Donald Trump and The New Literacy

What a political week this has been!  This has been a rough primary season after seventeen candidates ran and the last candidate is now standing.  Not based on money or influence in the current hierarchy, not based on prior ‘political’ experience, and not based on what the media wants, or who the media employs, or who owns the media.  The handpicked candidates were knocked off early, leaving three renegades.

All I want to say about Senator Ted Cruz is that if he had campaigned like he quit the primary run by speaking to the hearts and minds of the people, he might still be in the race.  Governor Kasich’s  withdrawal speech brought tears to my eyes.   I have great respect for both for a valiant run and their courage.

This election was pure populism in action and the thrilling spectacle of the voters actually making up their own minds unfettered by the traditional methods of control used by the media and the DNC and the RNC, which is to limit the actual information available to the voters.  And of course, whomever poured the most money into the traditional advertising and the hiring of party ‘consultants’, and the hosting of ‘high level’ events for party honchos, and all the other hangers on who profit from campaigns feared a change of emphasis due to Donald Trump’s success without their assistance. 

I am a lifelong educator and I know that people are being taught to read and the new impetus to learn to read is no longer books and newspapers:  the new impetus to learn to read, follow directions and discern patterns is coming from electronics and computers and in many cases is already surpassing that of their elders as they gleefully experiment with the games and devices.  This wave of new literacy is surfed by those of us in the Bill Gates and Steve Jobs generation who have remained intensely interested in any new technology.  The Techie Trekkie Generation, maybe. 

This newly educated population is not necessarily academically credentialed, but are self-educated through electronic media, plus whatever they learned in school and on the street and from their family and peer group.  These people watch TV and they watch such as Game of Thrones and Justified and other happier shows as well, but these are not naïve rubes tuning in for the first time when they hear about stacked elections or they find out that the delegates elected in their state don’t match the will of the people as expressed in an election, and that ethics are secondary to ambition.  We knows it when we sees it. 

As Mr. Trump pointed out, the policies of the last sixteen years have resulted in relentless wars and it’s time for a real change, not a mere changing of the guard on old policies that have resulted in failure, no matter who is collecting the profit from it.  It is time for a new foreign policy focus, one that ensures the interests of the United States of America. 

Donald Trump Rally Tucson March 2016

The Donald Trump Rally in Tucson Saturday 19 March 2016

Mikki and I heard about the rally on Facebook and so decided to go down to the Tucson Convention Center to check it out.  We arrived at the parking lot about 12:30, saw a line going in so we paid our $10 to park and located parking places towards the back of the lot.  Mikki was pulling into a parking place in an area where there were several more, when we were startled by a woman screaming at us.  Mikki opened the window to hear her and evidently we were using ‘her’ parking place she had staked out.  I pointed to a space just opposite for her to use and Mikki pulled on into the space.  This woman screamed with her face all contorted that we would have smashed windows when we returned.  This was a white woman in her fifties in a beige PT Cruiser with a black convertible top.  Unbelievable!  We reported the incident when we walked by the ticket shack.  We wondered if we looked like Trump supporters and if that engendered the hostility.  We had no banners or signs or bumperstickers but I tend to get a little wary. 

So we hiked around the side of the convention center to the front door of the arena, where the front lot was filled with cars and chanting demonstrators who began marching alongside the line forming to get into the Trump event.  Maybe 12 feet separated the two lines.  The demonstrators/protestors were a mixed bag of adults rather than families, shouting at the tops of their voices so that the sound reverberated off the brick wall filling the air with so much noise that nobody could talk.  They carried signs like ‘dump Trump’ and then many signs like ‘fuck Trump’ and other expletives.  There were maybe about 100 protestors and probably more who were less active.  I started flashing the old peace sign or the even older victory sign and a woman about my age stuck her middle finger right in my face.  Obviously an ageing hippie who lost her peaceful way.  The protestors were crowding the entrance but we could still get through.  I heard that the protestors blocked off the entrance after we got in, denying the people who wanted to see Trump their civil rights to assemble and listen to a man exercising free speech.  It’s the old liberal way of taking rights away from those they disagree with.

The people waiting to see Donald Trump included many family groups, college students, and other adults of all ages.  I saw Veterans and the elderly and babies.   We took a seat close to an exit high up on the east side of the arena, which gave a good view of the event and the audience, if a bit on the small side.  I wished for binoculars.   The audience was admonished to treat protestors with respect and no violence and just wait for them to be ushered out of this private event.  I think that is the key.  The protestors can go to the event and listen and would be allowed to do so but if they became the event instead of the guy who paid for it, then they would be ejected. 

The man who was hammered offended an airman, always notoriously short tempered around here even in the good old days.  I’m not sure what offended the airman, but the protestor carried a sign with a Confederate flag across Trump’s face and his cohort was wearing a Klan outfit, which was swiftly discarded when the fight broke out.  Some people don’t like Klan shit and I guess this airman didn’t like it.  Or maybe the protestor threw an elbow first.   The sign was actually an unfair, untrue smear of a man’s character.  Those protestors must have a habit of showing up at private parties, taking them over and using them for their own purposes, which was to prevent freedom of speech and assembly.  I heard the airman was charged with a misdemeanor and released, which is SOP around here for that sort of thing. 

I applaud the Tucson Police Department and their patience in handling the whole rally.  Nobody was hurt and order was kept.  I heard by word of mouth that the protestors rushed the front doors in a futile attempt to thwart security and get inside, but they were discouraged.  I heard only two people were arrested. 

After listening to a soft rock concert as the people filtered in, we prayed for peace and did the pledge and a beautiful young woman sang a heartfelt national anthem to start off the show.  Former governor Jan Brewer, Treasurer and Trump Arizona campaign manager Jeff Dewit and Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio spoke before Donald Trump took the stage.    He’s like a showman and a politician combined.  I don‘t know who provided the sound system, but it was superb, filling every corner of the arena with clear sound.  The crowd cheered and chanted USA USA and Trump Trump, a polite respectful crowd of about 5,000-6,000.  I noted many who did not participate but who politely listened.

Mr. Trump spoke for about an hour, touching on immigration, interest rates for savings, veterans’ care, trade deals and other economic topics.  He told the sneaky snake story while security was removing protestors with ‘fuck Trump’ signs, who were attempting to shout down Mr. Trump, which was difficult due to the excellent sound system.  Crank it up!

I saw CNNs Dana Bash describing the Tucson Trump rally as ‘violent’, which is a huge exaggeration.  If the other Trump rallies described at violent were violent like this one was, then CNN ought to be more circumspect in reporting.  That Bash woman overuses the same words like Isis attacks and Republicans attack each other, like it’s one and the same.  ‘Violence’ at Trump rallies is the same ‘violence’ committed by Isis???  Give us a break from this slanted, vicious news coverage. 

We watched as the rally broke up while more music played as the crowd disbursed peacefully.  We headed for the southside of the building.  It was amazing that all of the protestors were gone!  Thank you TPD and our new police chief.  We hiked back to the parking lot and found our vehicle unharmed, so we went home for a few drinks and TV.    

I wanted to go hear Bill Clinton on Sunday speaking just a few blocks away but had planned a family dinner party and could not go in favor of Easter egg dying with the grandkids.  More important.  I heard Bill Clinton raised a crowd of about 1,200 while Bernie Sanders attracted 4,000 and Donald Trump 5,000 – 6,000. 

But at the dinner party, I talked to a retired military couple who were interested in the rally and politics in general.  They seemed freaked out about Mr. Trump because he is vague and they want to know who his advisors are and his other policy stances which they think are lacking.  So today Mr. Trump released the names of consults on foreign affairs.  I’m sure we will hear more about it but I hope the news coverage is fair. 

I hope that is not too much to hope for.                                                                                -DP Niemi, Tucson

Corrupt Media and the 2016 Presidential Primary

2016 Presidential Primary

I am fascinated by the presidential primary, I must confess.  At this point in time Sen. Rubio is lost in junior high school style squabbling, Sen. Cruz is hiding and watching and Mr. Trump is taking them both on like he did during the two timing debate.  These political times are like the days of old when the bars had to be closed on election day and feelings ran high, like during the Lincoln-Douglas debates when fistfights broke out in the audience and mud slinging was actual. 

The relative gentility of the last few elections is over, when political correctness ruled and politicians obeyed their friendly ‘donors’ and the powers that be backed both sides so they would be sure to ‘win’.  The financial crisis that actually began with the cancellation of the Glass-Steagall Act lurched on while the debt load increased and the middle class began transitioning to poor as the rich became richer without risking their money.  And now the latest news is that Iran is raking in ‘interest payments’ out of the tax till, while ordinary small holder Americans can’t get peanuts for interest on their money.  What’s wrong with that? 

And the pundits wonder why people are irritated.  And some of the less intelligent pundits continue to criticize the candidates’ manner of speaking while ignoring what is actually said, which is what the voters heard.  Voters are listening to what was said.  So much for gentility, which was always a disguise for power. 

The media miscalled the election.  It was to be between Clinton/Bush and the same big donors backed both people.  This was scripted and comfortable and well controlled and the current economic stagnation would intensify but the ‘right’ people would be in control.  Instead, the media is frantic to stop the momentum of Mr. Trump’s campaign, which is built on saying it like it is even if it offends someone.  This approach tends toward the truth and evidently the voters appreciate that, because Mr. Trump is popular and is now the front runner.

The media attacks have been crass and unprofessional, culminating in the august advice to the freshmen senators running for president that they would never succeed unless they attacked Mr. Trump.  For several days before the debate, attacking Mr. Trump was the advice and prediction.  It’s interesting that the media is now manipulating the news by being the news and making projections and predictions of dire consequences if Mr. Trump becomes the nominee.  Maybe the revolution in politics that we are seeing was not predicted by the media, is not controlled by the media and will not be determined by the media and their sponsors and important relatives and all the other hangers on who have a vested interest.  This is cronyism and all the cronies are freaked out.  The people are not voting as expected.  The people are voting for the candidate they like for whatever reason and the media has yet to understand what that reason is.    So many in the media are surprised that Mr. Trump’s supporters don’t change their minds, no matter what language Mr. Trump uses!  That’s because the voters are not interested in the use of politically correct language or not but they are interested in jobs and common core.  We are not children. 

I am an old school teacher and I think the literacy level of United States citizens has changed and is higher in comprehension than ever before, due to cell phones and texting.  Political correctness and texting don’t go together.  Texting is like summarizing and summarizing is an intellectual exercise involving literacy.  I know this is teacherese but I think that people are mentally mature earlier due to all the increased communications using electronics and that their language skills have increased.  In a sense, people are more worldly and less gullible than in the past but the media is unaware of this fact and they are treating viewers like fools by attempting to manipulate public opinion while not presenting enough factual information.  Some in the media were surprised people are angry. 

Why should the voter in the street be angry? 

Retired people live under a 2% inflation target by the Federal Reserve, so their money and income depreciates at least 2% a year.  Price deflation is never mentioned. 

The Labor Participation Rate is around 60%, which means that the remaining 40% are living off of the 60%, plus they are paying for dependent children and taking care of elderly relatives.  That’s where their money is going.

And income among the middle class is not increasing even though they are subject to the same 2% or more inflation.

The stated unemployment rate of 5-6% is deceptive because around 40% of able bodied adults are not working. 

We have been attacked in our own country by Islamic terrorists.

Government regulation and crony government subsidies are driving small businesses out of business.

Zoning laws prevent home businesses and free enterprise.

Mandatory insurance has resulted in sky high rates.

Borrowing money is difficult.

2^nd Amendment rights are threatened.

Executive orders by the President are questionable. 

People are angry and these are only a few reasons that I have heard.

So this all sets the stage for the 2016 presidential election.  Now the pundits are rejoicing as the candidates ‘really go at it’, not about the issues, but personal ridicule, which the media is certainly more interested in.  Voters see some of this but they are still interested in the issues confronting our nation, rather than typos on twitter, for God’s sake let’s get back to the issues.  Let’s take a look at those libel laws again, not to limit free speech, but to limit blatant lying. 

My own stand on all of this involves a change of mind.  When the candidates declared, I liked Scott Walker because of his work about the unions but it soon became apparent this was not the year for him.  Disappointed, I cast about for another candidate.  I didn’t know much about Mr. Trump.  I’d never seen him on TV but I’d read a little about his business endeavors and successes.  I happen to like New Yorkers, because they seem open and honest, if a bit scalding at times.  So Mr. Trump’s manner and language didn’t bother me in the least as I began to listen to what he said.   What did bother me was the negative attitude of the media.

It is not the job of the media to vet the candidates.  It is the job of the voter. 

I plan to vote for Mr. Trump because I think he has insight into the economic problems the United States faces and I think he will not micromanage the military and will have an instinctive success in delegating competent people who can get a job done.  I don’t think any of the other candidates on either side can do this as well as Mr. Trump can.

I

Elections and Biased Media

Happy New Year!   Not happy new fear as some of the pundits would have us believe.  We can meet the future with courage and resolution or we can cower.  So let us live watchfully and walk softly and carry a big stick, to quote that august Republican Teddy Roosevelt. 

The presidential election is almost indescribable but I will give it a try.  The preordained Republican candidate is not winning and a newcomer to the political arena is winning the race in many parts of the country.  The lesser candidates are ripping each other apart as they did in primaries past, which produced losing candidates both times in the last two elections.  Maybe we need more respect for the voters, instead of viewing them as plastic to be molded.  I don’t think our election system was designed to bar candidates who have never held public office and it is obvious that the skills called for in governing do require the ability to use a consensus approach. 

Who am I to say when a candidate should drop out?  According to the polls, some don’t have much support but let’s wait for the actual vote before counting anybody out.  I like a vote better than a poll. 

I’m burned by the use of the executive order to attempt a change in gun sale regulations.  Sure, the President has not made as many executive orders as others, but it is the way he uses it.  If he can’t get something through the legislature, that means the people represented by those legislators do not want it and that people could vote them out for imposing it when they don’t want it.  That is the way the system is set up, in order to avoid dictatorial decision making.   The President is blurring the line between the Executive and the Legislative.  Crocodile tears don’t erase the Constitution. 

I’m tired of the media and their restricted vocabulary.   They use the same words to describe political contests as they use to describe war.  Everything is an ‘attack’ instead of a ‘criticism’.  Terrorists attack, politicians attack, people attack the media, God, would you give them a thesaurus?   Terrorists do attack but politicians debate and people criticize the media.  I’m sick of their negative exaggeration.

I look for a busy election cycle with many events and we will try to keep you posted about what is going on.  We hope for a mix of daytime and evening events featuring local candidates and senate candidates because we are electing a Senator this year.  All candidates are welcome to all of our meetings and there’s always time to say a few words.   This is truly one of the most important elections in modern times:  the voters will decide for more of the same downhill trends or a new direction for our endeavors. 

Republican Primary Debates

Thoughts on the Infamous ‘Debates’ held by Biased Networks and Biased Journalists

The media hostile to certain candidates is soooo disappointed at their lack of control over our electoral process, even to the point of featuring a RNC past chair talking about dislodging candidates from front runner positions as if that were the way to win a national election.   Maybe that’s why we lost.  The idea of the RNC is to back the candidates the people want, not the candidates they want the people to want.  I’m tired of RNC chairs, pundits and PACs choosing our candidates for us.  Could it be that the media wants Republicans to choose weak candidates so the Democrats can retain power? 

The Internet Age has brought unprecedented literacy to the populace in the form of cell phones with full internet capability.  The media is still operating like the Dark Ages when the church controlled all the information.  The media does not control the information anymore, except for the stories they choose to highlight or manufacture and they are apparently unaware that the population does not believe everything they say.   This educated populace now has the whole internet to learn from.  And people use this capability every day, using Facebook and other systems that disseminate information.  We are no longer dependent on what the media chooses to serve us!  And we know when they are lying, spinning, slanting and otherwise jacking with news stories BECAUSE WE ARE EDUCATED. 

How about the non-story of Vice President Biden running for president?  This drug on for months as the media blasted this man with their opinions and even bringing his family into it.  This ‘story’ emphasis was hurtful at worst and a time waster at best.  The media even kept Vice President Biden in the polls when he was not running.  Why did they do that?  To siphon off support for Bernie Sanders?  To make Hillary look good?

When John Boehner announced his resignation, the liberal media went crayzy with rabid speculation about the demise of the Republican Party, the need to bring in an outsider to restore order among the Republicans, and in general criticized the whole party and predicted ongoing chaos.  The draft Paul Ryan movement immediately caused a media circus and I don’t know how Speaker Ryan or others shut them up about their endless negative speculation.   The media bashed John Boehner, bashed the process of choosing a new speaker, and bashed everybody who expressed an interest in the position.  The process to choose a new speaker was actually quite orderly and fair, despite the media prediction of fatal Republican disharmony.   Some of the media even found negativity in Speaker Ryan’s insistence on spending time with his family, which reflects true Republican family values. 

As for the MSNBC debate debacle, the media really showed their rears.  That business station blew it by allowing John Harwood to ask unvetted questions since he obviously was there to push a negative agenda towards Republicans.  Why did they trust that man?  It was a set up but hopefully Harwood has trashed his own ‘career’ by abusing his position as a journalist.  Did the Democrats pay Harwood for his hostility?  Since Harwood damaged himself by asking vicious ‘social’ type questions and lying on the air, what did he actually get out of his miserable performance???   

I avidly watched this flawed debate, hoping that CNBC would ask good business and economic questions that would show the knowledge of the candidates.  Donald Trump did shine when talking about the economy, which may have been the reason so few of those types of questions were asked.   Why was the focus on personal questions rather than political, military and economic issues?  Becky Quick and Carlos Quintanilla are experts in economics, so why did they focus on areas out of their expertise?  Why didn’t they ask questions about interest rates, the Federal Reserve and foreign trade?  What a missed opportunity!  Were they given questions or did they make them up?

How about a Democrat and a Republican debate moderated by Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and Hugh Hewitt?  The Democrats would never agree to that, claiming bias in advance.  Maybe somebody could ask if Hillary rode in on her husband’s coattails?  Or about Monica?   Those questions would be considered rude but it is open season on Republicans flying away from the podium?  Harwood is evidently academically deficient in that he phrases questions in emotional terms, rather than using a systematic approach using facts to frame the question.  The emotional attack questions are easy to dream up and require no research or learning.

I like the idea that the candidates are taking over the debate terms and conditions.  As Donald Trump pointed out, the networks are making money on the debates.  The networks then want to dictate all concerning the debates, leaving the candidates at their mercy to answer every stupid question asked, while the networks rake in the money. 

How about a debate focused on issues instead of personalities, histories, criticisms, infighting and personal agendas?  And why can’t the candidates sit down at desks while debating?  All this standing looks too much like a cop show criminal lineup.    

Possible debate topics

• Discuss the Middle East. 
• How do you view cooperation with the Russians in the Middle East?
• Please briefly explain your tax policy. 
• Explain job creation and maintenance.
• Explain economic sustainability.
• What would you do about the problems in the Veterans healthcare?
• What about organized labor?
• What about Common Core?
• What about climate change?
• What about the infrastructure?
• What about the Bill of Rights?
• And many more but how many could be discussed by all who volunteer in a two hour span?

Or let candidates choose one of those topics to expound on and others to common upon.  The isolated question debate structure where they all get different questions is not a debate.  A true debate has to have interchange among the candidates on the same topic.   Divide and conquer.  Let’s all get together and actually talk about the issues and compare ideas.  And then the viewers can see for themselves all the ideas.  I would even give the candidates the topics in advance.  A debate is when you come prepared to discuss and defend your positions on the issues. 

Let’s have a real debate! 

Hillary Clinton and Sidney Blumenthal: The Corruption Connection

At home with a bad cold while missing a fun meeting, I watched the Bengazi Hearings chaired very competently by Rep. Trey Gowdy.  After Rep. Gowdy’s thought provoking opening statement, I was prepared to listen and learn from the well prepared questions formed by the committee members. 

As I listened, several things became clear.  Most of the Democrats were ill prepared and obviously had not done what the committee was charged to do because they ‘believed’ poor little Hillary was being victimized because she dared to run for president.  I don’t care what their ‘beliefs’ were, they should have formulated questions that brought out the truth.  I applaud Rep. Duckworth on her devotion to duty and of her carefully prepared questions concerning security and backup.  She did not waste her time on emotional and belligerent displays against the charge of the committee, as did others.  A clear dereliction of duty was obvious among Democrat committee members who were ill prepared with questions and choose to pontificate instead.  I hope they are voted out in the next election they face.    

The interest in Sidney Blumenthal was phenomenal, but was unfortunately divided along partisan lines, with the Democrats asking no questions about Sidney Blumenthal.  Why not?

Who is Sidney Blumenthal?  Described as a well-paid sycophant and author, he has written books with titles like:  The Strange Death of Republican America: Chronicles of a Collapsing Party, and The Clinton Wars, among others.  He protected the Clintons from the Lewinski scandal and has been a close friend for years.  Mr. Blumenthal is a vicious partisan with a history of conspiracy theories who apparently had Mrs. Clinton’s ear, particularly about Libya. 

It has been suggested that the overthrow of Kaddafi was orchestrated by the UN and the Clinton State Department in order to accommodate business interests in Libya.  I hope such a cynical conclusion is not proven.   Sidney Blumenthal was forwarding the business interests of contractors interested in Libya who possibly hired Mr. Blumenthal to represent them because he had access to Mrs. Clinton.  Did money change hands over this?  Was Mr. Blumenthal selling access?

Mr. Blumenthal received $10,000 a month from the Clinton Foundation, where his duties were problematical, which was also during the time of the Bengazi tragedy and during his tenure working for the supporters of the Hillary campaign for president.  How much income did all this work generate?  Was he working for the contractors hoping for projects in Libya or was he just doing that for free?  This guy looks like he was being paid for three jobs at once. 

 Apparently at least some of the e mails sent to Mrs. Clinton by Mr. Blumenthal made their way to Ambassador Stevens.  Did Ambassador Stevens receive fallacious information?  Did he believe this information? 

It’s nice to know what kind of people are hired by the Clinton Foundation at the behest of Bill Clinton.  I hope all the donors take note.  Sidney Blumenthal’s son, Max Blumenthal has expressed many biased opinions concerning the Middle East, including opinions that possibly generate income for the Clinton Foundation from wealthy families hostile to Israel.  Of course, Sidney Blumenthal is promoting his son’s career. 

This Sidney Blumenthal was too radical for the Obama Administration, who rejected him as an employee.  Yet Mrs. Clinton gave him access anyway to an inner circle of influence that never should have existed.  The official channels of the White House, Military and others should have taken precedence over any non-vetted person.  Mr. Blumenthal had been vetted and rejected as an employee, yet Mrs. Clinton continued his influence, even to the point of redacting his name from e mails he sent her and forwarding them to the state department and possibly Ambassador Stevens. 

I saw a clip on Fox News this morning that described a meeting held three weeks before Ambassador Steven’s death.  The conclusions of this security and operations meeting were that the Ambassador’s outpost should be consolidated with the CIA headquarters for security reasons and that the situation was untenable as it was. 

Mrs. Clinton sat there and said that nobody called for any changes at the Bengazi facility so things continued.  Did she read the memo or even attend the meeting or receive a report from somebody at the meeting?  Did she know about this consolidation request?  Where was her leadership?  Why didn’t she make the move to close it down, instead of waiting for ‘underlings’ to suggest it?  IT WAS HER DUTY TO KNOW ABOUT ALL OF THE EMBASSIES WITH SECURITY RISKS AND IT WAS HER DUTY TO CLOSE IT DOWN OR REINFORCE SECURITY IN THE FACE OF ESCALATING THREATS. 

The hearing was definitely illuminating, just not in the way some had envisioned.  I do resent the spurious attitude on the part of the intensely partisan Democrats who tried to sabotage the hearing with critical comments about other members of the committee or about partisan politics in general.  The lack of professionalism on the part of the Democrats with the exception of Rep. Duckworth, was an indicator of what is wrong in Washington these days. 

The fiercely partisan politics of Sidney Blumenthal and the Clintons has damaged the climate in Washington to the point that the naysayers and the dividers are controlling and nothing gets done.  Votes are held in secret and their top presidential candidate Hillary Clinton declares that Republicans are enemies, something even Vice President Biden disavows.   The country cannot afford any more influence from the likes of Sidney Blumenthal, Bill and Hillary Clinton and the corruption and divisiveness they represent.

Tucson City Council Debate and Vote No on Pima Bonds!

 

Tucson City Council Candidate Debate

I attended the Tucson City Council Debate hosted by the League of Women Voters on October 14, 2015.  All the candidates were finally in attendance, as the Democrat council members stood up the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Debate and I was wondering if they would stand up the League of Women Voters too, but all the Democrats did show up last night so the show went on!

It was obvious from the outset that the Democrats were committed to more and more subsidies and more and more borrowing and spending for short term goals.  None of them had a grasp of the gravity of the city’s financial situation, which resembles Detroit.  They were all proud of their accomplishments and want to continue the program.  Their emphasis on constant growth is naïve.   They are like a kid with her first job looking at Corvettes in the showroom, willing to commit to 27 years of heavy debt to just get her hands on the car. 

They are willing to mortgage the future and spend the money now.

We live in a constrained environment.  Water resources are getting scarce.  If drought conditions are declared on the Colorado, we could be impacted right here in Tucson.  Yet the city council is for more annexation and more growth, instead of making an attempt to recognize environmental constraints on dreams of grandeur.   They need to do the job.  The job is to do what the charter says.  Instead we get red light cameras and Parkwise, neither of which raise money for the general fund.  If there were no Parkwise, people could park mostly free and the city would not have to subsidize Parkwise and money would be saved.  Since the city gets negligible income from the red light cameras, the money is being sucked out of the city.  These city council members support these boondoggles and they are not doing their jobs, as per the city charter.   Look at the streets!

The Republican Candidates offered a refreshing view of what could be different in Tucson.  They actually talked about paying down the debt instead of adding to it and they even talked about not raising taxes and the benefits of lower taxes to the local economy.  Kelly Lawton wistfully remembers the Tucson of yesterday, when the streets were good and the economy was healthy and small businesses were king.  I remember those days too and I believe that the era of big government in Tucson is literally bankrupt.  The government should not be a prime source of jobs for the community.  The private sector, the university and the base should be the sources, not bond projects.   

Vote Bill Hunt, Kelly Lawton and Margaret Burkholder for Tucson City Council!

Shirley Scott was so jubilant over the spending in her ‘district’ that was paid for at taxpayer expense, which probably benefitted her supporters’ financial interests!  Of course Ms. Scott is for more borrowing and more money sent out of state, just like other government officials who want nothing more than to get their hands on all that money right now and spend it while it takes decades to pay back.  Ms. Scott is proud of all that development and wants all annexation possible and no doubt is promoting more and more water hookups while the water table and the Colorado River drops.  Archaic attitudes like Ms. Scott appears to hold should be voted out of office.  Ms. Scott wants a $1.2 billion debt added to the $1.4 billion debt the county already has.  It should be in Ripley’s Believe it or Not!

This bond thing is a fight over money and who controls it.  The vested interests want to reap the luxury living gained through taxpayer investment, which they do not call profit but it is a handsome living for the few.  They just set up deals, without financial risk to themselves, which true private enterprise cannot do. 

Mr. Hecker was really interested in Rio Nuevo and now he takes a titanic interest in these bond proposals.  I am uncomfortable with those same old names popping up as the prospect of a new free trough opening up again, just like Rio Nuevo.

The problem with Mr. Hecker’s premise that such a small amount per year increase in taxes benefits everyone through these bond projects that he and his friends control.  They are attempting to use the force of taxes to amass money quickly through borrowing to pay for projects they control and have chosen to put on the ballot.  It’s so easy for them to get something on the ballot.  And it is so difficult to fight their choice of projects and contractors. 

They want $780,000,000, which creates a debt of about $1.2 billion because of the enormous amount of interest paid for the privilege of allowing this group of people to amass and spend this huge sum.  Do you want these people to control this much money, leaving a debt for the children to pay?  Shall the sins of the Fathers be visited upon the children?  In this case, YES, the debt is said to extend 27 years into the future……

I don’t want these people to amass and spend the surplus for the next 27 years.  That is too much money for too long and it is too expensive.  I think the money should remain in the hands of the people to spend as they see fit.  I think the county should take available revenue, pay down the huge debt without rollovers, maintain what the law requires and stop raising property taxes.  Rents go up, payments go up, apartment owners and cooperatives are hit with higher taxes, and everybody pays more to maintain the control and collection of huge money from the little people who might rather use that money every year to buy gifts for grandchildren, rather than to pay for parks and amenities for developers far from the old neighborhoods of the south side. 

The county is trying to get more money for roads when they already have authorization for millions in road bonds.  Why?  They are like the four year old who heaps his plate and reaches for more. 

Mr. Hecker said that private enterprise doesn’t build libraries and museums.   Apparently in Mr. Hecker’s world, government is the end all be all and private enterprise is negligible unless it’s a favored contractor.  Remember the Carnegie Library chain throughout the United States?  Andrew Carnegie financed these through money obtained through private enterprise!  Has Mr. Hecker ever visited a private museum?  Like the Daughters of the American Revolution museum in Washington DC?  Wow!  There are even private enterprise transportation systems!  Look at Uber!  Call your local taxi!   Maybe people would rather spend their money on Uber rather than subsidizing the union controlled bus system milking the taxpayers.  Mr. Hecker is trying to justify the increase in the debt load by defining the meaning of government to include exclusive rights over the building and control of cultural activities and transportation systems.  He is wrong. 

Suppose that $1.2 Billion remains in the Tucson economy the next 27 years instead of going out on these chosen projects?  What could happen if the county were to pay down the debt, which IS the highest in Arizona?

• Taxes might stabilize, which is good for predicting a business model.
• Rents might stabilize. 
• Taxes could even go down, as the public debt is paid off. 
• More ready cash would be in the coffers at the county due to debt paydown.
• Road maintenance, transportation, parks and other services could be paid for with the cash instead of more borrowing and rollovers.
• The debt on the HURF fund would be paid off, freeing up cash to be used in road maintenance.
• Infrastructure conditions could be improved without further debt.

About the Pima bond proposal:  Say everybody has at least $50 a year to spend instead of paying the $50 a year for 27 years or even saving the money and they would have $13,500 plus interest in their personal accounts.  If you own more expensive properties, the amount is even greater.   If people spent some of the money eating out, local restaurants would benefit financially.  If the money were spent on goods and services locally, this money would circulate through the economy many times throughout the years, bringing prosperity by circulating the money locally.  Local businesses would benefit by the money in the economy and from tax relief.

If the bond proposals are passed, this money will be concentrated in the hands of a few contractors and their workers right now for them to spend.  Huge sums of the money will go out of state to pay interest on the debt, which will be of no local benefit.  Contractors using temps from outside Pima County are often hired, which takes money out of the county.  Sure, we get these proposed structures and improvements but so much more could be had if the debt were paid down instead of increasing.  The problem of maintenance of existing facilities has not been met by Pima County and has not been addressed in the budget, yet they want to go into debt to build more facilities to neglect.  Part of their job is to have an ongoing maintenance program that is successful using the amount of funding available.  That is the job and they are not doing it and I don’t think they should have more power to borrow more money. 

VOTE NO ON PIMA BONDS