|
Arizona's First Political Blog
E-mail Anonymous Mike at zonitics4-at-yahoo.com By Anonymous Mike, pseudonymously.
Archives
Links
Center
War Coverage
|
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Can't Anyone Play This Game? Remember during the campaign when Senator Joe Biden said it was patriotic for wealthy people to pay more taxes? Remember when President Obama pounded on Wall Street types for pulling down big bonuses while their firms were taking in taxpayer-funded bailouts? Well Mr. President and (now) Vice President Biden, what about cabinet officers taking in big government paychecks while skimping on their taxes? So with Geithner and Daschle caught on their taxes right at a time when their party is looking at handing out hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars (well borrowed dollars) to favored constiteuncies? For years Republicans have been cirticized for liking big government as long as they could borrow for it, now I guess we can say Democrats like big government as long as they don't have to personally pay the taxes for it. Couple of thoughts... First, take the Geithner and Daschle messes. The only reason we know of them is because they were appointed for cabinet posts, so how many other unppointed tax cheat are out there? Should we take Scrappleface's suggestion and expand the cabinet so it's large enough so we could get more tax cheats to own up? Second, what's up these cabinet appointments? Cannot anyone vet them? Add in the Bill Richardson fiasco which only a top secret spy or someone who lived in New Mexico for the past few years would ever know about and you have to wonder who approves of these appointments. Third, what does that say about the tax system? Back as an undergrad a prof made the remark that the difference between the old US and Italian tax systems was that the former had alot of deductions because they expected you to be honest while the latter had few deductions because they expected you to cheat on them... I have the feeling we as a country just found out how rotted out our system is. It reminds me of what another prof said... in an era of big government it's the middle class that gets screwed because the lwoer class doesn't pay taxes and gets government benefits while the upper class learns how to manipulate the system Friday, January 23, 2009
The Guns of January With the all the screaming from the universities and K-12 on the proposed budget cuts, I have a question... At what point does the FY2009 budget, no matter what scenario, pass the point of no return in terms of balancing it? Let's look at the facts. Let's say the FY2009 budget is about $10.2 billion, roll-over adjusted. Next week is the last week of January, meaning the fiscal year is almost 60% of the way complete. I don't have the latest Treasurer's report in front of me so let's assume (big assumption) that spending is done equally across the fiscal year; that means a little over $4 billion left. The deficit for this fiscal year stands at $1.6 billion or so and will probably get larger... let's say $1.8 billion to be on the safe side Cash available... about $670 million or so in fund transfer from tapping Rainy Day Fund and sweeping the other asset accounts. Let's also assume another $400 million (another big assumption) from the feds as part of the bailout (oh the humanity.) That leaves us about $730 million short, which has to be made up either with spending cuts or tax increases. Let's keep the assumption that no one wants to raise taxes... so we're going to cut the whole amount. Man I made alot of assumptions but bear with me. Assuming the feds come up with the money, assuming that spending is equal throughout the fiscal year, assuming the deficit doesn't get larger than $1.8 billion, and not counting any interest payments we'll have to make tapping any line of credit to make up for cash flow problems... that means we need to cut about 17% of spending to make the books balance by the end of the fiscal year. The Republican leadership in the Legislature thinks they can get a budget through by next week, but let's say members of the Republican caucus quail in the face of the pressure brought by those affected by the cuts and slow the process down. What happens then? What happens if we get to February and there's no deal done? Then using the same assumptions, we're down to cutting the same amount from $3.39 billion or 21% cuts. If they couldn't make it work with 17% cuts, I cannot see them making it with 21% cuts and the longer this goes on the more the pressure will grow for some way to bypass those types of spending cuts in favor of the previous governor's suggestions of liquidating state assets and accounting gimmicks. That is of course if the budget can even be saved at that point. So if this going to happen, then it will have to happen quickly otherwise... Wednesday, January 21, 2009
The Pride of Chandler I knew Eagles QB lived in the Phoenix-area but I didn't know it was Chandler. I'm not surprised because everyone knows that Chandler is truly the reincarnation of the Garden of Eden, the place where "rainbows end." Not like Scottsdale.... nope. Apparently some local residents decided to show their Cardinals pride by destroying Mr. McNabb's lawn. Rex Michael Perkins, 37, of Chandler, and Ryan Hanlon, 29, of Gilbert, were arrested on suspicion of criminal damage on Sunday after police questioned Perkins about the sign that said: “Go Cards” on one side and “Beat Philly” on the other, Chandler police said. Perkins and Hanlon also allegedly poured diesel fuel in McNabb’s yard in the 4100 block of South Purple Sage Drive to read: “Go Kurt,” and “Go Cards,” causing an estimated $2,000 in damage, Chandler police Sgt. Joe Favazzo said. So how were these miscreants caught? Police were able to track down the pair after they discovered a sticker containing the home address of one of the men on a cardboard sign left in McNabb’s yard. How sad. How pathetic. Killing Hope, Children, Puppies, and Kittens What did I tell you? Already the media is painting the Republican Legislature as a bunch of child-hating monsters for wanting to cut, in part, education spending in order to balance the massive budget deficit. First we have Laurie Roberts in the Republic: OK, raise your hand if you're happy with Arizona's budget plan, the one put out last week by Republican leaders. Because as we all know everyone is always happy with the options available when trying to cut a budget deficit... The one that guts one of the nation's most woefully underfunded school systems and debones the universities. The one that eliminates all-day kindergarten and health care for 63,000 kids. The one that slashes services to autistic children and the mentally ill and old people and, oh yeah, abused babies. Applause? Anyone?...... ..... A path, by the way, that runs right over the youngest, the oldest and the weakest among us. Well, considering the bulk of the budget dealt with things such as education and ACHCCCS it only makes sense that many of the cuts will fall on those aspects of the budget. As for the "youngest, the oldest and the weakest" well if there are parts of the state budget that involve giving oodles of money to the "strongest, prime of life, and the strongest" then let's cut that first. Oh there isn't a part of the budget that serves that community, oh, okay.... so basically what part of the budget can we cut that avoids the "youngest, the oldest and the weakest"? Prisons or would it be wise to be cut the budget involving the "strong, malicious, and respect-for-the-law-challenged" among us ? So if you cannot cut anything, where does that leave us? On to Republic reporter Casey Newton down at the Capitol... As a feisty Capitol press corps pressed the leadership to consider tax hikes, Senate President Bob Burns said his top priority was to reduce spending. Hey did you remember outgoing Governor Napoltano's budgets saying anything about tax increases? Nope, they were filled with what even Ms. Roberts says are "...fund sweeps, borrowing, and other maneuvers..." SSoo why wasn't a "feisty Capitol press corps" getting after the leadership to consider those "maneuvers" from her budgets? Is it because the press already knew such maneuvers were a joke and that her budgets weren't worth the paper they are printed on? Better yet why didn't a "feisty Capitol press corps" get after Napolitano to "consider tax hikes" in those budgets? Oh, it was because she had already left town with a one-way plane ticket to her confirmation hearings in Washington. If you want to another example of a member of the Capitol press corps full of great ideas and snark for the Republican Legislature, check out Howie Fischer's piece (h/t Espresso Pundit.) Why, Howie asks, cut spending when you can raise taxes? I don't remember him being so helpful to Napolitano. Gosh it's great the press is helpful and feisty when it comes to tax increases, but where was this great surge of energy, say, last week? To top it, victims of the budget cut are already making plans to close the Washington Monument. That reference is in regard to a common tactic used by government agencies when threatened with budget cuts; they don't try to find the least essential program to cut first , no instead they'll have to eliminate the most popular programs first. Check out ASU President Michael Crow's threat to close ASU Polytechnic... which just happns to be one of Senate Appropriations Chairman Russell Pearce's pet projects. they proclaim that if the cuts are enacted they'll have to Monday, January 19, 2009
Things I Haven't Discussed I have been asked why I have refrained from commenting on certain issues. So here goes... The upcoming Obama Presidency. I didn't want to jump on the guy because first he hadn't even taken office, I know there are people in this country who in the past have liked to condemn a man for such things but hey I'm old fashioned, I'll judge a man by what he does not what he says. Second, I think I like the man's cabinet picks better than those who voted for him. Btw... we'll say a prayer for him tonight and tomorrow. Whether you voted for him or not he will be the president as of tomorrow and right now that isn't a job I'll wish on anyone. Light rail... I think I have said it before. Congratulations to Metro for getting the job done on schedule and what looks to be on budget. I will be intersted to see what the ridership looks like say, 6 months from now, especially in comparison with the Red Line bus route which the rail follows. I know that even if ridership numbers are int he pits that it won't stopt he $100 million per extension from going in, heck I know that low ridership will be seen as a justification for expanding the system, go figure. One question though, why do I have to pay for a separate ticket to ride the rail and the bus? Why cannot there be a common transfer for both? Shouldn't the bus and rail systems be integrated as one? Photo radar... All the hub bub about it being used for revenue generation as opposed to safety, the move to get it banned... all old news and I cannot say it any better than others. My point is that when the current Governor proposed the plan as a way to balance the budget, she said it would generate $90 million in revenue the first year and $120 million the second. Now in her recent budget proposals she has given numbers of $50 million the first and $75 million the second. Why do I think the actual numbers will be even less than that? Why do I think the photo radar numbers are as much a mirage as all of her budget numbers? I know I'm being a cynic. Sunday, January 18, 2009
The Sucker's Choice As I was watching Horizon Friday night it occurred to me that the media and the Democrats are presenting soon-to-be Governor Brewer with a choice. First a little background. Current Governor Janet Napolitano has released both an updated FY2009 and FY2010 budget. As expected it greatly differs from the budget options presented by the Republican Legislature. While the Legislature goes heavily on cuts, Napolitano's approach goes back to her old modus operandi of low-balling the size of the deficit, using roll overs and other budget gimmeckery, and with the added new dash of securitizing revenue-generating assets. Horizon host Ted Simons put forth a theme I have been hearing alot of recently... that Brewer has the choice of either following one of those two options. On one hand, the "draconian" cuts of the Republican legislators (need I remind you of the low reputation of the Legislature?) or the much more moderate tone of Napolitano who happens to not only enjoy high poll numbers but was elected with a crushing electoral mandate. Come on Jan, what are you going do? Follow the lead of the cool kids or hang out with those radical legislaive losers? You follow the losers and enact those "draconian" cuts and there will be a story every day on how they will affect little children and their puppies and kittens and we'll make sure any mention of those "draconian cuts" will be preceded by the statement that you approved of them. Oh... also once a week we'll be sure to mention that you reversed the policies of your predecssor who just happened to be one of the most popular governors in the state's history while we also remind everyone that no one elected you. It's a sucker's choice because if Brewer does follow Napolitano's policies, not only will she become politically isolated but at best she'll get none of the credit and at worst have to make even more "draconian" cuts during 2010 as the state careens toward bankruptcy in an election year. So here's my suggestion.... when you get sworn into office this week, use the moment of your inaguration to lay out to the people of Arizona the dire fiscal situation and explain to them that tough choices need to be made. Like it or not, Brewer will own the solution for the budget deficit from the moment she takes office so she needs to lay the rationale for her actions from the very beginning. She doesn't need to directly attack her predecessor or even use her name, the moment Napolitano resigned to take another job, the moment she left her post during one of the biggest crises to ever hit state government, it was as if she no longer existed. Take a few minutes to directly address the people of Arizona and lay out the situation. Explain that... We're facing one of the greatest crisis of state government in Arizona's history. We're in the middle of multi-year fiscal drought and rather than treating the budget like fiscal recovery is just around the corner, that the best projection is for a return to the revenues of 2007 sometime around 2012. That the State of Arizona must have a balanced budget every year, unlike the federal government, and that this necessity limits the options for dealing with the deficit. That previous attempts to deal with the budget defcit, while done with the admirable goal in maintaining state services, can no longer continue because they put off the necessary measures in favor of short-term tactics that will cripple the state budget for years to come. Explain the consequences of financing school construction, K-12 roll-overs, and securitizing Tobacco or the Lottery. Relate the consequences of such actions in terms of personal finance, which most people can relate to. Explain that the prior attempts to balance budgets involved gimmicks like photo radar. Explain that you will do whatever is necessary to maintain state services, but that in part due to measures taken over the past 12 months the State is facing fiscal disaster. You might want to pick up Treasurer Dean Martin's comments that we'll soon have to borrow money to keep the state agency lights on. You might want to allude that if things aren't soon fixed, even greater disaster looms. So the question is Governor Brewer, are you going to accept the sucker's choice that the media and Democrats are offering you or are you, to mix metaphors, going to change the rules of the game? Feeling the Hate There are alot of memorable moments from the Cardinals Super Bowl run; however, the best may be from today's CBS halftime show... Shannon Sharpe did a quick summary of the game, made some sort of favorable remark regardign the Cardinals, and then turned to Boomer Esiason. The look on Boomer's face? Sheer hate. More than 10 years later and the man cannot let go. Thursday, January 15, 2009
Thinking of Khan A mish mash of thoughts... How do you deal with the nation's largest state budget deficit (as measured as a percentage)? The Appropriation Chairmen for the Arizona Legislature outline the options for an effective, non gimmicky, approach. The best part is in the last slide which, in a refreshing change from the hopes and prayers of the last few budgets, propose a budget plan that would exceed the projected FY2009 shortfall in order to provide some buffer to future economic shocks. No word on the promised budget from Governor Napolitano who is in Washington wrapping up her hearing for Homeland Security. How bad are Philly fans when it comes to the dark pit of the soul? Forget about booing Santa Claus as that was fully justified. Instead see this comment to a post in Galley Slaves regarding what would happen to Philly sports fans if the Eagles won the Super Bowl: Winning will not change the icy heart of the Philly fan. After the game, my brother-in-law claimed that the only thing better than the Eagles winning the Super Bowl would be having Andy Reid fired at the post-game victory celebration. That feeling is pretty widespread by the way. I heard they still booed Mike Schmidt during his Hall of Fame induction speech. And finally to Khan Ricardo Montalban just passed away. He was the sensation when I was in grade school, not because anybody watched Fantasy Island as that was past our bed times or was after Lobve Boat or soemthing but because of his Chrysler car commercials. The man exuded class and taste and all of in my class could do great imitations of "rich Coreentheean leather." One weekend my Dad brought home a company car that just happened to be a Chrysler Cordoba; rather than trying to get him to do a Smokey and the Bandit with the company wheels like we used to do, my brother and I just wanted to sit in the back with the car parked in the driveway. When I returned to school that Monday with the report that I had actually experienced the wonderful leather, I was treated like the great explorer Stanley returning to London after venturing to the heart of Africa. My other great memory was during a boring car ride to New Mexico. There used to be signs along the highway proclaiming some upcoming historical landmark and exhorting me to turn the AM radio dial such and such frequency. Well after several such trips I finally broke down and turned the dial to discover that the frequency in question had a recording Mr. Montalban doing a documentary of each historical site I was passing. Wonderful. Then again he would sound wonderful reading cooking recipes or announcing the hog competition at the Marion County Fair. Some other Montalban thoughts here and here. Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Just So You Know I know you love my posts on the budget, so here's one more. This one is based on today's Finance Advisory Committee presentation down at the Legislature for the Joint Legislative Budget Committee. You really don't have to read very far into the presentation, especially Mr. Pollack's wonderful images and pictures, to get the basic gist of the 4 Sector Consensus. General Revenue will return to FY2007 levels in.... ...FY2012. That's how bad of a hole we're in so unless you want to change the Arizona Constitution to allow the State to start carrying debt, Governor Napolitano better explain how she planned on exceeding revenue for 4 straight years or by planning each budget like the economy was going to turn around mid fiscal year "Let's assume a growth in revenue of..." Yech Oh for even more joy read on int he presentation for State Treasurer Dean Martin's report on the State's cash flow. I know he's just "grandstanding" and all but we're looking at a $1.4 to 1.6 billion deficit this year with an awfully big chunk of the money already spent and therefore not recoverable by spending cuts. Let's move beyond the ability to get bank loans to solve the cash flow problem that's coming in a month or two, I don't know how you will get the books to balance by the end of the fiscal year You know things are bad when the only bright spot in the Valley this year is the Cardinals Blagopolitano What do disgraced Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich and Janet Napolitano have in common? The use of their high elected office as a personal possession as opposed to a public trust. While the former has done so in a criminal manner and the latter has not, both are unethical. First speculation about Blago and where he goes from here... He hasn't resigned or apologized or anything, he totally looks like he is going to fight it out to the bitter end. This could all be posturing, as he tries to negotiate the best deal possible with the feds, but let's say he takes this trial what could his possible defense be? I bet he puts the whole political system, not just Chicago, but everything on trial. Yes he got caught on tape doing a pro quid pro on the open senate seat, trying to maximize his personal gain but what did he mostly talk about? Promises of people to raise campaign funds for him, sinecures after he left office... it wasn't quite a Duke Cunningham who while in office received buckets of cash in exchange for explicit favors. The whole premise behind McCain-Feingold and Clean Elections was that money in politics corrupts, to receive a campaign contribution involves the potential for some sort of corrupt pro quid pro. The whole controversey surrounding earmarks is based on this premise. Blagojevich can argue that the only difference between him and the rest of the political system was that he caught on tape explicitly discussing these deals... his argument that his crime wasn't so much in the deal themselves but for the indiscretion that he exposed the hidden sausage factory to the public. The other aspect of the crime is that Blago is guilty, without a doubt, of using his office for personal gain as opposed to the public welfare. The open senate seat was just another thing he could "sell" like a piece of pork... whether it was to benefit him personally or his future political prospects. He treated public office as something he had title to and could wheel and deal like it was a knick knack on E-Bay. Tell me though on what basis is Governor Patterson of New York is trying to fill the open senate seat there? Best person for the state who is available? Or who might support him politically in the future? Or a rival for the 2010 election who could be gotten out of the way? Now we turn to Arizona Governor Napolitano. No corrupt deals to expose here, I'll just assume (and rather safely) that for a poltiician she's as pure and innocent on such matters as new snow. However her great lapse was that for the past few months (at least) she has treated her office as a piece of private property rather than as a public trust. A few months ago when she was nominated to the post of Homeland Security, everyone knew that she wouldn't be confirmed until (at least) the new administration took office. She then announced that she wouldn't resign until her new post was confirmed, treating her current job as the top elected official in Arizona as a safety net. In another time and age, such a stance would be tolerable. However Arizona in the midst of its worst financial, and soon to be political, crisis in a generation. The State is projected to run out of money several months short of the end of the fiscal year and will have to resort to borrowing, if it legally can, in order to keep the lights on. The budget that generated this mess was unbalanced from almost the day it took effect. Leave aside that the budget will probably be in deficit for at least the next 2 fiscal years after this one leaving open the only possibilities of massive spending cuts and/or tax increases. Leave aside the future fiscal years. Leave aside the fact this current year crisis is almost an exact replay of last year's crisis, just with fewer options. Given that this budget was running unbalanced from the day it took effect, would Governor Napolitano acted differently if she knew she would have to be around to clean things up? Would she have let the State get to the point where it will have to beg banks, during the worst national financial crisis in 75 years, for loans to keep the lights on past March if she was still going to be in office? Back when the FY2009 budget hit the public fan in early October, she announced plans to call the Legislature into session after the November election in oder to fix it. The session was never called as there was no consensus on hwo to fix the budget. Now legislators are a tough lot at the best of time to get a consensus on and times are tough, but if Napolitano planned to be here after January don't you think she would have found way, even by knocking heads together, to get a session in place and a partial budget fixed? Arizona budget deficits are tough to eliminate; the State cannot take on debt so the only ways to fix them without raising taxes is to cut spending. The earlier in the fiscal year you cut spending, the better it is; however, we now have at best 5 months left, spending cuts will no longer do it alone. We will either be selling assets, raising taxes, or dependent on the feds for a bailout. Yech. Personally I think alot of political careers will be ended over the next 12 months as our elected officials take the brutal steps necessary to get the budgets balanced. However Napolitano's career will still remain viable because she will have escaped the consequences of her actions (or inaction.) To top it off, she has chosen to remain in office as a lame duck during this critical time not to provide the necessary leadership and forge solutions, but as a safety net in case her nomination went askew. Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way. She did none of the three. Legally she could do that, but by any means of public service she hurt this state by treating her office as property she could dispose of as she pleased rather than as a public trust that she could hold only as long as she could properly execute it. Monday, January 12, 2009
About that Cursed Frogurt... People have been asking me in light of the Cardinals' playoff run if I'm still sticking with the idea that the team is cursed... and the answer is yes. Cursed is cursed, every new success by the team is simply a new and diabolical way to get your hopes up before they are cruelly crushed. There's no hope, no escape, just misery past, misery being experienced, and endless eons of misery to be experienced. If you think about it, the curse is actually irrefutable because nothing will dispel it, even winning a bunch of Super Bowls won't do it because all that success is just to get your expectations up. Really the escape from this is death. Our only hope is to crush the hope of others (think Jake Delhomme is going to be starting next year?) How very Russian. I once asked my mother if we were Russian and she said no, it just comes from following Philly sports too long. It just gets into your blood, like malaria. Having said that... The last 2 weeks has been beyond awesome, so awesome that it's almost worth whatever dark nights of the soul await us. This is team that has underperformed ever since it cam to the Valley. Even when they went to the playoffs 10 years ago, they barely squeaked in playing a creampuff schedule, and beat a declining Cowboys team in the Wildcard. This year's team was a dead man walking, getting spanked by 40 points in New England. Instead of going down, they actually beat two quality teams in a decisive fashion... it's almost scary. So enjoy it, because the success we're experiencing now we'll have to be repaid someday. Saturday, January 10, 2009
Just Brilliant Napolitano's political epitaph and the budget can wait until tomorrow, this is just too good of an idea to pass over. From Bill Simmons' column on ESPN.com: (One other possible format change that we discussed in Monday's "B.S. Report" -- in the divisional playoffs, the No. 1 seeds get to pick which team they want to play. Why? BECAUSE IT'S IDIOTIC THAT THE GIANTS FOUGHT ALL YEAR TO WIN THE NO. 1 SEED, AND NOW THEY HAVE TO PLAY A POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS EAGLES TEAM INSTEAD OF A CARDINALS TEAM THAT WOULD HAVE A ZERO PERCENT CHANCE OF BEATING THEM!!!!!! Sorry, I had to go all-caps there. It's that dumb. So is Tennessee playing 12-5 Baltimore instead of 9-8 San Diego. I don't get it.) Yep. If I were the Giants I would want the Cards instead of the Eagles, but that's the way it goes; the seedings are out of the teams' immediate hands and are instead dictated by records and division records. One of the great scenes in all of sports is in baseball when a guy gets intentionally walked and then the next schlub comes to bat. How humiliating, but such drama because the guy who just got dissed as an easy out now has a chance for some payback. Now how much better would it be after the last wild card game wrapped up on Sunday, the respective studio show then turned to the coach and GM of the number 1 seed to ask who would they pick as their playoff opponent, an opponent everyone assumed would be the easiest team to beat. Think of the drama surrounding the pick, think of all the headlines and smack talk throughout the week. Now let's extend the concept to other sports. One of the (many) irritating things about the NBA is that as the regular season wraps up teams jockey for playoff position not based on record but based on who their opponent will be; sometimes it pays to be a lower seed if you can play the right team. Why not have a show, just like the draft, between the regular season and playoff where the top 3 playoff seeds in each conference select who their opponents will be, selecting in order of best record first? Wouldn't you bust your butt a little harder to get a 3 as opposed 4 seed if you could pick out of a potentially difficult first round match-up? Or try to get a first seed so you can pick your opponent for the 2nd round as well? Yes. Make it happen. Friday, January 9, 2009
For a Few Posts More... Three more posts on Janet Napolitano should just about do it, then hopefully that will be about it. Nothing I said before but let's call this a summarization of her political legacy or, if you will, her political epitaph. If Napolitano magically vanished from the face of the planet after Election Day 2006, her legacy would have been secured while she was at the height of her powers. In 1998 she managed to win the Attorney General race after the Republicans committed fratricide in the primary. In 2002 she barely won her first gubernatorial race during tough economic times and the alt fuel scandal. In 2006 when she ran for re-election, she was dominant that her massive margin of victory was magnified by the fact that no Republican of prominence wanted to run against her. It capped off a first-term of gushing revenues that allowed her to run as both as a spender and tax cutter, a reputation of her being able to manhandle the Republican Legislature, and the perceived ability to effectively manage the executive branch. Her political future was as bright as the June sun. What was the next step? Senate? Heck, for a while last year she was even talked about as a possible VP pick. Now... in the early days of 2009, all of that seems like ash. Let's forget about the popular opinion polls about Napolitano because much like the real estate bubble did, her poll numbers should be the next thing to pop. I'm going to ask you, what did she do? What are her prominent, "count-on-one-hand" achievements? All-day kindergarten? Okay chalk that one up to her. Keep going... her little biotech capital venture fund? Okay, you got that too. Any ballot initiatives? After all with a Republican Legislature, that would seem to be a great place for a purported political Colossus of Janet to make her mark, to translate her hegemony into policy. Hmmmm.... TIME and state trust lands initiatives never even made the ballot due to technicalities. That's sort of like never making it to your Super Bowl game because you forgot when the game was being played. What else? Managerial effectiveness? Okay throw out the prison standoff from a few years ago, the Veterans Home fiasco that happened twice under her watch, and the ongoing problems at CPS.... Anything else? Oh yes, she boosted spending and we see where that has gotten us. I would say that her achievements, and therefore much of her legacy, rest on 3 things: 1) She was able to exploit differences within the Republicans in the Legislature, either by peeling off moderate votes or by simply stonewalling on issues like the budget until the Republicans caved. So in comparison to the Legislature, which is one of the most ridiculed public institutions in the state, she looks like a genius in comparison. 2) Her image as a moderate Democrat, the one who could run as both a spender and tax cutter, was only possible because the inconsistencies in her program were never exposed by being pushed back onto her base. Democrats didn't dare ask why taxes were cut instead of more money spent or why more ambitious programs weren't implemented because there was no one willing to stand up and speak. The critical time was in January 2006 when revenue was gushing in and it was clear that she would face no serious opposition to re-election, that would have been the time to start constructing some of the more transformative liberal programs that her supporters were hankering for... but she did nothing. She was completely unwilling to shave up a few points from her massive lead in order to translate that popularity into lasting policies. 3) She was in office during flush times. It's always better to be lucky than good and part of being lucky is to know when to be in office. Her election in 2002 was propelled in part by the tough economic and fiscal times back then and her re-election was propelled by the flush times of 2006. It doesn't take a political genius to win as an outsider in 2002 and as an incumbent in 2006, but some wanted to give her that label and so it stuck. In short she was a tactician, not a strategist. Somebody willing to exploit current trends and weaknesses in the opposition and her own ranks in order to move an incrementalist agenda, either out of ideological disposition or out of innate caution born out of political ambition. There's nothing wrong with that and many a long and successful political career has been built on such an approach. It, however, is the antithesis of being a leader which is why at the greatest moment in her reign as governor, she will fail and bring the Colossus of Janet crashing down. However that's tomorrow's story. In Praise of Boring Imagine my amusement, and total lack of surprise, when in reading Forbes' list of the most boring cities in America to find out that Chandler is listed in the top 10. You will be completely unsurprised to learn that I lived in Chandler for 10 years and loved every moment of it, in fact to this day I believe it is there that "rainbows end." Of course in fairness to Chandler I grew up in an area where the 3 big social events of the season were the first day of hunting season, the opening of the state agricultural fair, and the big high school wrestling match against Phillipsburg. So by comparison, to me the bright lights at the corner of Pecos and Arizona Ave. shine very bright indeed. Okay the Forbes' article is not a really slam against the cities in question, just an analysis of which cities fail to generate headlines (as opposed to say Detroit) but if I was Mayor Boyd Dunn, I would put the moniker of "boring" on the city's seal. Boring is safe and prosperous, where the kids are safe playing at night in the cul-de-sac. Boring is low taxes. Not spending taxpayer money on "civic pride" projects like light rail or sport venues. It's not taking half of $800 million bond issue and spending it to spruce up a downtown that the average citizen visits maybe once a month. It's not about building foolish things like popsicle stick skyscraper, 50-foot magnifying glasses, or giant escalators to nowhere. It's about staying out of the news, which is all pretty much negative anyway, and doing remarkable things that never seem to get remarked upon. Besides, if the people of Chandler want excitement they all know they can go at any time to Apache Junction. Anything goes there and usually does Tuesday, January 6, 2009
I've Got GMAC Bowl Fever It's January 6th; they played the Fiesta Bowl last night, the Orange and the Sugar last week, and tonite they are playing the GMAC Bowl. There's something wrong with that. When I was a wee lad, there was a definite structure to the college football season. A structure, a system, a hierarchy that made some degree of sense and that rewarded virtue. It went something like this... If you were part of a college football team and you had a really good season, you got to do what pretty much all such good teams did... you got to play on past the end of the regular season. Not a playoff game like every other sport in every other league, but you got to go to a bowl game. It was a big deal, some colleges went many years, if not decades, between bowl games. You got to go some part of the country you usually didn't go to and play some team your school probably last played during the Johnson Administration. There also was a definite hierarchy built into the bowl schedule; the better your season the closer you got to play to New Year's Day. If you were just good, you maybe got some game just before or after Christmas. If you were pretty good, maybe you got a game New Year's Eve or early New Year's Day; the Sun, the Citrus, or perhaps the Gator. Of course if you were really, really good, you played later on New Year's Day in the Sugar or Orange. That was then, this is now. Instead of bowl games being a reward for an exceptional season, invitations are handed out to one and all. Last I counted there were 34 bowls which meant that more than half of all Division I or FBS or FUBAR or whatever they call that classification of teams are going to a game. You have to have a real bozo of season (see ASU) to be sitting home. Instead of having a nice heirarchy of schedule, we have games like the GMAC Bowl scheduled between the Fiesta and the national championship game. Rather than having the season build to climatic moment on New Year's Night with bleary-eyed fans, after previously watching that day the Citrus/Gator/Cotton/Rose/Fiesta Bowls, tuned into either the Sugar or Orange Bowl to see who would stake claim to the national championship, we instead have the season dragged out for a full week after New Year's. In the good ole days, last week's Orange Bowl snoozefest between Virginia Tech and Cincinnati would have led us to turning the channel to the Utah-Alabama Sugar Bowl as opposed to turning the TV off and spending quality time with our families. Finally the bowls themselves have been NASCARed; not only have they proliferated like payday loan stores but they have acquired names that separate them from their communities and history. Don't get me wrong, corporate sponsorship may be a necessary evil but there is a world of difference between the FedEx Orange and the PapaJohns.com Bowl. Not only have new bowls emerged with such names, but older bowls have changed their names to things like Chick-Fil-A (Peach), Insight (Copper) and Capital One (Citrus.) So here's my modest proposal. We all know why the bowl season has gotten out of hand, money. More games mean more programming. Corporate sponsorship brings in money and the more the corporate name is prominently displayed the more money it brings in. However we also know that college football survives because of the tradition and community it generates among its fans, dilute the product too much and the game just becomes a Saturday bridge between Friday Night Lights and the NFL. So we need to step in and save the bowl system. Not a playoff system, I like a little bit of uncertainity and plus life is a little unfair. So every now and then we get some controversey, so what? We'll get just as much if we went to a playoff system because no matter if you go to a 8-team playoff or 4 bowls + 1 or whatever somebody will always complain they should be in the playoffs. So here we go: First raise the win-total to be bowl eligible from 6 to 8. 6 might have made a little bit of sense when most schools played an 11-game season but now with a universal 12-game schedule, it just means you can be a .500 team and playing in Champs Sports Bowl. If we raised the standard this year we would have cut the number of bowl elible teams by about 24 schools which means... ...we can cut the number of bowls down to about 22. That seems like a good number However every year there seems to be a feel-good story about a school that comes from nowhere and pulls off a half-decent season which gets everyone excited. So let's throw in an exception, allow 4 teams in that get 7 wins but make them go some place that has a rinky dink name; the PapaJohns.com or San Diego County Credit Union Poinsetta Bowl or something. A team that hasn't been to a bowl game in 10 years would run through hell in a gasoline suit to play the PapaJohns while an LSU would reject the invite and that's just the point. All games will be played by the close of New Year's (or Jan. 2 if New Year's falls on a weekend) with the exception of the national championship game which needs to be played the next day. No waiting a week, play the game, get it done, and move off the sports calendar The only games to be played on New Year's will be quality events, no foolish corporate name bowls like Outback or Champs Sports. Capital One can stay if it restores either the Citrus or Tangerine in its name. The GMAC Bowl will be forced to either change its name or be put of its misery, you just cannot have a bowl named after a corporation that is the recipient of government bailout money. Friday, January 2, 2009
Who Woulda Thunk it? It's been a month or so since I blogged about the Arizona budget, so you're overdue. A more comprehensive piece in the near future, but for now a little something that indicates to me how some parties are going to try and play this thing out. This is what those guys with the scrambled eggs on their hats would call "battle space preparation." Espresso Pundit linked the other week to a post at the Tucson Citizen which blames the FY2009 budget, the budget which the Democrats rammed through the waning days of June and immediately began running in the red, on the Governor getting the wrong economic forecast data. Well I'll let the author, Mr. Kimble who by the way is the paper's editorial editor, say it in his own words: In January 2008, Gov. Janet Napolitano presented her proposal for the fiscal 2009 budget to the Legislature. That’s the budget for the year that is now almost half-over, running from July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2009. Government budgets are only as good as government economic forecasts. And less than a year ago, the forecast for the Arizona economy was way, way off. In January 2008, Gov. Janet Napolitano presented her proposal for the fiscal 2009 budget to the Legislature. That’s the budget for the year that is now almost half-over, running from July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2009. In her budget message, Napolitano referred to “slow economic growth that we anticipate for much of 2008.” ---- The governor’s report also forecast growth “in each of ‘The Big Three’ tax categories”: sales tax, individual income tax and corporate income tax. Those forecasts were wrong, wrong and wrong. The report concluded that the state would be able to “bridge the shortfall without significant disruption to the operation of State Government.”... So far so good, nothing wrong here. There were plenty of people, not all Democrats, who in late 2007 saw the dip in state revenues as something temporary. At that time many people saw no need to seriously cut spending, just tap the Rainy Day Fund and say switch school construction over to financing and ride out this temporary storm. The presumption of Mr. Kimble's writing is that the Governor's poor budgeting was the result of poor staff forecasting as opposed to willful neglect. However if you look further into Mr. Kimble's wording you note the sleight of hand. He discusses the Governor presenting a FY2009 budget in January 2008 and then proceeds to link the poor forecasts that went into that January proposal with the disaster of a budget that was passed in June. In other words nothing to see here as far as political culpability, no one could have seen this coming... like the January proposal was set in stone and everyone was taken by surprise by what happened later. Nonsense. Anybody who could read a simple accounting report knew that when the FY2009 budget finally passed in late June that at best would have to be revised sometime during the fiscal year. The situation had radically changed between January and June, after more months of fiscal red ink no one could say with a straight face that growth in revenue was around the corner. However that is exactly what the Governor's budget assumed, because if you believe that revenue will increase over the next year then you don't have to make deeper spending cuts. Let's put it another way, if you took that budget with those revenue estimates into the private sector in order to pitch for cash, you would at best be laughed out the room or at worst be up on indictment for fraud. The budget was a fiction from the moment it was passed and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. Why did the Governor pass a budget that she had to know was a train wreck going to happen? Well in part that is what politicians, and also voters, often do; keep putting off decisions until there are no other alternatives (see California.) However, as I have written before, I think there is something more devious and self-serving here because with the restrictions on debt in state budgets, you really cannot kick the budget problem down the road for very long. The only logical answer was that Governor Napolitano was hoping for a Democrat in the White House and that she would be to skip town before she had to come up with a real solution to the budget deficit. That's where the battlespace preparation comes in and a topic for another post... this is about going over the past 12 months and assigning (or in this case absolving) blame in preparation for the budget battle royale that will kick off in a few weeks. Flatly put, Mr. Kimble is wrong and he knows it. Napolitano knew which way the revenue tide was going when that FY2009 budget was finally passed and she chose for her own selfish political reasons to do nothing substantive to solve it, but rather hope she could push it onto her successor. Thursday, January 1, 2009
2009 I have been inspired by ExurbanKev to write up predictions for 2009. Much like him, I I think this will be my first and last attempt. However I promise that no matter how bad my predictions, I will not delete them from the archives because you won’t be able to find them in the archives anyway First things first…. Sports The Suns will make the playoffs but lose in the first round, thereby returning to their late 1990s mediocrity. Steve Nash and his back will finally break down. Sarver rejoices he won’t have to pay luxury tax. The Coyotes will leave town and move to Toronto… this narrowly beats out the prediction that due to lease problems they won’t be able to leave and will fold thereby becoming the Cleveland Barons of the 21st Century. Diamondbacks will miss the playoffs as the younger players fail to produce at the plate; due to economics the team contemplates more cutbacks they realize paying Haren and Webb market value means that over half their payroll might go to 2 players Cardinals will miss the playoffs due to a resurgent 49ers squad, continue decades long search for a running game. ASU will return to prominence by going to the Holiday Bowl (what you thought that the Rose Bowl was going to happen?) Erickson gets itchy to leave, fields offers from Phoenix College. Arizona scene… Brewer and the Republican Legislature solve the budget the only way still available, through heavy budget cuts and throw in some tax increases. Attempts to reach out to the Democrats fail as the Dems are more than happy to allow the Republicans to do the heavy lifting on budget cutting while proposing new and innovative ways to borrow and sell state assets in order to maintain spending… proposes selling naming rights to Wesley Bolin Plaza. Napolitano’s local star will diminish after she leaves for Washington due to sudden realization that she didn’t do squat on the budget; not enough of a realization to permanently damage her but only to open the pathway to pound on Brewer. Also there will be a scandal arising from her administration. Linda Valdez continues to call her a genius. The Arizona economy will continue to wallow in the doldrums due to a weak housing market. Google decides to come back to ASU, bringing with it 5 additional jobs. Arizona Republic calls it the light at the end of the tunnel and a new age for the economy. Light rail will prove to be a technical success but ridership will decline from initial highs creating massive holes in the business plans. Local politicians will say that the only solution to declining ridership is to build more rail lines and restrict use of cars. National scene… Between his decisions to not close Guantanamo and not withdraw from Iraq, President Obama will have managed to piss off everyone in the country. Calls to save his presidency will abound, David Gergen will step forward. Obama’s rebound strategy revolves around getting the Republicans to win the House in 2010 and making John Boehner the new Newt Gingrich which has the added benefit of getting Nancy Pelosi out of his hair. Economy rebounds, modest growth. No snarky remarks here by me, just keeping fingers crossed. Henry Paulson piñatas sell like hot cakes. Lawrence Summers finds a unique interpretation of eminent domain which allows the feds to “repurpose” Harvard’s endowment. During Putin’s trip to Washington, the Obama’s new dog peers into the Russian’s soul, bites leg. Thomas Friedman will write yet another unbearable book. Paul Krugman will preface every column by reminding us he now has a Nobel Prize. The New York Times declares bankruptcy. International scene… Pakistan collapses sparking a small nuclear exchange in the region. Once again no snarky comment by me, just keeping fingers crossed and whistling past the graveyard The collapse in oil prices leads to financial implosions among a number of nasty oil producing countries (Iran, Venezuela, Russia…) leading to all sort of foreign adventurism. Iceland, which has financial problems of its own, starts to build Viking longboats… World economic crisis solved through sudden increase in consumer spending generated by Nintendo’s decision to actually produce enough Wii game consoles There. If I’m wrong may we all be crushed by some sort of world financial crisis, nuclear war, or exploding caldera out of Yellowstone. |
