Nos quitó mucho de las alas que teníamos para hablar de un proceso comprensivo para una reforma migratoria, y nunca consultó con nadie que no fuera ese grupo cercano a ella que son los hombres anglosajones que hacen la estrategia para ella.Grijalva was expressing his frustration that Napolitano didn't seem to consult many leaders in the Hispanic community before dropping her "National Guard" bombshell in her State of the State address. Other leaders, such as Rep. Steve Gallardo and Democratic National Committeeman Joe Rios have expressed similar frustrations. As much as I admire Napolitano, Grijalva has a point here. This is an issue that Grijalva has been passionate about his entire life (his father was a bracero), and he feels a bit betrayed by an ally. I realize that Napolitano is only asking for the federal government to pay for part of the cost of immigration enforcement. There are already 140 members of the Arizona National Guard who are supporting enforcement, what Napolitano is asking for is for the feds to expand that and pay for it. Of course, we all know that Donald Rumsfeld will say no. The Feds need the Arizona National Guard to support border enforcement, enforcing that border between Syria and Iraq. That isn't the point here though. Napolitano's people put this into the State of the State address without talking to her party's Hispanic leadership. Anyone could have told you that the first thing that any reporter would do is run to Gallardo, Grijalva or at worst, some publicity hound like Ben Miranda, and ask for their opinion on the matter. What sort of reaction did the Governor's office expect when they weren't consulted, or even warned? I hope this wasn't done as some cynically clever way to assure white East Valley voters that somehow she isn't owned by the Hispanic community. It's bad enough that we have people like J. D. Hayworth and Jon Kyl doing that, we don't need an otherwise good Democratic friend playing that game. Which brings me to my favorite reaction. A fella named David Lara, who is a Vice-Chairman of the Yuma County Republican party, objected to Grijalva's use of the term "Anglo-Saxon" when talking about Napolitano's advisors. He says the term was racist and demands an apology. Since when is the term racist? And, if it is, since when are Republicans angry about insults being thrown at Napolitano and her crew? Good luck waiting for that apology. In the mean time, could you look around at your own party's rhetoric on this issue and say something about it? 'Specially since it is directed at folks like you. By the way, I don't think this will result in anything aproaching a long-term rift. Grijalva and Napolitano are still close. Napolitano needs Grijalva to turn out her vote, and Grijalva needs an ally in Phoenix. Now, if only the media will take a look at the rifts in the Republican party on this issue. They'll see them in the CD 8 primary soon enough.|W|P|113872377801559857|W|P|I Don't Know About David Lara, But Ethelred the Unready Should Be Ticked|W|P|prezelski@aol.com
I hope and pray we’ll be sending back just the Flores bill without anything attached to it. If they do want to run a voucher bill, they should run it as a separate bill.Some legislators have been asking that the leadership bring in some Democrats to hammer out a bill that the Governor can sign. It sounds like if they just get a couple of responsible people from their own side, it might be good enough for the Governor. Jones's comments brought up another interesting point:
If it passes without my vote, I become superfluous to the discussion. I want to be part of the discussion. I’m decidedly not in favor of the vouchers, but unfortunately sometimes you end up having to make compromises that are distasteful but necessary.So, you thought the bill was bad, but you voted for it anyway because you wanted "discussion"? As Dr. Phil might say, how is that working out for you? Does it look like the leadership is the least bit interested in discussing this with anyone? Carry this to its logical conclusion, and every member of the legislature should vote for any bill that might pass. It would foster more discussion and comprimise, right? If Jones had been able to find only four other colleagues who agreed with him on this (or heck, only one more Senator), this thing would have failed to pass the legislature. As long as leadership knows they can get it past the House and Senate, they won't find any reason to negotiate with anyone. Of course, all of the potential votes against this went ahead and voted for it anyhow with the same excuse, "it was going to pass anyway." Count up the number of people who say this, and you will probably find that it wouldn't have passed if they had all voted against it. So, either the excuse is bogus, or these guys are so cowed by their leadership (which they elected) that they aren't willing to stand up for their own values or their constituents. NB - I congratulated Sen. Toni Hellon and Rep. Pete Hershberger before for voting against both bills, I should throw in Sen. Carolyn Allen's name as well. Also, it turns out that Hershberger apparently voted for HB 2004, the second bill. Pete, why must you disappoint me?|W|P|113854964673632918|W|P|What Are They Working On?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com
Tedski, I read your blog every day and do so love it. You may remember me from being the legislative reporter from the Daily Star for a couple years and also remember that I left to join the ranks of the PR. Anyway, you have said several times that the corporate tuition tax credit is a "massive tax give away," and that is not the truth. The tax credit is applied against what a company owes the state. So, if ABC Printing owes $500,000 in income taxes to Arizona, it can decide to give $500,000 to a tuition organization and nothing to the state. Or it can give $250,000 to a tuition organization and $250,000 to the state. However, it is not saving one red cent. Its stockholders, owners or employees get no financial benefit from sending the money to an STO versus the state. The company owes the exact same money. It's just a question of where that money goes. Also, the state would save money because the company's dollars would pay for a child's education. The money would follow the student. Children not in public schools would obviously not receive the $5,000 or so that the state spends per pupil. Now, if yer just havin' fun and spinning it the other way, by all means, go ahead and keep spinning away. I love honest debates. So be honest. You can still be intellectually honest and have fun at someone else's expense. Its just better when its true. I still enjoy reading your stuff. I just like it when you are right. Thanks and have a good weekend. Barrett Marson Director of Communications Arizona House of RepresentativesOuch! Got me there. To be fair to Mr. Marson, he's got a really difficult job selling this thing. He was given a pig and some lipstick, and his employers expect him to enter it in beauty contests. As to the my characterization of the credit as a "give away," he is correct that this would be money that the buisinesses would be spending the money anyway. Point taken, it's not like this money can go to paying for a trip to Vegas. Although, since the money is not going into the general fund, and the money is going to something the corporation wants to do, in a way it can be called a give away. For example, if XYZ Inc is donating $200,000 to a STO regardless of the credit but then claim it, is it a give away since the money would have been spent anyway? If the Republicans can call not cutting taxes a " tax increase"... However, I'll go ahead and stipulate to Marson's argument. Can I call it a "massive wealth transfer" instead? I've got a couple of reasons for this one. For one, my understanding is that the credit applies to a donation to any school's scholarship program. This will be a boon for already well-endowed schools in Phoenix and Tucson that have a high profile and the mechanism for asking for large donations. The Brophys and St Gregorys can raise a lot of money with this, whereas less well known and newer schools would not benefit. The lion's share of this money would go to schools that are already well heeled. Schools in smaller and poorer communities without a large corporate presence could recieve no benefit at all. Notice that this money will go to schools that don't serve the community, English language learners, that this bill is supposed to serve. Full disclosure: I attended St. Gregory High School, a private Episcopal school here in Tucson, on a scholarship even. I don't remember a single English language learner being served by our school, although we had some students who said "like", "harsh" and "bogus" too much. There is nothing in this bill to encourage these schools to start English language learner programs in return for taking the donations to their STOs. Even with the lower $50,000,000 cap on the credit, this still blows a pretty large hole in the budget. The argument was made (even more strenuously under the first, "uncapped" bill) that we shouldn't assume that everyone who can will take the credit. As we saw with Alt-Fuels (not that long ago, really), to plan correctly we should assume that everyone who can will take the credit. This is where the figure of $850,000,000 came from in the original bill. So, that is $50,000,000 that is not budgeted for. So, where does that money come from? In the past, the legislature has had two solutions to budget shortfalls: cutting programs entirely or mandating that local governments take over responsibility. So, this $50,000,000 could be made up for in longer lines at when you want to get a driver's license, overcrowded lower division classes at ASU or maybe even higher local taxes. It isn't a cut, but to make up for a reduction in money recieved from corporate taxes, working families will be asked to make up the shortfall. Ironically, the money could come from cuts in ELL and ESL programs... Still unaddressed are the other problems with this bill. Even without the credit, the bill sets up a poorly concieved system to meet the needs of English language learners. It seems that this is just an excuse for the Republicans to set up a tax credit that they have not been able to sneak by the Governor before.|W|P|113846243537588486|W|P|A Missive From One of the Legion of R-Cubed Fans|W|P|prezelski@aol.com
The Arizona Supreme Court has denied my motion for a stay and indicated that they will deny my petition for review. Therefore, I will submit my letter to the Speaker on Monday, January 31st, on the Floor. Sincerely, DAVID BURNELL SMITH Arizona State House of Representatives District 7There is one huge problem with this (and one smaller, amusing one that I will get to later): Smith is already out of office as of midnight last night, according to the court order. I don't even think he can legally be on the floor to submit this letter, since he was never legitimately elected. I can already see him spinning this as a "voluntary resignation" for the "good of the state" or something. This reminds me of when Fife Symington resigned "for the good of the state," even though the fact that he had already been convicted of a felony meant that he was already out of office. From now on, I'm going to use this logic and tell people that I have a chaste relationship with Izabella Scorupco. The fact that other circumstances mean that I don't have a choice in the matter isn't important. I should be congratulated for my piety and restraint. And the other thing: Monday is the 30th. Maybe this isn't a mistake, but merely another delaying tactic.|W|P|113838251328540491|W|P|Not Only Does He Hold Office Illegally, But Apparently He Can't Read a Calendar|W|P|prezelski@aol.com
Survey USA poll for KPNX, 335 responses: “Do you think Gov. Napolitano has handled the ELL situation the right way?” 48% Right Way 39% Wrong Way 14% Not Sure “Do you think the Arizona legislature has handled the ELL situation the right way?” 27% Right Way 61% Wrong Way 12% Not SureYep. Looks like there is a huge groundswell of support in the land for corporate tax credits. Even without the tax credits, both bills that the Governor vetoed were deeply flawed and would probably have been rejected by the judge in the case. The bill counts money that schools are recieving, from, say Youth Opporitunity or No Child Left Behind grants, against their ELL money, whether or not that money is being or can be spent on English Language Learners. It also uses that money to mask how little is actually being allocated by the bill. Further, it forces districts to go to a board of political appointees to ask for the money. All Napolitano did was veto the bill before the judge could look at it. Jim Weiers and company ought to thank her for saving them the embarassment of having the judge publicly scold them. Some other random thoughts that I have: I have heard Weiers use words like "dictator" when describing the Governor's actions. This is silly, since near as I can tell, the state constitution allows the Governor to veto bills. Of course, unlike Mr. Weiers, I have actually read the state constitution. I find it funny that a group of people that are elected from highly gerrymandered districts and that have shown little regard for the rights of the legislative minority (even attempting to silence some members last session) are now squaking about an anti-democratic power grab. It seems that the Governor and her vetoes are far more representative of the majority in this state than these ideological bills that the Republican leadership is pushing. Also, someone told me that Rep. Jonathan Paton was interviewed on Channel 12 up in Phoenix and said something like "this bill isn't that important." An $850,000,000 tax giveaway is not important? Gawd, I know you are a reasonable guy (for a Republican.) What Kool-Aid do they make you drink up there, Jonathan?|W|P|113837352186320566|W|P|Republicans: Underprivileged Kids = Big Bucks|W|P|prezelski@aol.com
Never has the cold, clammy hand of constistency rested long upon my shoulders -Sen. Henry Fountain AshurstLike many political observers, I looked over the Behavior Research Center poll numbers with great interest. The poll shows Governor Janet Napolitano ahead of two of her possible opponents by large margins, beating Sen. John Greene 56-20 and Don Goldwater 53-21. The Behavior Research Center is well regarded for its accuracy by the local media. Although it seems early, this poll indicates massive support from the public and one wonders why anyone would even bother to mount a serious campaign against her. The Republican candidates ought to fold their tents, take up a new hobby and not waste their time. The poll also shows Sen. Jon Kyl beating Democrat Jim Pederson 55-26. Seems bad for Pederson, but these are great numbers for a largely unknown candidate against an incumbent. Pederson is in the perfect position to win this race. Besides, everyone knows that polls taken this early are notoriously inaccurate and are only measuring name ID. BRC specializes in marketing surveys, and this was probably yet another survey for Tide and they just attached political questions for publicity. Got it? Good.|W|P|113811453974178791|W|P|All Spin Zone|W|P|prezelski@aol.com
"This was a name-recognition poll," said Jeff Latas, a former Air Force pilot and Gulf War veteran who was among the first candidates in the race. "I could have paid thousands of dollars for a similar poll with a slant toward national security and I think it would be obvious who would have the advantage."As to his first point, yes, he's right. Any poll this early is on name recognition. Polls this early in the 2002 Democratic primary in District 7 showed former Senator Luis Gonzales doing very well, mostly because people didn't notice that his name didn't end in a "z." Latas should worry about Weiss's name ID, but his campaign is not going to be based on grassroots campaigning, not celebrity. The second objection is a canard that I hear from some candidates and others who don't understand the way polling works. A firm that "slants" numbers is going to quickly be out of business. You can bet that the actual polling data includes all sorts of data that may or may not be favorable to Weiss. She chose to release the bits that are easilly digested by local media and that are favorable to her, but I severely doubt that the firm was paid to make a poll that would make her look good. This is because such a poll would be useless in planning strategy for a campaign. There are much better ways of spending money that phonying up polling numbers just to get a press release. If anyone has more data from this poll, and not another press release, I'd really love to look at it. NB - I already am reading comments from Republicans saying that Weiss is some sort of egomaniac for thinking she is qualified to go from TV to congress. Why wasn't this a problem with J. D. Hayworth? Oh wait, he is an egomaniac. Bad example. Sorry.|W|P|113789261748912130|W|P|Patricia Bryers Gelenberg Cougar Mellencamp Griffith Joyner Kersey Weiss Von Habsburg|W|P|prezelski@aol.com
We have every right to detain you as long as we want because we work for the U.S. government, too.An agent once told something similar to my brother when he had the temerity to be driving on the Tohono O'Odham Nation, which is where he was working at the time. Of course, he is a long haired freak, so I understand. Whenever I hear about incidents like this, I always have to wonder if the incident would have occurred had the person involved been Anglo. Maybe they would have pulled him over anyway. I was pulled over once outside of Bisbee; despite my ancestry, I look Anglo. But, what are the chances that an Anglo that gets pulled over would be asked to prove citizenship? This is one of the reasons why I have such a problem with things like the new rules about identification at polling places or proof of citizenship to get other sorts of government services. Will an Anglo, immigrant or no, be given the scrutiny given to a native born Hispanic? Why should someone be made to have to prove themselves American because they have brown eyes and are a bit darker?|W|P|113772864205348454|W|P|Border Patrol Harrasses Guy Who Was Born Here|W|P|prezelski@aol.com
Brazil is a country, very eclectic in nature, you cannot look at anybody and say they are Brazilian. You have no idea.And they say this isn't about race, how quaint. Tancredo seems to be buying in to the assumption that immigrants just aren't as "American" as the rest of us. This has been said about every immigrant group, whether they are Irish or Hmong. Also, Tancredo forgets that this country has had a significant Hispanic population since 1848 (one that can't be called "immigrant"), so thinking of them as "other" is ignorant. I don't know what sort of nationality "Tancredo" is, maybe Italian, maybe Portuguese, but I think if the congressman went back sixty or even thirty years, he'd see similar questioning of the "Americanism" of his immigrant ancestors. I've asked it before, and I'll ask again. Does anyone remember when Republican officials came out against PAN en masse? It was such a bad idea then, what has changed? One of those people that came out against it, no doubt saying at the time that it was racist, was Trent Franks. Franks will be appearing with Tancredo today too, of course.|W|P|113767881401032976|W|P|What Can I Say?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com
The article posits that some of the criticism from the FBI was from interagency rivalry, but I'm hoping that this may lead to more scrutiny of what sort of people were actually targeted and whether or not any useful information was actually collected. NB - Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo has a take on Al Gore's speech on this matter. Gore and Rep. Bob Barr had an event this weekend, which went nearly unreported except for the usual nattering about Gore being boring and some snickering about a technical glitch. Yeah, much better than talking about the substance of his speech.|W|P|113752112303584960|W|P|All That and Nothing?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com"The information was so thin," [one senior prosecutor] said, "and the connections were so remote, that they never led to anything, and I never heard any follow-up."
People nowadays just don't seem to know their place, Everywhere one turns blacks and hispanics are demanding jobs simply because they're black and hispanic, the physically handicapped are trying to gain equal representation in professional sports, and homosexuals are demanding that government vouchsafe them the right to bear children.Yeah, definitely sounds like it was all about the ROTC. Alito's involvement with the organization may have been tangential, but his claims that he didn't know what they were doing ring hollow. High profile alumni had made their position on the organization known for some time. For example, one alumnus, Sen. Bill Bradley, joined the organization, then ditched it and denounced it when it became obvious what they were actually about. Another person that denounced the organization was an obscure Tennessee Heart surgeon named Bill Frist, who is probably some sort of socialist, right? The thing that is most telling to me about ths incident is that, whatever Alito's actual involvement in the organization, he felt the need to proudly claim membership when he was applying for a job with the Reagan administration. Why would a guy who is not a racist (I don't know the guy, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt) feel the need to affiliate himself with such an organization to get a job? It doesn't say a heck of a lot about the modern conservative movement.|W|P|113727518526847501|W|P|What Really Ticks Me Off About Alito|W|P|prezelski@aol.com
As you know, in 2004 APS paid to its top executives more than $3 million in bonuses, on top of the base salaries that these executives received.Tell 'em about it. Hit 'em where it hurts. Let everybody know. Fear baby, fear... Sorry...she continues:
Have top managers considered forgoing some or all of their bonuses for 2005 and 2006 to reflect the performance of Company management and to help defray some of the costs the Company is seeking as part of its rate filings? If not, please explain why.Yes, please explain why if your company is doing poorly, the execs are still getting rewarded. We are waiting. And more...
Similarly, I would like to know whether the Company has contemplated cutbacks in non-essential travel in 2006, including but not limited to any first-class travel by company executives. If not, please explain why.Beautiful. I am in love with this woman. Is that wrong? She further points out that APS is still spending large amounts of money on advertising, even though they are a monopoly. She also asks if the company has contemplated dividend cuts and why other units of Pinnacle West have been given capital infusions, but not APS. I have a feeling it is because they thought they could roll the rate hike through the Corporation Commission. I'm sure that some will argue that Mayes is being overly punitive to APS. People that make this argument miss the whole point in our having a Corporation Commission. They are there to make sure that the rate payers are protected from companies that just see them as a cash cow. She sees her role, as have our more successful commissioners in the past, as making sure that a company has exhausted all other means of cost saving before working families bear the burden of their business decisions. When a consumer is paying their bill, they would like to know it actually is paying for power, and not paying for some exec's travel. Let the company swallow the costs of the frills and let them explain it to share holders.|W|P|113719893039165813|W|P|Some Questions for Arizona Public Service|W|P|prezelski@aol.com
Hey, Anonymous, no not you, the other Anonymous. How can you say that about Jeff Latas? And you, the other Anonymous, have you read the newspaper lately? Do you read at all?Also, note that that particular response was a bit personal. It's still so early, but people are particularly committed to their candidates. Let's keep it somewhat high minded. And that includes the person that was mad about one candidate getting a little grabby with her, you know who you are. I know that many Jeff Latas supporters have been posting here. Someone told me that this was "orchestrated" by the campaign. So what if it was? It shows a level of organization on the part of the campaign. You guys keep posting on here. Yes, I am still supporting Gabrielle Giffords. The rest of you can post to convince others, but it ain't going to work on me. She understands what it takes to win the election, and she has already built an impressive fundraising base. Yes, the DLC ties can be frustrating, but I would urge you to look at her record, where she has earned plaudits from progressive groups such as the Sierra Club. I've heard the knock that she doesn't publish long issue papers on her website, but I expect the website to be updated when she actually declares (it is still her Senate site with only a few modifications). However, she has a bit more than "issue briefs" to run on, she has an actual progressive record. Of course, after she wins the primary, I'll be talking about what a moderate she is. I'm a political weasel that way.|W|P|113716175591643647|W|P|CD-8 Open Thread, Just Like Daily Kos|W|P|prezelski@aol.com