Where I Stand
My eight year-old daughter asked me, when I told her I wanted to be a lawmaker, “So Daddy, what laws do you want to make?”
That surely won’t be the last time I’m at a loss for words in this campaign. My friends, I don’t pretend to have a stack of bills waiting to put into the hopper if I’m elected. My stands on some of the issues sometimes translate into fairly specific proposals, for example, the idea of de-linking education finance from the property tax so that the two can be treated on their own merits.
But mostly what you’ll be voting for if you vote for me is an approach.
My goal in the next several paragraphs is to give you, the voter, a good idea of the approach I’ll take on issues that are as important to you as they are to me.
The Role Of A Legislator
Generally speaking, I believe that a good legislator’s job is to listen to his or her constituents and to try to address their concerns. At the same time, a legislator’s job is to exercise judgment - and leadership - in ways that won’t always be popular. For me, the test will be whether, on balance, a particular proposal or idea promotes or harms what I believe to be the public good. What I’m saying here is that I’ll be a good listener and will try to do what’s best for the people of District 6 and for Arizona. At the same time, as Truman said, “The Buck Stops Here,” which means I’ll take responsibility for thinking for myself and doing what I believe to be the right thing even if what I decide to do or to refrain from doing isn’t always popular or expedient. Arizona has had statesmen of that caliber from both parties in the past: Leaders like Burt Barr and Art Hamilton, Mo Udall and “tell-it-like-it-is” Barry Goldwater. Last year’s budget collaboration between Senate President Tim Bee and Senate Minority Leader Marsha Arzberger also inspired me. A pragmatist looks out for the good of the State, not just for his or her political party.
Education
“Our Choice As A Society: Invest in our children now for higher wages, more people contributing to the tax base, more vibrant economic and social mobility, lower crime, better neighborhoods, and fewer prisons. Or trust that these things will all happen without any further effort or expense on our part today.”
I believe that Education, Public Safety and Infrastructure are the main three responsibilities of State Government. One would be tempted to try to rank those three, but in reality they’re interrelated.
Arizona’s public schools do a remarkably efficient and effective job with what they’ve been given. While (according to the 2005 U.S. Census) Arizona ranks 49th among the 50 states in per-pupil education funding and has a large population of English language learners, it hovers around the middle of the pack on national performance tests. As pointed out by Arizona Superintendent of Education Tom Horne - a Republican - if Arizona lifted its school funding to the national average and our schools continued to use their tax dollars as efficiently as they’re doing now, Arizona’s test scores could rise into the top 10% in the nation.
I believe that the goal of excellence in education is worth the investment and that Arizona deserves nothing less. Stronger public schools enhance the safety of our neighborhoods and the value of our homes. They also attract quality employers and quality employees who are looking to relocate in states that “get it” when it comes to excellence in education. Quality new employers and employees will expand our tax base and help the rest of us pay to build out and maintain the infrastructure that a growing state like Arizona needs to be able to succeed in today’s highly competitive world economy.
In short, I support strong standards and accountability, but at the same time I will work hard to fully fund our public schools and our teachers to give them the resources they need to achieve those standards.
It doesn’t help matters that the system of financing education in Arizona is so complex and confusing. No one I’ve spoken with claims to completely understand how it works. Good decisions can’t be made when few if any voters - or legislators - fully understand the process.
The link between property taxes and school funding is particularly troublesome. Some school districts rely heavily on the property tax for their funding. Others hardly rely on the property tax at all and most of their operations are funded out of the State General Fund. I still haven’t found out what makes some districts so dependent on property taxes while others can look to the general fund. Charter schools are funded entirely from the General Fund. To make matters worse, no money can be spent over and above Arizona’s meager per pupil allotment unless voters say yes in periodic “override” elections. Overrides are unpopular and difficult to pass because they are paid directly from secondary property taxes based on values that are not capped like ordinary property taxes, and because the Legislature recently took away the ability of school districts to schedule override elections in the Spring when the ballot is less crowded.
After the extension of the 2004 K-3 Override was shot down last Fall, many “No” voters I spoke with expressed the belief that schools were flush with cash now that property taxes have risen so much. But that’s not true. The Legislature tells schools how much they can spend per pupil and schools must stick to that budget regardless of the level of property tax collections. Since many people didn’t understand that, they shot down override initiatives in almost all of Arizona’s school districts. We need to explore the idea of de-linking school funding from the property tax and to otherwise simplify Arizona’s system for financing its public school - including charter school - system. That way school financing and property taxes can be evaluated separately, on their own merits.
The attached article Shared_Accountability.pdf by Mr. Panfilo H. Contreras makes a convincing argument that the Legislature has failed to live up to its own notions of accountability. On the one hand, the Legislature has mandated higher standards and performance benchmarks - something most people - including me - agree with. On the other hand, the Legislature has failed to give schools, teachers, and students the resources they need to meet those standards. I wholeheartedly agree with the latter statement as well. (Note: The attached article was made available for download on my website with the express written permission of the Arizona School Boards Association (ASBA). The ASBA’s permission to post the article on my campaign website should not be construed to imply that the ASBA endorses my candidacy.)
The Legislature has the expertise and the constitutional power to handle issues like school finance reform, but they seem overly obsessed with pushing feel-good, symbolic bills on things like guns in schools and gay marriage. Evidently they hope that their focus on hot-button social issues will lead the public to believe that they’re “doing something” - while what they’re really doing is avoiding action on our real problems. Indeed, the Republican legislative majority in this State has abandoned its responsibilities so completely by now that they’re utterly unwilling to even consider raising taxes without a vote of the people. That abandonment of responsibility isn’t principled and it isn’t leadership - it’s irresponsible and cowardly.
In the area of school finance at least, The People can’t make good decisions if they don’t understand what they’re being asked to decide and if they’re making decisions on bad information. So if legislators aren’t willing to make the tough decisions themselves, at least they can simplify the process by giving The People a better idea of what the issues are when the tough decisions are presented to them in the form of a direct initiative.
Public Safety
All people - especially children - have the right to feel safe and secure in their own homes, in their own neighborhoods, and in schools. Period. I strongly support full funding for police and fire departments. I support keeping stiff punishments for violent criminals, for habitual criminals, and for those who prey on our children, our elderly, and other vulnerable citizens. And I strongly support increased funding to help schools pay for more qualified security officers to protect our children and their teachers on campus.
Infrastructure
As one of the fastest growing states in one of the fastest growing regions in the country, Arizona needs to make continual investments in its roads, bridges, public transportation systems - and schools. Our universities should also be strengthened to make them magnets for high quality professors and students and to enhance their role as incubators for our future prosperity.
Taxes and the Role of Our Government
“The private sector is the main driver of our economy and society, but there are some jobs it cannot do on its own: Education, Public Safety, Infrastructure, among others. The Government is our response to this problem. ‘The Government’ is Ours.”
If we’ve learned anything from the past 30 years, it’s that Americans expect government to be extremely efficient and frugal with their hard-earned dollars. Yet at the same time Americans want to fully fund essential government services - including basic help for those who cannot help themselves. It’s a difficult balance to strike.
To be clear, I am a fiscal conservative and will never lose sight of the FACT that private enterprise is the “goose that laid the golden egg” and the very foundation of our prosperity.
At the same time, I strongly believe that many of the problems we face cannot be solved by private enterprise alone. We created the government to do certain jobs for us and we expect the government to give us a high degree of service. Accordingly, we should fully fund the government.
It has become the de facto policy of the Republican party in Arizona and at the national level to cut taxes further every year. Common sense tells us that at some point taxes will be cut to the point where our government’s ability to serve us will be crippled. That doesn’t seem to matter to the tax cut hawks. Some of their more extreme members are hostile to our government anyway and see tax cuts as a way to “starve the beast” - to break down the government indirectly and incrementally. At the very least, many politicians these days think that voters want them to promise never to raise taxes. I disagree. I think most people expect their legislators to make the tough decisions without running back to the voters on the toughest one of all - looking at the revenue side of the equation in addition to the spending side. At least as I understand it, the Legislature’s primary job is to make tough decisions on revenue and spending and to run our government responsibily - not to reduce itself into a mere debating club for “popular” hot-button social issues.
“There is never a reason or time to raise taxes.” Arizona State Republican Chairman Randy Pullen in his blog on April 18, 2008.
Over the last several years personal and business income taxes in Arizona have been cut to the point where they are among the lowest in the nation. In recent years, when the economy was better, Arizona enjoyed a string of budget surpluses, and tax cuts were approved to go into effect over the next few years. Tax cutters argued that those surpluses should be returned to the people. That’s fair enough. But the converse should also be true now that the surpluses have dried up and we are in a serious deficit situation. Like their leader Randy Pullen, allegedly conservative legislators such as Sam Crump and Doug Clark insist that the deficit must be made up solely through spending cuts, and that the tax cuts passed during times of plenty should remain in force. Indeed, Crump and Clark voted for additional tax cuts this year - all in the face of a yawning budget deficit created in large part by the tax cuts of the past six years. In my view, that’s fiscally irresponsible and NOT conservative.
To be sure, spending MUST be reduced as part of the package to attack the deficit. But if things like child immunization programs and my daughter’s school funding are going to be cut to balance the budget, the suspension of tax cuts enacted during times of plenty - particularly those given to the more fortunate among us - should also be on the negotiating table.
I am a firm believer in the notion of “to those who are given more, more is expected.”
The creation of American wealth is primarily a function of hard work and intelligent risk taking. But we never would have gotten as far as we have without the massive public sector investments which made our country stable and strong. Many wealthy people who started out poor learned the tools of success in the American public school system. Later, many of them went to college with help from the GI Bill and the student loan guaranty program, and then took advantage of small business loans and government guaranteed mortgages. Our parents’ and grandparents’ investments in our public infrastructure over the years - in education and transportation and bank safety and a strong legal system - to name a few - have served us well and have created a remarkably efficient and stable system within which to create wealth.
Because today’s successful people owe their prosperity at least in part to the strong public investments made by our ancestors, I believe that they should pay a greater share of their income in taxes than less wealthy people. Not to give “handouts” to less fortunate people, but to keep that very same infrastructure strong and intact so it can continue to be there to help-hard working Americans create wealth and prosper far into the future.
In other words, fundamental fairness strongly supports the notion of “progressive” taxation - taxes that increase along with a person’s ability to pay - and strongly cuts against the notion of “regressive” taxation - taxes that fall primarily on the poor and the middle class while allowing prosperous people to keep a relatively larger share of their money.
Our tax cut politicians have been playing a game of smoke and mirrors with us. On one hand they’ve been cutting income taxes - progressive taxes - but at the same time they’ve allowed sales taxes to rise - regressive taxes - knowing all the while that we must have SOME source of funding for police and firefighters and road building. In the process they have intentionally shifted the burden of financing government operations in Arizona from the wealthy onto those who are working hard to succeed and even those who are struggling just to raise their families and survive.
Unfortunately, even some of my fellow Democrats have joined this trend. I have the highest respect our Governor but I disagree with her on this issue. In particular, I have very serious reservations about the “TIME” transportation initiative currently being backed by the Governor and big business. The proposed initiative is flawed because it will keep sales taxes high and because it fails to make the development community (and the buyers of new homes) bear a special share of the cost of building transportation infrastructure to their new communities. I realize that transportation funding is critical to the future of our state and that compromise will be needed to build a consensus on how to raise (and spend) the money. But it seems clear that Arizonans should hold out for a better deal than the one they’re proposing.
If elected I will do my very best to reverse the trend toward over-reliance on sales taxes and to make Arizona’s tax system more progressive and less regressive.
A word on the role of government is also in order here. While it’s generally true that people are better judges of how to spend and invest their hard earned money, I don’t look at “the government” as some foreign parasite that needs to be starved to the point where it can’t carry out its functions properly - and thus be subjected to further criticism from people who view the government as the “problem”. My fellow citizens, WE created our government and, by virtue of what we have asked government to do, we should see our government’s budget as an extension of our household budgets. Since we the people have asked OUR government to provide us with some very essential services that private initiative cannot match alone (such as protecting us from harm, educating our children to meet global competition, maintaining our roads and water systems, and seeing to it that those who can’t help themselves survive instead of being turned out into the streets), we as a community have an obligation to make sure that OUR government is fully funded.
Immigration
You won’t find any easy, feel-good “sound bites” here. This is a complex and difficult problem.
I strongly favor a comprehensive solution to our immigration crisis. On one hand, we cannot tolerate thousands of people streaming over our borders - which is the situation today. We don’t know who they are or where they are going. The evils in the current, chaotic situation are that criminals can use the masses as a cover to enter our country: criminals such as drug runners, human smugglers, and potential terrorists. So we must absolutely secure our borders. Our leaders promised to do this in the “amnesty” program in the mid-1980’s, but then failed to perform. Our people have a right to be angry about that.
Yes, I support employer sanctions both to discourage illegal immigration and because an “illegal” worker is often an exploited worker.
On the other hand, most of the people who come here seeking a better life are the kind of people we WANT to attract to become new Americans: They’re hardworking, religious, family people. They pay all the taxes that we Americans pay: Sales taxes when they buy things, property taxes when they rent a home or apartment, and income taxes when their incomes are high enough to start paying taxes (many of them are below the poverty line and wouldn’t have to pay taxes even if they were “legal"). Sure, some of them use our emergency rooms for their primary care, but so do increasing numbers of Americans who no longer have health insurance and can’t afford to pay for healthcare themselves. And yes, some of them commit crimes, but not out of proportion to their numbers (just as some of our more colorful immigrant ancestors did - remember The Godfather?). More importantly and more positively, our immigrants’ kids are serving in our armies. They’re helping to keep our economy diversified by keeping some lower skilled jobs in the U.S. They have helped keep our prices down. They’re helping to alleviate the problems caused by our declining birthrate and aging population. And they will help pay for OUR social security. An honest look at the big picture tells me that immigrants are a net “plus” for our Nation and for our State.
Immigrants choose the “illegal” route now not because they prefer to risk their lives to cross our border and be exploited in an underground economy, but largely because the pipeline for “legal” immigration into the above-ground economy is so severely restricted. We must give the good people among them an incentive to take the legal route by opening up our quota numbers to more accurately correspond to the demand for their labor in our country. Then our police and border patrol forces will be able to more effectively focus on catching or keeping out the really dangerous ones - the drug runners, human smugglers, terrorists and other criminals.
Let our immigrants be checked out at their expense (on a fee based system) before they come. This will help screen out the “bad guys.” Then issue them high-quality identification materials, then monitor them once they’re here with periodic re-registration and reporting requirements such as those that existed in the 1960’s. Those who wish to become citizens should be given priority for staying, provided they learn English and otherwise demonstrate their commitment to our country. Those who don’t will have lower priority, and shall be sent home at the end of their initial work period or any lawful extensions.
For those who are already here, I support the “touchback” and fine proposals made in the immigration bill which failed in Congress last year. The fines should be substantial, but they should also be reasonable and based on a person’s ability to pay.
The idea is not to discourage good people from returning to the U.S. after they “touch back” in their own countries. Rather, the idea is to send the message that becoming an American by immigration is a privilege to be earned, not an entitlement, and that becoming an American by immigration should be done only according to law.
For me, it’s important to remember that being an American is all about values and ideals, not about ethnic or cultural identity. ALL of our ancestors were immigrants. They and their children embraced the values and ideals of America, and yet at the same time they collectively changed our country’s cultural and ethnic makeup - for the better, I would argue. No single culture has ever displaced the “moving average” culture of the United States of America, though all of them have influenced it.
“We have nothing to fear except fear itself.”
President Franklin Roosevelt’s words are as relevant and vital in today’s troubled times as they were during the Great Depression. My friends, we must not lose sight of the fact that fearful people make bad decisions, are more inclined to alienate others by lashing out in anger and frustration, and are more easily persuaded to give up their precious traditions and hard-won freedoms in exchange for a false sense of “security.” America mustn’t give in to the temptation to make decisions out of fear. Our ancestors did better than that. And if you look inside yourself, you know that we’re better than that.
We Americans needn’t fear that we’ll be displaced in our own country, particularly in the English language. It has never happened in the past despite the linguistic diversity of our German, Polish, Chinese, Italian, and yes, Hispanic immigrants, and it won’t happen now. We needn’t behave as linguistically insecure as, say, the French. In a world where English is unrivaled as the language of business and where English is taught more widely than any other language, we needn’t fear that English will be displaced in our own country. The children of our immigrants will learn it out of necessity, and will be indistinguishable from their fellow citizens. As for how we treat them now, do we want to leave them a legacy of fear and overreaction, or should we behave in a manner befitting the great Nation that we are? I think most of us would say “the latter.”
Values
I strongly believe that government should do everything possible to strengthen families or to at least refrain from doing things that make it harder for families to survive and thrive.
I strongly believe in the notion of personal responsibility. That means supporting yourself if you can and supporting your family.
Like most Americans, I am a person of faith. I actively practice my faith through prayer and church attendance and my faith continues to inform my view of the world, including in the public square. I pray for God’s guidance and I thank God for the gifts He has given me and to the country I love.
The Golden Rule is at the very basis of my moral system. It’s as radical a notion now as it was when Christ taught his disciples to follow it 2,000 years ago. I welcome the contribution that religious leaders and people of faith make to our public discourse and I will always respectfully listen to and consider their views and concerns.
At the same time, I believe in the separation of church and state. I’m not talking about removing the word “God” from every National symbol - things like “In God We Trust” and “One Nation Under God” are deeply ingrained in our collective national traditions. But on a more fundamental level. For example, while many Americans (myself included) are Christians, many are not, and not even all Christians think alike. As a legislator I would have a duty to represent all of my constituents regardless of their religious faith - or lack thereof. I therefore will not impose some of the stricter views of my own, personal faith on my constituents on pain of criminal punishment. Likewise, even though I attended 12 years of Catholic schools and helped pay part of my own tuition in high school by working and helping my parents, I strongly believe that public money should not be spent to promote any particular religion or the very idea of religion - or atheism.
I also value traditional American notions of public service and the ideal of our nation as a Community. Individual initiative has always been rewarded and respected in America, and rightly so. But it is most honored when it promotes the common good. Looking back on our history and traditions, I know in my heart that the country I love would not have been possible if the men and women who made America great had been focused solely on grabbing the most they could for themselves. The words uttered by President Kennedy when I was a young boy still inspire me: “Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country.”
Indeed, those values are at the root of why I’m running for public office now. I want to serve my community and help make Arizona a better place for our people and for our children.
Health Care
I believe that access to affordable, quality health care is a fundamental “family value” and that how we address it will reveal the sincerity of our concern for “family values.”
The two main issues are access and affordability. A person I know has a condition called sleep apnea. Even though he uses a CPAP machine to keep it under control, he’s been told by several insurance agents that he can never get health insurance in the private health insurance market. Thank goodness this person owns a small business and is therefore eligible to purchase coverage - albeit expensive coverage - through Health Care Group Arizona, the health insurance plan for small businesses run by the State of Arizona.
That strikes me as wrong and highlights the “access” problem inherent in purely “market-based” plans such as those being pushed by the Republicans at the state and national level. If health insurance companies want to do business in Arizona, they should be required to cover persons who have preexisting conditions like sleep apnea. If elected I will work to improve access to healthcare coverage - not just cost.
The issue of affordability is difficult to understand and address, but it’s clear that the purely market-based system we have now doesn’t work well at all. Under the purely “market-based” (that is to say, unregulated) health insurance system we’ve had in this country for years, the cost of coverage has increased much faster than inflation and wages. As a result, many working families can’t afford to buy the coverage they need and some can’t afford to buy health insurance at all. Given the fact that the private sector has not solved this problem on its own - in fact, premiums have risen much faster than the cost of medical care in order to keep insurance industry profits in the black* - it is incumbent on our State government to at least try to address the problem and to help alleviate this burden on the families in our State.
*See R. Abelson, “Insurer Says Economy Has Dented Its Prospects,” The New York Times, April 24, 2008, Business Section, p. 23: “In recent years, despite soaring medical costs, insurers have made big profits by keeping premiums well ahead of health care inflation. But analysts say that business strategy may be reaching its limits, with companies finding it harder to raise prices without losing substantial numbers of customers.”
The market for automobile insurance might offer some helpful lessons. Everyone in Arizona is required to have car insurance - no exceptions. Even drivers with bad records and illegal aliens must have it - and insurance companies must sell it to them. While premiums for bad drivers are of course generally higher than those paid by good drivers, premiums paid by the public as a whole are relatively reasonable and stable. In other words, perhaps the problem can be addressed by expanding the pool of persons covered by health insurance by requiring everyone to have it, and by requiring insurance companies to expand their risk pools as a condition for doing business in our fast-growing state, as some states are already proposing to do.
It would be wonderful if our legislators put aside issues like guns in bars or gay marriage long enough to consider what health legislation would work best for Arizona and bring the most relief to Arizona’s families. But that will require hard work, and it would require courage, vision, and leadership - qualities that have been noticeably scarce in the Legislature for the past several years. The question is, will Arizonans make this a priority when they cast their votes for the new Legislature? Or will voters be content with business as usual from a group of so-called leaders whose powerlessness is directly reflected in their obsession with symbolic, feel-good bills that focus more on “Mom’s Apple Pie” than the health care that Mom and her kids are getting?
Consumer Protection
The consumer protection field always exposes tension between the need to protect consumers harm from dangerous products and con artists, on the one hand, and the danger of making it too difficult to do business in Arizona. The philosophical difference between the Democrats and the Republicans on this issue is pretty well-known: Democrats tilt toward consumer protection and Republicans tilt toward protecting business. I will be a friend to legitimate businesses, but I place myself squarely in the consumer camp when it comes to dangerous products and fraudulent schemes, especially when dangerous products harm children and when flim-flam artists target the elderly and the vulnerable.
The Environment
As with many other issues, the most vocal people in this area tend to be the extremists on each side. Both extremes tend to believe that if they give an inch the other side will take a mile.
I prefer a more balanced approach that favors environmental protection but which also balances the environmental benefit against the economic impact of any proposed rule or regulation, particularly the impact upon working people in well-established industries. I think most Americans tend to favor a balanced approach and that’s the approach I’m going to take if I’m elected to the State House.
Firearms
I learned to shoot firearms in the Marine Corps and I respect the fact that the right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in our Constitution.
At the same time, the Legislature has the power to impose reasonable restrictions on any Constitutional right, including this one, when the need for public protection is paramount. Although I’ll do my best to listen to all points of view with an open mind, I’ll be especially interested to hear what law enforcement officers have to say about the merits of particular legislation. In general, my focus will be to oppose laws that unduly limit a person’s legitimate right to protect themselves, especially in their homes, and that unduly restrict traditional activities like hunting and fishing. At the same time, I will support laws that seek to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people such as ex-felons and the mentally ill. I would also support reasonable restrictions on guns that can kill lots of people at once such as assault rifles, and I will support laws that seek to keep guns out of places likes schools and bars.
Arizona legislators who are currently pushing the idea of guns in schools want every Tom, Dick and Harry who walks onto a school campus with a gun to, in effect, be deputized without making sure that they have the specialized training that police have and without screening to weed out the ones with poor judgment - or worse.
I agree that we should do more to protect our schools from gun violence: Let’s budget more money to put more trained security officers in place on all school campuses. But “that dog won’t hunt” with legislators who are more interested in promoting guns and tax cuts than they are in giving us real protection. As if flooding our schools with guns - and the inevitable loose canons that come with them - will make our children safer on the cheap.
Judicial Independence
The notion that judges don’t follow the law is absurd: We have two layers of appellate review in Arizona to correct any legal errors in the trial court, and when federal issues are involved litigants can also seek review in the federal court system. So even if a judge makes a mistake, as some of them do from time to time because the law is complex and because they’re human, there are systems in place to correct those mistakes.
As a practicing attorney with more than 25 years of courtroom experience, I strongly support the notion of an independent judiciary. Period. Almost without exception judges are people of integrity whose job it is to follow the law regardless of how the political winds are blowing.
Therefore, I will strongly oppose current efforts to turn Superior Court judges into politicians by making them run for office, by subjecting them to political pressures, and by whipping up public anger against judges for their own political gain.
