An average weekday afternoon at the Department of Economic Security office at 195 W. Irvington Road, where people file for unemployment and other benefits.

At a recent community meeting on the state’s budget crisis with Republican and Democratic legislators, a courageous Karen Ickes of the Phoenix area shared her family crisis.

She and her husband both are unemployed, but her family had to survive eight weeks without an unemployment check after she lost her job.

She told legislators how deeply this affected her family.

She held back tears as she revealed some of the tough questions she struggled with daily:

“How do you tell your kids you’re close to being homeless?”

“How do you tell your children they may not be able to afford to keep the pets that have always been part of your family?”

And, “How do you respond when your daughter offers her birthday money to help pay the rent?”

Karen’s family is not alone.

Arizona’s antiquated unemployment processing system leaves most workers waiting weeks for their first check.

Half of those qualifying for unemployment benefits wait at least six weeks, according to the state Department of Economic Security.

Although the check comes with payment for the missing weeks, families are in financial crisis, not knowing when or if their check will come.

Foisting such added suffering upon struggling families is intolerable.

The federal stimulus package includes $150 million for Arizona to upgrade this system, enabling faster processing.

The governor and Legislature have not accepted it, however, because the federal government requires us to do more for the unemployed in order to qualify.

For $50 million, Arizona would have to allow workers to include the last full quarter they worked before they lost their job if it helps them meet the minimum earnings requirements to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits.

Under current law if you lost your job this month, the last quarter of earnings that would count toward your unemployment insurance eligibility would be the one that ended five months ago, in December.

April to May is an incomplete quarter, and the last full quarter, January to March, is excluded.

Back in the pre-electronic submission age, such delays were necessary because earnings paperwork would not yet have been received and processed by the state.

But in an age where you can pay your bills online, the state doesn’t need those extra months to keep records up to date, and it unnecessarily prevents many workers from qualifying for benefits.

For the remaining $100 million, Arizona would have to do just one of three things to expand eligibility or benefits in order to qualify:

We could add $15 a week per child for families with children or, alternatively, enable those seeking part-time work or permit those enrolled in qualifying work training programs to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits.

These are relatively simple options, and the $150 million stimulus funds would not only pay to modernize our processing system, but also cover about 10 years of the cost of the added benefits, according to the National Employment Law Center.

The Legislature has shown a capacity to act.

Just a few weeks ago, it passed a proposal expanding the weeks of benefits those unemployed might qualify for, but in that case, the federal government made it easy.

Legislators said the state could sunset the extension when the federal government stopped paying for it.

But when the federal government offers to pay to modernize our processing system and to cover added benefit costs for a decade, we should take them up on the offer instead of doing nothing.

Just ask Karen Ickes – or her daughter.

Dave Wells has a doctorate in political economy and public policy and teaches at Arizona State University.

DAVE WELLS

Jack Kemp - the ex-quarterback, congressman, one-time vice presidential nominee and self-described "bleeding-heart conservative" - died May 2.

Many have commented on the life and legacy of Jack Kemp – the former Buffalo, N.Y., congressman, former vice presidential candidate, former HUD secretary, former professional football star and a friend for life to all those who knew him.

I knew Jack and his family well. Our children grew up together. We belonged to the same church.

Next to Ronald Reagan, Jack Kemp was probably the most optimistic Republican I knew. He was also a conservative advocate for civil rights long before many other Republicans would address that issue. This was because, as he said, it was difficult to oppose people you had showered with as an athlete.

Kemp believed civil rights was a conservative issue. After all, don’t conservatives value people before government and don’t they want to liberate individuals from those things that limit their ability to succeed?

Kemp saw racial discrimination as one of those limiting things and he tirelessly campaigned against it. He even supported voting rights for the District of Columbia, though it would ultimately mean more Democrats in Congress.

New York Times columnist Bob Herbert wrote that Kemp’s attempt to get his Republican Party to accept blacks and other ethnic minorities was “futile,” given the GOP’s “Southern strategy” in the 1960s and since.

Kemp advocated economic independence and strong families. Herbert suggested that Kemp’s strategy should have been to embrace Democratic objectives – i.e., bigger and ever-growing government – to help blacks overcome discrimination and poverty.

The Herbert and Democratic Party approach has deepened dependency on government handouts. The Kemp approach sought to make the poor self-sustaining and independent of government.

In 1988, I attended a reception hosted by Kemp during the Republican National Convention in New Orleans. There may have been more African-Americans at that event than in the entire GOP at the time.

Kemp’s civil rights activism was not for the purpose of attracting black votes – though he openly appealed to blacks that they would find a better home and a better future in the Republican Party.

Rather, his civil rights activism flowed from his belief that when the Declaration of Independence says all are created equal, it actually means all.

Kemp was way ahead of Republicans and Southern Democrats on race. He would visit housing projects like the notorious Cabrini-Green in Chicago, a nest of poverty and gang activity that even Chicago police officers were afraid to enter.

It is now in the process of being torn down and its residents relocated. Whatever replaces it should include a plaque with a tribute to Kemp.

Kemp was an idea man, not caring who got credit so long as people’s lives were improved. He disliked those who demonized people on “the other side.”

He saw all Americans on the same side and this put him at odds with certain people in his party who made enemies out of those who held different beliefs in order to raise money and attract votes. Some had a divide-and-conquer approach. Kemp’s approach was to unite for the benefit of all.

This attitude was most evident during his 1996 vice presidential debate with Al Gore. Kemp began his remarks by promising no personal attacks and pledging to conduct himself with civility. The approach angered some on the right, who wanted blood, but Kemp was true to himself.

Kemp regarded the football teams he played against as opponents, not enemies. His politics displayed the same attitude, which is why his opponents admired him on and off the field.

It is also why his funeral Friday will be held at Washington’s massive National Cathedral (the service was moved from his church to accommodate the large crowd that’s expected). The cross-section of attendees will be a testimony to the value of his approach to politics and to life.

Jack liked people and if there was anyone who didn’t like him, he worked overtime to change their opinion.

As Republicans hold public forums on how best to rebuild their party, they could do a lot worse than consider the ideas and attitude of Jack Kemp.

His approach to problem solving, not destroying opponents, ought to be the GOP’s strategy for building a better future . . . and a better America.

Cal Thomas is an author and broadcast commentator. His e-mail address is calthomas@tribune.com.

After the public forum held last week regarding the Tucson budget, I concur – as do many – that the city needs to prioritize outlays, cut the budget where necessary and defer raising taxes given the state of our economy.

What I suggest, in the form of a pilot program, is the deployment of the field of economic research to assist the mayor and council members to better allocate scarce resources.

This is probably as foreign to you as it would be to the elected city officials. And you may think it unlikely that an intellectual pursuit such as economics would intersect with the political agenda of balancing the city budget. You would be wrong.

Many of the highly specialized fields within economics can answer such vexing questions as: What is the optimum level of service for police and fire?

(The correct answer – surprisingly – is not how Tucson compares with other cities of similar size, or what the police and fire unions demand of certain staffing and support levels, or even what the mayor, council members and public think it should otherwise be.)

Others would include: What are the contributing factors to the supply and demand for crime? How can the economic theory of “deadweight loss” be avoided in the form of excess burden of taxation?

These and many other questions can be answered under the umbrella of economics.

Please be clear, I am not necessarily advocating for the direct employment of an economist by the city, but rather a partnership with the department of economics at the University of Arizona.

Apparently such an alliance already exists mainly for the purpose of economic forecasting. This could be expanded to include the efficient allocation of city resources based on economic science.

In the end, the city budget is a political document. I understand that.

Yet it seems rather unreasonable we would expect the mayor and council members to determine service levels, and then efficiently and fairly allocate city resources without complete information.

David Dutra, a Linux enterprise solutions software developer, has a bachelor’s degree in economics and advocates use of economic research to provide for more effective public policy at all levels of government.

The proposed end games for General Motors and particularly Chrysler illustrate why government shouldn’t have gotten involved in the first place.

It’s worthwhile to begin with the broader picture. Americans used to buy about 17 million new cars and trucks a year. Now, we’re buying fewer than 10 million. That, of course, puts considerable stress on manufacturers with weaker products or financial structures.

How many new cars Americans will want to purchase in the future is unknown. But there can be a high degree of confidence in this: However many it is, someone will sell them to us.

Moreover, they are likely to be produced in the United States. A majority of cars sold by foreign manufacturers in the U.S. are actually built here.

So, why should the federal government care who it is that sells us our cars?

There are two rationales offered. First, to preserve an “American” auto industry. Second, to preserve “American” jobs.

The proposed Chrysler restructuring gives the lie to both rationales.

Under the Obama administration’s proposal, Chrysler would, in essence, be given to Fiat, an Italian company, to operate.

So, how is an Italian car maker operating in Michigan any more “American” than a Japanese manufacturer operating in Kentucky?

And why should the federal government give a market preference – through taxpayer financing and warrantee guarantees – to Italian cars produced by American workers in Michigan over Japanese cars produced by American workers in Kentucky?

The Obama administration’s proposed restructuring is more than just unjustified, however. It dangerously undermines the rule of law, as explicated so beneficially by Friedrich Hayek in his classic, “The Road to Serfdom.”

The essence of the rule of law, according to Hayek, is that what the government will do is known to all economic actors in advance. That government will not act arbitrarily in specific circumstances to favor some economic actors over others.

Chrysler has $6.9 billion in secured debt. Under the law, secured lenders have the first claim on the assets of the debtor in the event of nonpayment.

The Obama administration is attempting to muscle past this law. Under its proposal, the health care trust of the autoworkers union, an unsecured creditor, would forgive 57 percent of what Chrysler owes it, and receive 55 percent of the company’s equity in exchange.

The federal government would forgive about a third of what it would loan Chrysler and receive 8 percent of the company’s equity. Fiat would pay nothing for its 20 percent initial ownership.

The secured creditors, with the first claim on Chrysler’s assets, were asked to forgive 70 percent of what they are owed and receive nothing in equity. When they refused and forced the company into bankruptcy, they were excoriated by Obama – a shameful act by a president who pledged to uphold the law, not make it up as he went along.

The purposed GM restructuring is equally lopsided. The union trust would forgive half of what it is owed and receive 39 percent of the company. The government would forgive half of what it is owed and receive 50 percent of the company.

The other private lenders, in this case unsecured, would forgive 100 percent of what they are owed and receive just 10 percent of the company.

In his recent press conference, Obama said he had no interest in owning or operating car companies. Until this point, I was willing to accept Obama at his word, while fundamentally disagreeing with his economic policies.

Given his actions, however, it’s hard to credit his disclaimer in this instance.

These proposed restructurings are power grabs, pure and simple. The positions of lenders are eviscerated to give control to the union trust and the government.

The emergent companies are given market preference through taxpayer financing and government warrantee guarantees. All to serve no true national purpose.

Robert Robb, an Arizona Republic columnist, writes about public policy and politics in Arizona. E-mail: robert.robb@arizonarepublic.com

Expect More Arizona is a nonpartisan, nonpolitical group that is advertising to support increased education funding. But this is a fight that is partisan and political. It won't be won with slogans, but only by replacing some legislators.

No, it can’t hurt. Forming one more group to promote education, one more group that says schools are being shortchanged, having one more group to try to hammer some common sense into the thick skulls of state legislators can’t hurt.

It may actually do some good. I hope so. But I doubt it.

There have been so many of those groups that I can’t possibly remember them all. And now that state budget cuts are threatening education, the groups are proliferating.

Expect More Arizona is the latest, and it seems well organized and well funded with about $2 million available. It has a nice letterhead, a professional logo and an impressive chocolate and teal color scheme.

Its slogan is “Ready Kids. Ready Graduates. Ready Workforce.” You’ve probably seem the ads placed in a number of newspapers around the state, including this one.

In one ad, several people are standing in front of a school bus with the headline, “What We Put Into Education Determines What We Get Out Of It.” (They’re Big On Capitalizing Words For No Particular Reason.)

Maybe this group will be the one that changes everything in Arizona. But probably not.

And here’s why: The problem in Arizona is not how much money is spent for schools. The problem is the people who decide how much money will be spent for schools.

Polls show that Arizonans want more money for education. In the past we’ve willingly raised taxes to put more money into schools. And a recent statewide poll say we would support a temporary 1 percent sales tax increase. Presumably some of that money would go to schools.

But then look at the Legislature, where about one-third of the members haven’t attended college. Neither did Gov. Jan Brewer.

College isn’t the answer for everything and everyone. But with a third of the people who make decisions not even exposed to college, it’s tough to persuade them it’s worth the money.

We are never going to change their minds. So if we want to change the attitudes of Arizona leaders, we’ve got to change the Arizona leaders.

And that’s where groups such as Expect More Arizona fall short. They step up to the plate, take a couple of impressive practice swings, then stand there with the bat on their shoulder and watch three strikes whiz by.

Paul J. Luna, chairman of the oversight board of Expect More Arizona, describes the group as “nonpartisan, nonpolitical.” That’s the problem. This is an issue that is decidedly partisan and political.

Luna said the group will “create public awareness of increasing funding for education in Arizona.” That’s fine. So I’m aware. But what next?

Educating people about education problems will go only so far. To make any substantive changes, the people making the decisions need to be changed. As in replaced.

And that is something Expect More Arizona is not planning to do.

Luna said, “The perception of Arizona is that we are not an education state.” Why is that the perception? Because it’s true. Education is just not that important to the people who make decisions on where to spend the money.

But Luna said Expect More Arizona will stop at educating voters. It won’t take the next step and endorse pro-education candidates or urge the defeat of anti-education candidates or get involved in campaigns.

It may be the right decision from a practical standpoint. Once a group becomes a political action committee, donations to it are not tax-deductible.

But it is not the right decision from a policy standpoint. It’s not the right way to make changes.

Educating people about an issue goes only so far. At some point, you’ve got to admit they aren’t going to learn and need to be replaced. And that’s where we are today in Arizona.

Mark Kimble appears at 6:30 p.m. Fridays on the Roundtable segment of “Arizona Illustrated” on KUAT-TV, Channel 6. He may be reached by e-mail at mkimble@tucsoncitizen.com or by calling 573-4662.

———

ON THE WEB

For more information about Expect More Arizona, go to: www.ExpectMoreArizona.org

Over breakfast recently, a Republican with deep credentials in Washington, D.C., lamented what confronts his party’s leaders.

As he ticked off issue after issue, he began to sound a lot like the health care professionals trying to contain the swine flu outbreak.

Government spending and regulation? Way too late to be the party to contain spending or hold the line on oversight. A Republican president, George W. Bush, started the bailout wagon and doubled the debt.

President Barack Obama has the intention – and the votes – to spend money to get out of the recession. And most Americans think lack of regulation brought on the collapse of the mortgage industry to begin with.

Cutting taxes? Obama is raising them on the rich, and most people feel that’s just fine.

Ending abortion? It hasn’t happened with a court with seven of nine justices appointed by Republican presidents. With as many as four Supreme Court appointments possible during his presidency, Obama could nail down Roe v. Wade for good.

Stem cells? With the stroke of a pen, Obama unleashed federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Once out of the test tube, how do you put them back in?

Values? How do you compete with this first family – two kids, a dog, a garden, and an active adult partnership – that the media have lapped up and idolized as the picture of a new American family? You certainly don’t do it with angry, if familiar, faces shouting on cable TV from a 1994 script.

So what’s a Next Generation Republican leader to do?

He or she might start by doing something that a lot of politicians aren’t good at – mea culpa – and focusing on two fundamental points.

One, most Americans believe in the two-party system and are inherently skeptical of concentrated power. They are not as dead-set sold on Obama’s policies as the Democrats think, especially on spending, and they want reasonable-sounding ideas from Republicans.

They want those ideas to be relevant to their daily lives. And they don’t want them delivered via how-to-live-your-life sermons.

Two, with opinion polls showing Republicans at historical nadirs in both trust and membership, a new generation of GOP leaders might best earn credibility by acknowledging how they got into their predicament.

Americans are passionate believers in second chances – how else do you explain George Foreman or Bill Clinton? And contrary to what GOP leaders might hear from the most rabid partisans around them, most Americans do not equate “I made a mistake” with “I am weak.”

You might drive home these points in a speech that begins this way:

“My fellow Americans, I belong to a political party whose first president freed the slaves, whose members stood against bigotry to help pass civil rights legislation, a party that believes in effective but limited government, a proud party that never wavered in the belief that a strong America was the warm beacon that would end the Cold War.

“Our party stands anew for hard work and initiative, for fair and common values, for a reasonable partnership between business and labor, for a foreign policy based on mutual respect, and for a government that never grows beyond the means of the people or unnecessarily burdens their tomorrows.

“Recently, however, our party lost its way. Some of our leaders ‘went Washington’ – with their selfish spending, their revolving doors and, in some cases, their corruption. To new Americans and some that had long been with us, we kept putting ‘Do not enter’ signs on the Big Tent – one that Ronald Reagan himself never claimed to be a purification tent.

“At the beginning of this new century, we returned to power with so much promise, and we believe even more passionately today in that promise. But in the ensuing years, although we kept the country safe from another 9/11, we did not always do what we said we would do. And no amount of blowing smoke at Democrats or polishing the rear-view mirror will change that.

“Indeed, this is not the time for smoke-and-mirrors politics. It is not the time to wish that this president fails, but to help him help America succeed. It is not the time for us to point fingers of blame at fellow Republicans. In fact, both parties should recognize that this is not a Republican time or a Democrat time. It is America’s time.

“We must think beyond survival. We are more than the next news cycle or quarterly report. The challenges we face are rare, but our party’s principles are not, and they have stood America in good stead since Abraham Lincoln. They can help us not only to survive, but to thrive. Fundamentally, they are shared by every American who wants nothing more than a safe, fair and prosperous America.

“Nothing more, and certainly nothing less.”

Chuck Raasch is political editor for Gannett News Service. E-mail: craasch@gns.gannett.com

———

Raasch’s blog

Get more behind-the-scenes reports, context and analysis about politicians and the political process in Raasch’s Furthermore blog. Look for it here.

Members of the U.S. Supreme Court sit for a group portrait at the Supreme Court in Washington in this file photo from March 3, 2006. Seated in the front row (left to right) are: Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, Associate Justice John Paul Stevens, Chief Justice of the United States John G. Roberts, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia and Associate Justice David Souter. Standing, in the top row, are: Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Associate Justice Samuel Alito Jr. There has never been a Hispanic on the court.

As someone who knows what it’s like to make history, Barack Obama should understand intuitively that – with the retirement of Justice David Souter – it’s time for the president to whip up another batch, putting a Latino or Latina on the Supreme Court.

With all respect to Justice Benjamin Cardozo, a New Yorker of Portuguese heritage who was nominated to the high court by Herbert Hoover in 1932, Latinos are eager for a more recent example of someone who identifies with being Latino.

America’s largest minority has a reputation for patience and passivity, but now isn’t the time for either.

Hispanics are due a Supreme Court justice, but they can’t count on either liberals or conservatives in Congress to make that a priority. So they need to raise their voices and demand that a president who received two-thirds of their votes recognize their place in society and correct a terrible oversight.

The good news is that Obama doesn’t have to sacrifice quality in the process. These days, there are plenty of highly accomplished Latinos in the sorts of positions that typically lead to a Supreme Court nomination.

Of course, there are those who still get squeamish over the idea that “identity politics” or “diversity” should factor into a decision this important.

Much of that resistance is probably leftover resentment of the affirmative action policies of the last 40 years. There’s also an assumption that the most qualified to fill such prestigious positions must be white males; anyone else is a diversity candidate.

That’s ridiculous. For every vacancy on the Supreme Court, there are usually many good candidates who could do the job.

And sometimes, individuals are helped along because they have a great personal story or a unique perspective, or come from a certain part of the country, or they’re trailblazers for a group of people.

Jewish Americans are rightfully proud of Louis Brandeis, Abe Fortas, Felix Frankfurter, Arthur Goldberg, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Cardozo.

African-Americans have had Thurgood Marshall and – over the objections of many of them – Clarence Thomas.

Gee, it looks like Hispanics missed a turn. Past presidents – even supposed liberals who talk a good game about diversity – have had a blind spot when it comes to putting a Latino on the Supreme Court.

Democrat Bill Clinton was elected, then re-elected, averaging about 70 percent of the Latino vote, and yet he stiffed that constituency by using both of his Supreme Court picks to nominate Ginsburg and Breyer. While disappointed, Latinos kept quiet about being slighted.

Now, Obama has plenty of choices of qualified Hispanic candidates to help him break that barrier.

While Supreme Court nominees don’t have to come from the lower federal courts, they’re considered a good training ground. As of 2008, Hispanics accounted for 71 of the 1,294 sitting federal judges.

Standouts include Christine Arguello, a Harvard Law grad and U.S. district judge (District of Colorado); Ruben Castillo, a U.S. district judge (Northern District of Illinois); and Sonia Sotomayor, a Yale Law grad who is on the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York.

Republicans warn that Obama should choose someone in the judicial “mainstream.” That’s code for someone who won’t frighten off conservatives.

Obama should ignore that advice, just as President Bush ignored demands by Democrats that he pick Supreme Court nominees more to their liking. If Republicans want to be in the driver’s seat, they should do the obvious thing and concentrate on winning elections.

The bigger concern is Obama himself might be ambivalent about nominating a Latino and – according to some former law students – often prefers to take a pragmatic approach.

That could mean biding his time, and – assuming he stands to get at least one, and possibly two, more selections during his presidency – tabling the Hispanic candidate until later.

If that happens, it won’t be easy for many Hispanics to swallow. Who can blame them? They’ve waited long enough. They’ll be disappointed.

But will they fall quietly back in line and return to their familiar habits of being passive and patient?

Let’s hope not.

Ruben Navarrette Jr. is a columnist and editorial board member of The San Diego Union-Tribune. E-mail: ruben.navarrette@uniontrib.com

KIMBERLY FERREIRA

I moved to Arizona for health reasons 1 1/2 years ago with my daughter, who was receiving a private education, to Catalina Foothills School District in Tucson.

I am shocked that Arizona legislators are playing political football with public education.

No game time was necessary as lawmakers gave an “oath of office” to the Arizona Constitution, which mandates they balance the budget and fund public education.

Says Article 11, Section 10, “the legislature shall make such appropriations, to be met by taxation, as shall insure the proper maintenance of all state educational institutions, and shall make such special appropriations as shall provide for their development and improvement.”

Figures support the charge that Arizona’s constitutional obligations to “develop and improve” public education are falling abysmally short.

Since the 1986-1987 school year, Arizona’s per-pupil expenditures have actually declined by $61, according to the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council.

The latest figures, for the 2006-2007 school year, show the per-pupil expenditure of $6,248 at 50th place among the states.

In 1986-87, the $6,309 expenditure ranked 31st.

The $1.6 billion budget reduction for 2009, which left deep cuts to education, was unconstitutional.

The recent Basic Joint Draft Budget proposals dismantle the stability and viability of public education.

It cripples districts’ cash flow by taking $300 million that is necessary for their solvent operation, reducing transportation funding from $110 million to $8 million and slashing $175 million from basic K-12 funding.

Obviously, Proposition 301′s requirement to increase public educational expenditures above the constitutional aggregate limit is being ignored.

To complicate matters further, 39 Republican legislators signed a pledge by the Washington, D.C., special interest lobbying group Americans for Tax Reform. It says the elected official will “oppose any and all efforts to increase taxes.”

These legislators are putting this pledge before their oath of office. They should strip their names from this no-tax pledge; otherwise, immediate voter recall should be considered.

In the Senate, they are: Sylvia Allen, Bob Burns, Pamela Gorman, Ron Gould, Chuck Gray, Linda Gray, Jack Harper, John Huppenthal, Barbara Leff, Al Melvin, Russell Pearce, Steve Pierce, Jay Tibshraeny and Thayer Verschoor.

In the House: Kirk Adams, Frank Antenori, Cecil Ash, Ray Barnes, Nancy Barto, Andy Biggs, Tom Boone, Judy Burges, Sam Crump, Adam Driggs, David Gowan, Laurin Hendrix, John Kavanagh, Bill Konopnicki, Debbie Lesko, Steve Montenegro, Rick Murphy, Warde Nichols, Doug Quelland, Carl Seel, David Stevens, Andy Tobin, Jerry Weiers, Jim Weiers and Steve Yarbrough.

To make progress toward a better Arizona, public education funding needs to be addressed, first and foremost, as a statewide issue.

Gov. Jan Brewer recommends a tax increase to fund public education. Recent polling shows support for this.

The Legislature is obligated to increase appropriations to improve public education. This action would be a strong statement that Arizona will not stand in 50th place and understands that education fuels economic development.

Please contact your legislators and let them know you will hold them accountable to their constitutional obligations to fund, develop and improve public education.

If you aren’t sure who your representatives are, check www.votesmart.org and enter your zip code.

Kimberly Ferreira is a freelance project manager, education advocate and the mother of a 7-year-old daughter in public school and a 14-year-old son in private school.

Traders work at the New York Stock Exchange last week.

I’m not a fan of teenage poetry or really of teenage writing in general.

It annoys me when kids my age try to write their “deep,” philosophical and often so very tragic thoughts and expect anybody to take them seriously.

I do not exempt myself from this category. Looking back at some of the things I’ve written for school or for publication, I almost gag at the cliché-filled pages and the unoriginal takes on age-old topics.

But what bothers me most is the drawn-out, pedantic dialogue of amateur writers (such as me) who, in their efforts to sound like an authority on the topic, employ six-syllable synonyms of common words; the more obscure the better.

So with this disclaimer, I offer a 400-word essay on politics in the United States.

“Brevity can never, in the nature of things, do justice to all the facts of a complex situation” (Aldous Huxley, Brave New World Revisited).

With this idea fresh in my mind, I will do my best to write succinctly and honestly such that even if someone does not agree with my interpretation of the situation, he or she can at least see the validity of my argument.

Whereas the fundamental function of an economy such as our own is to create needs faster than it can satisfy them, the true function of our government (whether we admit it) is to satisfy our needs as fast as it can.

It sounds like a very socialistic definition of government, and in some ways it is. The founding fathers likely did not intend our government to satisfy all our needs, but in the year of instant gratification we demand change.

The economy goes sour, we want the government to fix it; pirates attack, we want the government to stop them; a virus is loose, we want the government to kill it.

“But Erick, there’s no way we could fix the economy, or stop the pirates or kill the virus on our own.”

This is true, and it’d be unfair for me or anyone to ask of any civilian to fix it all on their own; we simply haven’t the resources. However, the link goes further than that.

We want our mail delivered on time, our electricity always available and our phone lines always connected. And if this isn’t happening, we want someone to complain to. Who better than the judicial branch?

We want health care, and we want protection from malpractice. We want cheap goods and an ever-present bull market.

The age of personal accountability has ended. The age of the everyday lawsuit has arrived.

Nor is the other end of the spectrum flawless. Laizzes faire did much to allow for exploitation of workers for many decades. Laizzes faire allows for Ponzi schemes and economic bubbles. Allowing the people to help the poor and the downtrodden has also left many hungry and destitute.

Neither the Republican nor the Democratic platform can in its purest states appease everyone. They can’t eliminate poverty or create economic prosperity.

Ideologies don’t run countries; people do. One can try to rule solely by ideology, and many have and many have failed.

Why people are allowing compromise to die a slow, painful, pride-induced death is beyond me.

Put simply, the economy stinks

Teen columnist Erick Vega is a senior at Flowing Wells High School. E-mail: somekidvega@hotmail.com

ERICK VEGA

JOHN WRIGHT

Over the past several weeks, some legislators have decried the actions of teachers, parents and students who are voicing opposition to $133 million in cuts to Arizona’s schools.

Several members of the Legislature are inaccurately characterizing cuts made to schools in 2009 and fail to address massive cuts being considered for 2010.

Clearly, proposed cuts totaling more than $800 million are certain to increase class sizes and eliminate key programs. They already have resulted in job loss notifications for about 7,400 teachers and education support professionals.

Fortunately for Arizonans who depend on public schools and other vital state services, there is now only a shrinking group of ideologues who are promoting massive cuts to our schools.

Regrettably, legislative “leadership” – including House Speaker Kirk Adams, Senate President Bob Burns and their Appropriations chairmen – are among those wishing to slash school funding.

Recent events have shown the passion with which teachers and others involved with public schools approach their work. Beginning with an informed network of teachers and school advocates, the Arizona Education Association and its partners addressed the Legislature in early January in an attempt to identify budget solutions that would adequately protect education funding.

When attempts to join the problem-solving process were met with closed doors and no invitation to the table, the AEA, its partners, and 10,000 public school advocates marched to the Capitol.

Legislative leadership’s response lacks respect for the voices present: teachers, parents, students and community leaders – all taxpayers seeking to be a part of the process.

Arizona’s teachers, and the children they serve, are in the cross hairs of enormous funding cuts, compromising our state’s ability to train a work force prepared to compete with countries like India and China.

Arizona’s economy, much like the rest of our nation, is struggling; to solve this recession, we need to change our priorities, stop tax giveaways to corporations, and invest in Arizona’s future by ensuring adequate funding for education.

Arizona must take a comprehensive approach to the budget deficit that ensures the legacy we leave behind is something we can be proud of and provides students the tools they need to compete in today’s global economy.

Although Arizona will still rank near the bottom of every national list for public school funding, restoring funding for cuts made in 2009 and continued funding for public schools in 2010 means Arizona will be on the right path to providing children essential tools for success.

Following a blueprint that funds our schools will ensure districts can maintain after-school programs that keep children out of trouble, avoid class-size increases and continue to attract high-quality classroom teachers.

The Arizona Education Association stands ready to support any legislator’s effort to protect public schools and other vital services.

John Wright is president of the Arizona Education Association.

———

Related stories

Anne Gibson: Action needed now on K-12 education

Phil Lopes: Arizonans deserve better than latest GOP budget plan

PHIL LOPES

After weeks of secret meetings, the latest Republican state budget plan offers no real, comprehensive solutions to the looming budget crisis and fails to address Arizonans’ priorities to protect education and the economy.

The budget proposal, released a week ago, again attempts to solve the state’s revenue shortfall through deep cuts to public education and massive state agency layoffs.

And this time, they add a new twist – covertly increasing people’s property taxes and raiding money collected by cities through impact fees to fund infrastructure.

Republicans propose $800 million in cuts to education, including more than $600 million in cuts to the public K-12 school system and at least $50 million in cuts to the University of Arizona.

In their plan, the Republicans allude to using federal stimulus funding, and I would hope some of that funding would support education. But Republicans have kept details secret about how much federal funding they would use – if any – to alleviate the education budget cuts.

Republican lawmakers supporting this proposal are also covertly raising property taxes by eliminating homeowners’ rebates for property taxpayers in school districts such as the Tucson Unified School District whose tax rates are affected by federal desegregation orders.

This will significantly affect Tucson property taxpayers.

Further, property taxes could be increased by the Republican proposal to raid ending year balances in school district accounts.

In most cases, these year-end balance funds are obligated or kept on hand to address emergency expenses. School districts that have managed their funds and been able to keep a little in savings would now be punished for fiscal responsibility.

To add insult to injury, the Republican budget also proposes to steal more than $200 million from cities and towns.

These funds, generated by impact fees, are intended to pay for community infrastructure needs such as streetlights, roads and sewers. Now cities could be forced to fill this budget hole by increasing local taxes or through cuts in city-funded services.

Deep cuts to school and university funding is the absolute opposite of what the state should be doing during an economic downturn.

The only way Arizona will climb out of our financial slump is to build the education system and work force required to grow and attract the investment needed to stabilize our economy.

Forcing layoffs of thousands of people in the public and private sector (many private entities contract with state agencies) make our economic situation worse. The fewer people employed, the less income and sales tax is paid, and the more state health and social service safety-net services are utilized.

I am not opposed to reasonable tax increases to ensure that our state has the funding needed to maintain a good public education system. (I prefer increases in income tax rather than sales tax because the former is less regressive.)

If we want to debate the merits of a property tax increase as part of that solution, so be it.

But many Republicans have been quoted in the news saying their new budget plan does not raise taxes, and that is, simply, untrue.

It is deceitful and insulting to the public to hide tax increases or indirectly raise the public’s taxes through burden shifts to school districts and cities.

Lawmakers should be accountable for their policy decisions and votes. If we need to raise taxes, be forthright about that policy change. Political mendacity is unacceptable.

In poll after poll (the most recent was April 28 from the Cronkite School at Arizona State University), citizens have clearly told the Legislature that they want a comprehensive, responsible budget plan.

They do not support education cuts, and they do support modest tax reforms to bring Arizona’s budget into balance. The only people out of step with the public’s mood are the Republican leadership at the Arizona Legislature.

Phil Lopes is the state representative for District 27 in Tucson. Email: plopes@azleg.gov

———

Related stories

Phil Lopes: Arizonans deserve better than latest GOP budget plan

John Wright: Slashing education funding hurts our future

Former Republican Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa., sits on the Democratic side of the dais during a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on the FY2009 war supplemental on Capitol Hill in Washington last week.

Now this is an interesting arc.

The Republican Party, which was created in 1854 when the once-powerful Whig Party splintered, is now on the verge of disintegration.

The Whigs imploded over the issue of slavery and states’ rights. The GOP’s threatened demise is also tied to a rift over the powers of the federal government.

Republicans were pushed closer to the edge of the abyss when Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, a political moderate, announced that he’ll seek re-election next year as a Democrat.

One of only three Republicans to vote to approve the economic stimulus plan Democrats pushed through Congress, Specter faced a strong challenge for the GOP nomination from former Rep. Pat Toomey, a conservative.

Specter’s defection makes the Republican Party more of a regional force in American politics. The GOP now holds three of the 22 U.S. Senate seats from the 11 states of the Mid-Atlantic and New England region. By contrast, Democrats hold six of the 22 Senate seats from the 11 states of the old Confederacy – the GOP’s stronghold.

The Republican Party is “heading to having the smallest political tent in history for any political party,” said moderate Olympia Snowe, one of Maine’s two GOP senators.

“I’ve always been deeply concerned about the views of the Republican Party nationally in terms of their exclusionary policies and views towards moderate Republicans,” Snowe said.

GOP leaders downplayed Specter’s party switch.

“This is not a national story. This is a Pennsylvania story,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told reporters, pointing out that Specter trailed Toomey badly in a recent poll. But, of course, Specter’s departure is a big national story.

With Specter in their ranks, Democrats and independents who caucus with them now have 59 Senate seats, just one short of the 60 needed to end a filibuster and force a vote on any issue.

They should get another seat this summer if the Minnesota Supreme Court names one-time comedian Al Franken the winner of the state’s Senate race.

Franken holds a thin lead over Republican Norm Coleman, but the outcome of that election has been tied up in recounts and legal squabbling since November.

If Franken is confirmed the winner, pressure will increase on Snowe and Susan Collins – Maine’s other moderate Republican senator – to switch parties.

Snowe has said she’s staying put. But as the GOP’s right wing retreats deeper into its cave, the party’s remaining moderates will feel the piercing cold of ideological isolation. And when that happens, getting along to go along will become increasingly difficult.

Specter understands the futility of that position. He didn’t leave the Republican Party simply because he faced a tough re-nomination fight. He bolted to get off a sinking ship.

Just 31 percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll released the day Specter switched parties said they approved of the job Republican leaders in Congress are doing. Congressional Democrats fared much better. Fifty-one percent of those surveyed said they thought Democratic leaders in Congress were doing a good job.

And then there is this: Only 21 percent of people questioned in a recent Washington Post/ABC News polls identified themselves as Republican; 35 percent said they are Democrats; and 38 described themselves as independents. That’s a steep drop from the 32 percent who identified as Republicans in November.

The GOP is in a death spiral. Instead of trying to expand its ranks, it clings to its right-wing doctrine and panders to its base – and chases away Republican moderates like Arlen Specter.

DeWayne Wickham is a Maryland-based columnist who writes for USA TODAY. E-mail: DeWayneWickham@aol.com.

President Obama, with Vice President Joe Biden, addressed the rising concern of swine flu last week. at the White House in Washington, Wednesday, April 29, 2009. "This is obviously a serious situation" and "we are closely and continuously monitoring" it, Obama said. Biden later said he advised his family to avoid airplanes and subways, "anywhere in confined places."

Hours after President Obama tried to calm swine flu fears on national TV last week, Vice President Joe Biden undermined those efforts by saying he’s advising his family to avoid airplanes and subways, “anywhere in confined places.”

That is not official government policy, and Biden tried to backtrack. But his flub unleashed fresh questions about risk in an age of pandemics and terrorism.

What’s the line between caution and fear? And is the presence of 24-hour media, a more mobile population, government that has ramped up crisis response, and a security industry that has grown in an age of terrorism making risk more front and center in people’s lives?

People all over the globe are traveling more, making it harder to control outbreaks, said Timothy A. Dimoff, a security and risk expert. But he also said the media and his own industry have contributed to a higher awareness of risk – to good and bad effect.

“The media today, you know, can report instantly, hour by hour, minute by minute, and spread it in an international fashion in a matter of seconds,” said Dimoff, founder and president of SACS Consulting & Investigative Services, of Akron, Ohio.

“You go back to ’68 and even before that and we didn’t have the ability to update everyone on every single aspect and every single pandemic case breaking out. … The media will and does have the potential to make it seem bigger than it is.”

In 1968, roughly 35,000 people died in the last flu pandemic in this country, fewer than the number who died in car accidents.

Dimoff, who helped the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention plan for pandemic responses in Ohio, is advising people not to travel to Mexico and urging visitors to return home in case borders are closed. Dimoff said he would avoid areas in the United States where cases have been reported.

People should closely monitor loved ones’ health, he said, and seek medical care at the first sign of symptoms.

But Dimoff said he would still get on an airplane. He would pay attention to advisories from the government, which he said has worked hard in the last five years to prepare for a pandemic.

“We should be concerned, be on the lookout for it, take some extra precautions, but it is not a rapidly developing domino pandemic that is getting out of hand,” Dimoff said.

Last week, Obama said the swine flu threat “is a cause for deep concern, but not panic” that could be mitigated by a government that responds “intelligently, systematically, based on science and what public health officials have to say.”

He calmly urged Americans to take practical precautions, like washing their hands frequently and covering mouths and noses when they sneezed.

But the following morning, Biden was anything but calming when he told the NBC “Today” show: “I would tell members of my family – and I have – I wouldn’t go anywhere in confined places now.”

“When one person sneezes, it goes all the way through the aircraft,” Biden said.

His spokeswoman, Elizabeth Alexander, tried to backtrack, saying Biden meant to repeat administration policy that people should avoid “unnecessary travel” to Mexico. But Biden clearly was referring to broader cautions than that, and a travel industry already piqued at Obama for his attacks on lavish business travel by CEOs quickly responded.

James C. May, president and CEO of the Air Transport Association of America, called Biden’s comments “extremely disappointing.”

“The airlines have been working daily with government agencies, none of whom suggest people avoid air travel, unless they are not feeling well,” May said. “The fact is that the air onboard a commercial aircraft is cleaner than in most public buildings.”

Chuck Raasch is political editor for Gannett News Service. E-mail: craasch@gns.gannett.com.

———

Raasch’s blog

Get more behind-the-scenes reports, context and analysis about politicians and the political process in Raasch’s Furthermore blog. Look for it here.

On Jan. 20, U.S. Navy Chief Petty Officer Bill Mesta replaced an official picture of outgoing President George W. Bush with that of newly sworn-in President Obama in the lobby of the headquarters of the U.S. Naval Station, in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Obama this week marked 100 days as president.

During his first 100 days as president, Barack Obama benefited from his enemies, his challenges, and who he wasn’t as much as who he was.

Going forward, the terrain might not be quite so favorable, and the measures will be harsher.

On Tuesday, Day 99, Obama got yet another gift from his political opponents. He learned that longtime Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania moderate, had become a Democrat, the latest example of the Republican Party’s struggle to stay relevant to middle-of-the-road Americans.

In Congress, Republicans have been, for the most part, cohesive. With the exception of Specter and two Republican moderates from Maine, they stood unanimously against Obama’s $787 billion economic stimulus spending.

But the GOP is short on recognizable new leaders and has seen its coalition shrink and harden since Obama’s election.

Obama’s political enemies have been a blessing. Rush Limbaugh wished that his policies would fail right out of the gate. Texas Gov. Rick Perry talked secession. Only about 1 in 5 who responded to the most recent ABC-Washington Post poll identified themselves as Republicans.

But then came Wednesday, Day 100. There was news of the first U.S. death from the swine flu. And the government announced the economy contracted worse than expected in the first quarter of 2009, at a startling annualized rate of 6.1 percent.

Both stories highlighted the challenges Obama will increasingly own as George W. Bush gets smaller and smaller in the rearview mirror.

Bush left as an unpopular president with an economy in crisis and two wars to wage. Obama has benefited by not being Bush. That comparative advantage will fade for Obama just as it did for Ronald Reagan late in 1981, when a worsening economy made people forget Jimmy Carter.

If the economy does not pick up and start moving out of recession toward the latter half of this year, blame will start falling heavily on Obama, just as it did on Reagan.

But if recovery becomes the new “r” word by then, Obama could very well solidify the Democrats’ hold on government for the next eight years, at least.

“The bottom line is, if things are better . . . we’ll think he’s a genius,” said Sue Aldridge, a 69-year-old pest company owner in suburban St. Louis. “If not, we’ll see.”

She voted for Obama and says she thinks he’s doing a pretty good job, “although the spending concerns me a little bit.”

This is the fundamental danger for Obama. His personal favorability (73 percent in a mid-April Pew Research Center poll) and job approval (63 percent, according to Pew) are robust.

But Americans also are expressing doubts about some of Obama’s policies, especially the level of government spending and deficits he is proposing. Pew said only 50 percent approved of what he has done on taxes and the deficit.

At some point, Obama’s job and personal approval ratings will intersect with the public’s verdict on his policies. Where that intersection occurs will determine the sustainability and success of his presidency.

Pew Research Center President Andrew Kohut draws a parallel with Reagan.

The Gipper came to the 100 day-mark of his presidency with 67 percent job approval, according to the Gallup Poll. He had survived an assassination attempt, and Americans who doubted his policies nonetheless liked him as president.

But unemployment spiked in the fall of 1981, adding to the misery of high interest rates and inflation. By year’s end, Reagan’s job approval fell to 41 percent and stayed around that level through 1982, when the GOP got slaughtered in mid-term congressional elections.

Kohut, then with Gallup, said that people who had been willing to give Reagan the benefit of the doubt on policy because they liked him personally abandoned him when new economic shocks forced a re-examination of Reagan’s policies.

Obama doesn’t exactly face the same situation, Kohut said, “because people have faith in him and are so concerned about the economy that he has a fair amount of cover for things that make people uncomfortable” about his policies.

“Hope,” Kohut said, is “a very important thing that Obama has got going for him.”

Chuck Raasch is political editor for Gannett News Service. E-mail: craasch@gns.gannett.com.

———

Raasch’s blog

Get more behind-the-scenes reports, context and analysis about politicians and the political process in Raasch’s Furthermore blog. Look for it here.

“On Aug. 17, 1942, a nationally syndicated columnist wrote that she had received ‘a very stern letter’ after commenting about the weather, ‘ . . . and so from now on I shall not tell you whether it rains or whether the sun shines where I happen to be.’

“The columnist was Eleanor Roosevelt and she was referring to an article in which she had described weather conditions during one of her official visits around the country with her husband, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, during World War II,” writes Michael S. Sweeney in his history of the Office of Censorship, “Secrets of Victory.”

We were a nation at war and Mrs. Roosevelt had said too much.

During World War II every American was discouraged from saying, writing or publishing anything that might aid the enemy while America pursued victory, and every citizen was reminded constantly that, “Loose lips sink ships.”

My how times have changed.

In our modern confessional era, in which no emotion and no secret is to be hidden, we blab everything, caring more about our feelings and self-esteem than about defeating an enemy just as determined as the ones we fought more than 60 years ago.

In an act that would have been unheard of during World War II, the Pentagon, in response to a lawsuit by the ever-vigilant ACLU, will release by the end of May photos depicting the alleged abuse of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan by American personnel.

No doubt this will make people who regard America – or at least the Bush administration – as a greater evil than al-Qaida feel better.

It also is bound to encourage our enemies and discourage intelligence officers who risk their lives daily in far away places in order to protect Americans and our way of life.

In any game, much less a war, when one player plays by a set of rules and the other plays by no rules at all, it does not take a genius to conclude who will win.

America’s enemies know how to play us and how to use our Constitution, legal system, the media and public opinion to advance their ends, while frustrating ours.

America-haters expect the public to recoil at tactics far less severe than the ones they use. They want us to believe our behavior is directly linked to theirs and that if we don’t use techniques to extract information from suspected terrorists – information that might save American lives – then they won’t torture Americans who might have information they need to help them kill more of us.

Porter Goss, the former director of the CIA and former chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, wrote an op-ed column for The Washington Post recently in which he said, “I feel our government has crossed the red line between properly protecting our national security and trying to gain partisan political advantage. We can’t have a secret intelligence service if we keep giving away all the secrets.”

Goss is not a wishful thinker: “The suggestion that we are safer now because information about interrogation techniques is in the public domain conjures up images of unicorns and fairy dust. We have given our enemy invaluable information about the rules by which we operate.”

Dr. Mark M. Lowenthal, former assistant director of Central Intelligence for Analysis and Production, told Jake Tapper of ABC News the release of interrogation photos is “prurient” and “reprehensible.”

Lowenthal added, “We ask people to do extremely dangerous things, things they’ve been ordered to do by legal authorities, with the understanding that they will get top cover if something goes wrong. They don’t believe they have that cover anymore.”

Terrorist states and the freelancers they support can only be thinking that our “icky” feelings toward the necessities of war will give them an opening they can exploit to kill us and ruin our economy and way of life.

War is Hell and that’s what we should make it for our enemies, because Hell is precisely what they intend to make for America and the West.

Releasing pictures that reveal interrogation techniques and other information can help the enemy construct that road to Hell for us, paved with our good intentions.

Cal Thomas is an author and broadcast commentator. His e-mail address is calthomas@tribune.com.