his career, he formed or acquired 45 companies; sold or spun-off 22; merged 18 into other companies and closed 79. He is legendary for his epic adventures including a horseback trip with his family riding the 2,600-mile Pacific Crest trail from Mexico to Canada and a jeep safari across the continent of Africa. He was an avid golfer, horseman, rancher, fisherman, skier, scuba diver and team roper.
The Stewart family is currently making memorial service arrangements which will be announced at a later date.
For more historical information on SGA and Tom Stewart, go to www.servicesgroupofamerica.com
I went into a Subway in D.C. tonight and bought my regular, six-inch double meat turkey on honey oat with lettuce, tomato, olives, cucumbers, pepperchinis (called banana peppers back East) vinegar, salt and pepper.
They rang up the order and then added $0.05. I asked what the extra nickel was about and the Subway worker said that D.C. had passed a “bag tax” on retailers and take-out orders. Apparently, D.C. passed a tax on plastic bags to save the Anacostia River.
Read all about it here. Let a river run through it.
Another year, another decade.
I’ve been thinking about my memories of 1980, 1990, 2000 and wondering what will standout in 2010.
In 1980, the most vivid memory I have was witnessing the greatest sports moment in American history – when the USA Olympic hockey team beat the Soviet Union (“Do you believe in miracles?”). It was the symbolic turning point of West triumphing over the East, with the actual turning point happening 10 months later with the election of Ronald Reagan as President of the United States.
By 1990 the Berlin wall had come down and the Soviet Union was headed to the dustbin of history, as predicted by Reagan. The United States went through incredibly prosperous times even as it went through some interesting political shifts. The 1992 campaign saw Ross Perot as the spoiler for George Bush (who had famously broken his “no new taxes” pledge) and the election of the boy from Hope. 1994 was the “revolution” with the sweeping election of Republicans to the House and Senate. The decade ended with an impeachment of the President in the House, but no conviction in the Senate.
2000 was the year that divided the country in half, with the razor thin margin of victory of George W. Bush over Al Gore. And then Sept. 11, 2001 the country came back together, at least for a little while.
Bush actually did a lot to strive for bipartisanship. Not one of his major legislative initiatives was passed on a party-line vote. Bush’s two biggest legislative initiatives, No Child Left Behind and Medicare Prescription Drug Coverage, were opposed by conservatives in the House and Senate. But the war in Iraq and his push for big government initiatives had the dual affect of motivating the left against him and suppressing his base of support. The result was Republicans taking a beating at the polls in 2006 and 2008.
Looking at President Obama’s first year, bipartisan is not what comes to mind. In fact, there is a more partisan tone than I have ever witnessed myself. Is that a bad thing? Probably not. Big fights over policy are important. If everything big was just passed without strong debate we’d have a much more intrusive government. Partisanship puts a check on government, at least to some degree.
So 2010 will likely be the most partisan year in memory. There are going to be some big policy fights (health care will be the first) and this year will be fascinating to watch from an electoral standpoint. It could be a repeat of 1994. Time will tell.
One thing for certain is that time does not stand still. How will the decade of 2010-2019 be remembered? I don’t have any idea, but anticipation is half the fun.
Happy New Year and Happy New Decade!
The Arizona Republic editorial board has opined in today’s editorial that Senate President Bob Burns did the right thing by dissolving the committee that was chaired by Senator Ron Gould because of his outspoken opposition to referring a sales tax increase to the ballot to deal with the mounting budget deficits facing Arizona.
That in and of itself was fairly unremarkable. The shocker was this line:
The sticking point for the special session is what else would be on the agenda. If lawmakers can agree on further spending cuts, they should do it now, so the reductions can be spread over more of the fiscal year.
Whoa! Stop the press! The Repblic’s editorial board thinks we should cut spending as soon as possible to spread the savings? We do live in strange times.
The climate conference in Copenhagen gets underway today. There is a great story in the London Telegraph, which has the following nuggets (emphasis added):
…total number of limos in Copenhagen next week has already broken the 1,200 barrier. The French alone rang up on Thursday and ordered another 42. “We haven’t got enough limos in the country to fulfill the demand,” she says. “We’re having to drive them in hundreds of miles from Germany and Sweden.”
And the total number of electric cars or hybrids among that number?
“Five,” says Ms Jorgensen. “The government has some alternative fuel cars but the rest will be petrol or diesel. We don’t have any hybrids in Denmark, unfortunately, due to the extreme taxes on those cars. It makes no sense at all, but it’s very Danish.”
The airport says it is expecting up to 140 extra private jets during the peak period alone, so far over its capacity that the planes will have to fly off to regional airports – or to Sweden – to park, returning to Copenhagen to pick up their VIP passengers.
…In the city’s famous anarchist commune of Christiania this morning, among the hash dealers and heavily-graffitied walls, they started their two-week “Climate Bottom Meeting,” complete with a “storytelling yurt” and a “funeral of the day” for various corrupt, “heatist” concepts such as “economic growth”.
…And this being Scandinavia, even the prostitutes are doing their bit for the planet. Outraged by a council postcard urging delegates to “be sustainable, don’t buy sex,” the local sex workers’ union – they have unions here – has announced that all its 1,400 members will give free intercourse to anyone with a climate conference delegate’s pass. The term “carbon dating” just took on an entirely new meaning.
At least the sex will be C02-neutral. According to the organizers, the eleven-day conference, including the participants’ travel, will create a total of 41,000 tons of “carbon dioxide equivalent”, equal to the amount produced over the same period by a city the size of Middlesbrough.
…The temptation, then, is to dismiss the whole thing as a ridiculous circus.
Many of the participants do not really need to be here. And far from “saving the world,” the world’s leaders have already agreed that this conference will not produce any kind of binding deal, merely an interim statement of intent.
Instead of swift and modest reductions in carbon – say, two per cent a year, starting next year – for which they could possibly be held accountable, the politicians will bandy around grandiose targets of 80-per-cent-plus by 2050, by which time few of the leaders at Copenhagen will even be alive, let alone still in office.
…And as the delegates meet, they do so under a shadow. For the first time, not just the methods but the entire purpose of the climate change agenda is being questioned. Leaked emails showing key scientists conspiring to fix data that undermined their case have boosted the sceptic lobby. Australia has voted down climate change laws. Last week’s unusually strident attack by the Energy Secretary, Ed Miliband, on climate change “saboteurs” reflected real fear in government that momentum is slipping away from the cause.
In Copenhagen there was a humbler note among some delegates. “If we fail, one reason could be our overconfidence,” said Simron Jit Singh, of the Institute of Social Ecology. “Because we are here, talking in a group of people who probably agree with each other, we can be blinded to the challenges of the other side. We feel that we are the good guys, the selfless saviors, and they are the bad guys.”
1200 limos, 140 private jets, free prostitutes, calling economic growth a “heatist” concept… yeah, you could say it’s just a big ridiculous circus.
“Climategate” is the latest scandal to rock the political scene. As the scope of the fraud perpetrated by “scientists” expands, it is going to have a big impact on the efforts to pass cap-and-trade legislation in the Senate and create even more problems for Obama.
So what should Obama do? A smart move would be to scrap his plans to attend the climate summit in Copenhagen. We remember what happened last time he went to Copenhagen. The cap-and-trade bill is already on life support in the Senate, and Obama will face criticism that the U.S. is not doing enough. Why subject himself, and the U.S., to criticism for not being “green enough” when we now have proof that there is true scientific bias and fabrication of information?
There are many people in the scientific world who are trying to minimize this bias and fraud as no big deal. George Monbiot, a big-time climate change advocate, warns that the email scandal is a big deal, and that the climate change crowd minimizes it at its own peril. His blog post tries to juxtapose this scandal with the “lying” of the “fossil fuel industry,” but that’s to be expected.
The Wall Street Journal Europe editorialized on this issue, writing:
The real issue is what the messages say about the way the much-ballyhooed scientific consensus on global warming was arrived at in the first place, and how even now a single view is being enforced. In short, the impression left by the correspondence among Messrs. Mann and Jones and others is that the climate-tracking game has been rigged from the start.
According to this privileged group, only those whose work has been published in select scientific journals, after having gone through the “peer-review” process, can be relied on to critique the science. And sure enough, any challenges that critics have lobbed at climatologists from outside this clique are routinely dismissed and disparaged.
There is plenty more to come on this issue, and if you aren’t up to speed on the Climategate emails, one of the best recaps (and with a very Arizona-specific twist) is Greg Patterson’s treatment of this at espressopundit.com.
In Obama’s fantasy world of make believe, he thinks that just by saying so, it is so.
Case in point. At Recovery.gov the White House lists 30 jobs saved or created in Arizona’s 15th Congressional District by spending $761,000. Uh, small problem. Arizona only has eight Congressional Districts.
As John Shadegg asks, “Is this the same federal government Democrats want to entrust with our healthcare?”
I think the answer is obvious.
