Citizen Staff Writer
KIMBLE COLUMN

It’s probably premature for Democrat Gabrielle Giffords to list conservative Sen. Jon Kyl among her supporters.

But Kyl has come to Giffords’ aid after criticism by Republican foe Tim Bee – even going so far as dispatching one of his top aides to, in Kyl’s words, “straighten out” Bee’s campaign manager.

So who’s the maverick now?

It’s an unusual move for Kyl, a reliable conservative and, as whip, the second-ranking Republican in the U.S. Senate.

But after blistering criticism of the financial bailout/rescue/ stabilization bill from thousands of his constituents as well as from Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives – including Bee – Kyl had enough.

And Giffords was among those who ended up benefiting.

Remember back two weeks when both houses of Congress were debating the hurried $700 billion bailout bill? The House rejected the bill, sending the stock market into a tailspin from which it has yet to recover.

Four days later, the House voted again and passed the bill.

What was the difference? Let Bee address that in a statement sent out by his campaign Oct. 3, the day the House voted yes:

“They added pork for wooden arrows, racetracks, rum, bicyclists and Hollywood studios to name a few. Our Congresswoman Giffords wouldn’t stand by and say ‘no!’ to the pork. She added her own.”

The Giffords’ “pork” cited by the Bee campaign was an extension of tax credits for those who install solar energy equipment. The Bee statement said “a real leader would have passed (the solar credit) months ago as part of an all-of-the-above energy package.”

Limbaugh leapt into the fray, seizing on the tax credits for makers of Puerto Rican rum and toy wooden arrows as proof the House had been bought off.

Meanwhile, Kyl was hearing the same things from Arizonans. “I had over 5,000 calls, letters and e-mails the week before,” Kyl said in an interview this week.

All of this prompted Kyl to send out a 2 1/2-page e-mail to those who contacted his office. In it, he wrote: “The tax bill had nothing to do with pork-barrel spending. In fact it included many provisions that would reduce taxes.”

The tax cuts and credits – including the solar credit – had been approved in the Senate earlier, Kyl said. They were waiting for approval in the House, and the financial bailout was the vehicle used for that.

Although criticism by Bee and Limbaugh of tax breaks for makers of rum and wooden arrows made for a good sound bite, there is more to it, Kyl wrote.

A 39-cent tax is imposed on each hunting arrow to help pay for hunting programs. The tax break exempted toy arrows.

Current tax law also imposes an excise tax on imported rum, probably to protect domestic rum makers. But that tax is refunded to rum makers in the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico because they are U.S. territories. That has been the case since 1986, and the bailout bill provision continued that.

“There are some conservative House members who, I guess, couldn’t argue the bill on the merits,” Kyl said in an interview.

He said the House Republican Study Committee urged Republicans running for the House to attack Democratic incumbents by claiming the bailout was laden with pork. “I understand he was one of them,” Kyl said of Bee.

Bee’s statement said, “This bill . . . should not be about how much more pork-barrel spending you can get away with.”

“They clearly should have known better,” Kyl said of House members and candidates who sent out such statements. “Either they were grossly negligent or misinformed.”

Kyl said he heard about Bee’s statement and moved to knock it down. “His campaign guy had been quoted as calling it ‘pork,’ ” he said of Bee campaign manager Tom Dunn. Kyl said he called one of his staff members in Tucson “and said we need to straighten him (Dunn) out.”

Dunn said this week that the Bee campaign stands by the statement. “It’s special interests,” he said of the add-ons to the bailout bill.

Kyl begs to differ: “It’s not pork, and it’s not new.”

To read e-mail sent out by Kyl, see this story at www.tucson citizen.com/opinion.

Mark Kimble appears Fridays on “Arizona Illustrated” on KUAT-TV, Channel 6. Call him at 573-4662 or e-mail mkimble@tucsoncitizen.com.

Citizen Staff Writer
STANTON COLUMN

A lot of criticism gets flung at Tucson Unified School District – some legitimate, some not.

But many Tucsonans are oblivious to the nationwide rave reviews of two TUSD programs.

Opening Minds through the Arts and University High School have won wide acclaim for helping kids achieve astonishing academic gains.

The successes include lots of “at-risk” students, a euphemism for kids from poor families, of which TUSD has more than most.

Yet while the district is Pima County’s biggest and one of its poorest, it’s also the only local district operating without a voter-approved budget override.

That’s a shameful reflection on Tucsonans in this district.

But if voters change that status Nov. 4, as they certainly should, one result will be expansion of the Opening Minds through the Arts program.

OMA may sound touchy-feely, but it’s not. It hooks kids into mastering the three R’s as well as science, history, social studies and plenty more.

Kids in OMA classrooms do better academically than they did before – and better than their non-OMA peers.

That’s why Harvard University and other East Coast experts come to Tucson to study the program.

And it’s why OMA founder H. Eugene “Gene” Jones was given the prestigious Purpose Prize last year – and immediately plowed his $100,000 award back into the program.

Art works. OMA is proof.

Also proven is University High, ranked 13th-best public high school in the nation last year by U.S. News & World Report.

UHS brings together smart kids who pass a school admissions test and have good grades.

The concentration of focused, intelligent teens produces a synergy that spurs high achievement, notes Becky Eisenberg, a UHS recruiter and mentor program specialist who sent both of her daughters to this school.

University High also has crafted a culture that combines high expectations, demanding courses, topnotch teachers, strong leadership, diversity and a unified mission pursued by everyone in the school.

As of this week, the student body composition of 767 kids is 59.8 percent white, 21 percent Hispanic, 14.8 percent Asian-Pacific Islander (a category that weirdly includes kids from Pakistan, Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries), 3.6 percent African-American and 0.9 percent Native American. Give or take a half percentage point or so.

All these kids are from Tucson Unified or Altar Valley or Continental school districts, in keeping with a former federal desegregation order.

Kids from other districts aren’t allowed into University yet. But when the school grows, as district and school administrators anticipate, students from other districts could enroll, too.

“The popularity, success and ability to expand University High School are definitely assets to the district,” says Rudy Flores, chief operating officer at TUSD. “So we need to figure out how to support that.

“We will be looking at opportunities for expansion, whether on that campus or another.”

That seems fair, what with Catalina Foothills, Tanque Verde and Vail districts taking plenty of kids from TUSD.

An expansion would accommodate qualified students from Marana, Sunnyside and elsewhere who want to attend UHS.

I know, if my kid qualified, we’d move into TUSD pronto. Who wouldn’t?

University High’s 148 graduates this year raked in $15.8 million in scholarships.

Of 62 local high school seniors named as National Merit Scholarship semifinalists last month, 29 were from UHS. (Second was Catalina Foothills High, with 14.)

And four of the seven local seniors who won National Merit Scholarships in April were in University High.

So go ahead. Criticize TUSD if you must. But remember that this underfunded district has produced the only two public education programs to put the Old Pueblo on the national map.

If that’s not worth 35 cents a day, which is what the override would cost you, I don’t know what is.

Billie Stanton’s eighth-grader is in the wrong district for University High, darn it. Reach Stanton at 573-4664 or bstanton@tucsoncitizen.com.

Citizen Staff Writer
DENOGEAN COLUMN

The vitriolic illegal immigration debate of the last few years has left Latinos feeling hurt and angry, according to a recent poll of both citizen and non-citizen Hispanics.

The finding isn’t too surprising. It’s what happens when one class of people becomes a scapegoat for a nation.

According to the Pew Hispanic Center, which polled 2,015 Hispanic adults this past summer and released the results in September:

• Half of those surveyed said the situation for Hispanics is worse than it was a year earlier. Only 13 percent said it was better (the remainder said it was the same).

• Eight percent of native-born U.S. citizens of Hispanic descent said they had been stopped by authorities and questioned about their immigration status.

• One in 7 Hispanics said they had trouble finding or keeping a job because of their ethnicity. One in 10 reported that their ethnicity made it difficult to find or keep housing.

• More than two-thirds of those polled said they worry that they or someone close to them may be deported.

Angela Kelley, director of the Immigration Policy Center in Washington, D.C., said the results reflect “the sad story of our times, where the understandable frustration about the breakdown in immigration policy has really spilled out and over into our communities.”

You can’t tell by looking at someone whether they are an immigrant or native-born. Unfortunately, that reality has put the entire Hispanic population, numbering about 46 million nationwide, “in the cross hairs of ugly vitriol,” Kelley said.

“It’s very tricky to talk about it because there are legitimate questions that need to be debated, discussed and disagreed on related to immigration policy. Absolutely,” Kelley said.

“So, it’s not as if you are a racist because you are raising questions about undocumented workers and whether they affect American wages. Those are legitimate questions.”

But what has happened, she said “is that some folks are taking advantage of the frustration that the public feels and stoking hate and fears.”

Hate groups and hate crimes targeting Hispanics and immigrants are on the rise, she said, an assertion backed up by the research of the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Anti-Defamation League and FBI hate crime statistics.

The Immigration Policy Center has taken note of the spread of anti-Hispanic rhetoric from hard-core white supremacists and border state extremists to supposedly mainstream anti-immigration activists, media pundits and politicians.

Among its examples is a North Carolina sheriff who accused illegal immigrants of being “trashy,” “breeding like rabbits” and spreading a culture of drunkenness and violence.

In Arizona, immigrants get blamed for everything from destroying the public school system to causing traffic congestion on the streets.

Some of the ugliest rhetoric I’ve seen anywhere comes straight off the Tucson Citizen’s online comment line.

In January, when a 5-year-old Mexican girl was rescued by the Border Patrol after being abandoned by a smuggler in freezing mountain terrain, a commenter described the girl as a future breeder of “anchor babies.”

I’m not easily shocked but that one caused my jaw to drop.

In Friday’s column, I wrote that I wished the presidential candidates would discuss their plans for immigration reform. Such discussion is necessary, even if it rattles the cages of the extremists.

Kelley is hopeful that a renewed debate on the issue can be held at a civilized level.

What’s been missing, she said, is a president “who’s willing to take the issue on, call it out for what it is, be respectful of the policy components of it . . . but also denounce the heat and the opportunism by these groups that are sowing the seeds of anger.”

There is good news on that front, no matter who wins the election, Kelley said.

“I see in both of these candidates a strong potential for a leader that can teach us all how to talk about this issue, how to think about people who come from diverse backgrounds, of different immigration status, to really begin believing in ourselves as one nation again. . . .

“I think, quite frankly, either John McCain or Barack Obama can do it. Either because of their background in the issue or their own heritage, they’ve shown an understanding of it,” she said.

Anne T. Denogean can be reached at 573-4582 and adenogean@tucsoncitizen.com. Address letters to P.O. Box 26767, Tucson, AZ 85726-6767. Her columns run Tuesdays and Fridays.

ANNE T. DENOGEAN

adenogea@tucsoncitizen.com

Citizen Staff Writer
GIMINO COLUMN

Arizona could be 6-0. You know it. I know it. The oddsmakers know it.

The Wildcats have been favored in each of their first six games, which make those two losses they’re sitting on so disappointing.

I will say it would have been unrealistic to truly expect perfection at this point – this team isn’t good enough to survive the inevitable subpar games that happen to everybody – but, you know, 5-1 would not have been too much to ask.

Two wins, then a loss at New Mexico.

Two wins, then a loss at Stanford.

An unsatisfying dance step.

“I don’t think about it that much,” UA coach Mike Stoops said of being 4-2 after Saturday’s 24-23 loss to the Cardinal.

“We have let two good opportunities slip by. That’s how it is. We have not played good enough to win on the road. When you are still developing, you play better at home than on the road.

“That seems to be the case with us.”

If that’s the case, the good news is that Arizona has four of its final six at home.

Bad news is that the easy part of the schedule is over.

The Wildcats could have happily skipped their way to tangible progress in the win column, building a cache of good feeling that would have lasted all season. For details on this, check out Arizona State’s 2007 season.

Instead, Arizona is right back where it started.

The Cats appear to be, as originally projected, basically a 6-6, 7-5 team with the kind of young and inexperienced defensive line that gets you beat.

Perhaps that easy schedule, asked for and approved by Stoops, will end up working against him.

Sure, it helped the team start quickly – well, reasonably quickly – but it also changed the baseline of expectations to the point where a 1-point loss at Stanford was considered by the message board die-hards to be, among the milder adjectives, “freaking disgusting,” “unacceptable” and “pathetic.”

It was more like this: One average team fighting past another average team.

Question is, after UA’s happy 4-1 start, would a 6-6 season and any old bowl berth be acceptable?

Back to scrapping for the postseason, Arizona can get there without the late-season signature upsets for which it has become known. UA is better than two of the remaining teams on its schedule – Washington State and Arizona State.

The Cougars can’t beat anybody and are making a run at being the worst Pac-10 team . . . ever.

ASU is a mess, losing four in a row, including a 28-0 loss at USC on Saturday.

Wrote columnist Scott Bordow of the East Valley Tribune: “The Sun Devils’ frustration boiled over to their sideline. Wide receiver Nate Kimbrough had to be restrained from going after one of the assistant coaches in the second half.

“That’s what happens when 2-0 turns into 2-4 and an offense can’t throw a pass and chew gum at the same time.”

Who knows? By the time UA and Arizona State meet in Tucson on Dec. 6, the teams might, more or less, be on equal footing. But as it looks now, the Sun Devils are like all the other teams Arizona has defeated.

They lack the offensive line and the running game to exploit UA’s pups on the defensive line.

USC can do that.

Cal can do that.

Oregon can do that.

Oregon State can do that.

Those are four of the top five rushing teams in the conference. Stanford is the other.

No coincidence: The Cardinal ran for 286 yards against the Cats, doing it with a power back (Toby Gerhart), a slippery back (Anthony Kimble) and a third-string quarterback running the option (Alex Loukas).

It is not going to be easy for Arizona to beat a good, physical running team. But nobody said this was easy.

Taking the Wildcats at their word, they claim to be a closer, happier family than in recent seasons. Heading into the fanged teeth of adversity, now is the time to show it.

If it’s not already too late.

Anthony Gimino’s e-mail: agimino@tucsoncitizen.com

The Arizona Republic
ROBB COLUMN

In Congress, apparently two wrongs can make a right. The House rejected the bailout bill standing alone. The House rejected the tax bill standing alone.

But when the Senate combined the two, the combination passed the House with votes to spare.

The notion that giving Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson $750 billion to go on a shopping spree would restore “confidence” in the markets and all would be OK quickly dissipated.

The American economy is undergoing two large corrections, from overinvestment in housing and overborrowing in general. There’s nothing psychological about it.

Correcting for overborrowing necessitates that some people who want credit won’t get it and those who do get it will have to pay more for it.

The inevitable, and necessary, credit reduction has been made more acute and turbulent by accounting rules that require that mortgage-backed securities be booked not on their likely value held to maturity, but for what they could be sold for today.

The bailout is intended to relieve that by having taxpayers buy the excessively discounted MBSs. Equal if not greater relief could have been obtained, at no cost or risk to taxpayers, by simply suspending the accounting rule.

The Securities and Exchange Commission did relax the rule, but in a way that’s only marginally helpful. The SEC said that if there is a market, sales prices have to be used. If there is no market, then hold-to-maturity value can be booked. And if there is sort of a market, then a combination of factors can be considered.

In other words, it’s a “take-your-chances” rule, another element of uncertainty in circumstances where uncertainty is a major part of the problem.

Moreover, the Paulson shopping spree will undermine whatever relief the SEC provided. Using hold-to-maturity values is permitted only to the extent there is not a market setting prices.

But Paulson is going to create a market. And the first sales are likely to be from the most desperate sellers, so the prices are likely to be heavily discounted.

While the bailout is unlikely to fix the American economy, it may mark a turning point in the relationship between government and private business and thus in the character of the American political economy.

Many economic historians now believe that the Great Depression resulted from a conflation of large government errors: a contraction in the money supply of a third, and the adoption of protective tariffs and tax increases under Hoover.

The downturn was prolonged by inconsistent and hostile business regulation by Roosevelt, which kept private capital on the sidelines.

However, the searing public impression, and thus what is politically significant, is that capitalism careened out of control. That led to the belief that an activist government needs to put up guard rails for it.

The current economic problems are also likely to be seen in retrospect as resulting from a series of governmental mistakes:

• Too loose of monetary policy for too long creating a debt bubble

• Government favoritism for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stifling the development of a more risk-aware secondary market for mortgages

• An arbitrary and capricious initial reaction to the debt bubble bursting that scared off private capital

• And an overreaction to temporary spikes in short-term interest rates that created yet more uncertainty and unwillingness to deploy private capital.

However, the searing public impression, reinforced by the bailout, is that the American system of regulating finance primarily for disclosure failed, and therefore it has to be replaced.

If taxpayers are going to be on the hook for bad investments if they get large enough, then government, acting as the agent for taxpayers, has to try to make sure that there are no such large, bad investments.

Regulating the financial markets generally for prudence, rather than just institutions whose deposits are federally insured, is almost inevitable.

But that may be just the beginning.

The federal government now owns the two biggest mortgage finance firms in the country, as well as the biggest insurance company. The bailout law requires Paulson to take equity as part of the shopping spree.

Free markets require that competition determine outcomes. Government sets the rules of engagement but doesn’t take sides in the game.

Markets become distorted when private business and government become so entwined, intermingled and interconnected that government becomes more a player in the game than a referee.

In many ways, the United States is moving in that direction. The historical record in other countries suggests that it’s not a very productive way to organize a political economy.

Robert Robb, an Arizona Republic columnist, writes about public policy and politics in Arizona.

E-mail: robert.robb@arizonarepublic.com

Citizen Staff Writer
CARLOCK COLUMN

Editor’s Note: Judy Carlock’s review of the week’s news comes with a healthy dose of skepticism – spiced with a dash of cynicism.

I don’t want 200 people dying in my backyard every year, no matter what their immigration status.

If filling a few cattle troughs with water can save lives, I say do it. Especially since the county calculates it’s cheaper to provide desert water stations than to haul corpses out of the desert.

Two questions, though, for Pima County, which voted to approve the funds this week:

• Don’t you guys do a budget in the spring that’s supposed to take care of this stuff?

• And why do you want to give those poor people mosquito-borne West Nile disease?

The county does tell us to drain standing water. I did. Those little bloodsuckers are still swarming.

ABOUT THAT BORDER: Citizen columnist Anne Denogean pointed out Friday that our to presidential candidates haven’t had much to say about immigration.

Why should they? It brings out a lot of ugly emotions. At this point, John McCain and Barack Obama have no reason to bring up anything divisive.

McCain had my admiration two years ago when he clearly wanted realistic immigration reform more than he wanted to be president.

Now both candidates ignore it as a campaign issue. I don’t figure they’ll bring it up after the election, either.

They both leave southern Arizona to cope as well is it can. The view is different from Washington, D.C.

LOTTO LOVE: Do hard economic times make people smarter?

Maybe, given plummeting lottery revenues that are putting maintenance at the University of Arizona at risk.

Tight paychecks may be sharpening math skills of Arizona consumers: Fewer are playing a game they can’t win.

Then again, it’s also possible that lawmakers just want an excuse to stick it to state universities. Them fellas don’t cotton much to book learnin’.

MIXED MESSAGE: I’ve been learning more about Tucson Unified School District lately, due to my quest to become a certified high school teacher.

Brand-new Superintendent Elizabeth Celania-Fagen is bound to bring new energy to the sprawling district, which espouses excellence but often settles for average.

Fagen, at just 34, seems committed to raising that bar, through “reculturing” – building on strengths, steadily and realistically.

But meanwhile, this giant bureaucracy, which affects the lives of 60,000 students directly and many others, including parents and teachers, has difficulty recruiting school board candidates to set the policies the superintendent is supposed to follow.

There’s good stuff happening in TUSD schools. I hope she’s the leader who can pull the pieces together.

RUSH TO JUDGMENT: The story of an 18-year-old Tucsonan, a good kid who apparently died as a result of binge drinking at college, has many online comments condemning his intelligence, blaming parents for dumb partying choices and in general pointing the blame at Johnny Smith.

Of course this young man made bad choices. But how many other of us did that at 18?

Mercy seemed called for here, not a round of condemnation.

Plenty of people were kind and thoughtful in their comments.

Thanks for that.

People make mistakes, sometimes fatal ones. Personal responsibility matters.

But so does compassion, respect and sorrow.

Bye, Johnny.

We hardly knew ye.

Contact Judy Carlock at 573-4608 or at jcarlock@tucsoncitizen.com. For more on these stories, go to www.tucsoncitizen.com.

JUDY CARLOCK

jcarlock@tucsoncitizen.com

Citizen Staff Writer
GIMINO COLUMN

A Saturday smorgasbord of sense and nonsense: Just to make sure we’re all on the same page about the future of sophomore tight end Rob Gronkowski, I called Ron Rang, a senior analyst for the information-rich NFLDraftScout.com.

His first reaction upon being asked about Gronkowski?

“Superstar,” he said.

OK. We’re definitely on the same page.

Rang is spending most of his time breaking down senior prospects, but as he does so, it’s impossible not to notice talented freshmen and sophomores.

“Obviously, he is young, so he has to continue to be as productive as he has been and continue to get better,” Rang said of Gronkowski, who has five touchdown receptions in his two games this season.

“But he has the tools you’re looking for in a first-round-caliber tight end.”

Looking back at the NFL draft over the past 10 or 15 years, an average of about one-and-half tight ends are taken in the first round each season.

Rang rates Gronkowski as the top tight end in the draft class of 2011. But what if Gronkowski were eligible for the draft this season?

“This is a pretty good year for tight ends, so I would hesitate to call him a first-round pick,” Rang said. “Second-round starts to make some sense, just from the fact that you would want to see him a little bit more.”

This season’s strong group of senior tight ends include Oklahoma State’s Brandon Pettigrew and Missouri’s Chase Coffman at the top. Gronkowski’s older brother, Dan, is a potential mid-round pick. Dan plays for Maryland.

What about Mike T?

Arizona’s Mike Thomas is the shortest player among the best senior wide receiver prospects, listed at 5 feet, 8 inches. You know that’s going to hurt his draft stock, no matter how productive he is in college.

“I would see him as a mid-round prospect, and that assumes he runs well (in postseason workouts),” Rang said.

“The thing about him is that the guys who are drafted ahead of him aren’t going to be as polished as he is. The fact that he is returning punts helps.”

Thomas returned a punt for a touchdown last week against Washington and ranks 22nd nationally with a 14.31-yard average.

Stopping Gronk

Having Gronkowski split out wide near the goal line is a nightmare for opponents.

If a defender sets up to the inside, he gives Gronkowski the fade route.

Play him outside, and you give Gronk the slant – which he scored on twice against Washington. Give him double-coverage, and somebody like Thomas will beat you.

“In the last game, they played the safety and a ‘backer to Mike T,” said quarterback Willie Tuitama.

“That left Rob one-on-one with a linebacker or one-on-one with a safety. You can’t do that. I’m pretty sure we will start seeing a lot more true zone.”

How do you rate UA?

Let’s play a little good-cop, bad-cop regarding Arizona.

Bad cop: Arizona hasn’t accomplished much.

Its schedule strength is 133rd nationally, as ranked by USA Today’s Jeff Sagarin. That’s pretty bad considering there are 119 teams in college football’s top division.

Good cop: The Wildcats are (mostly) taking care of business against that weak schedule.

The 70 points against Idaho was the third-highest total in school history.

The 31-10 victory at UCLA was UA’s second-biggest win ever in Pasadena, Calif., over the Bruins. Last week’s 48-14 triumph was the school’s biggest victory ever over Washington.

More Gronkowski

OK, this is the last bit on Gronkowski, I promise.

Here is a quote I liked from tight ends coach Dana Dimel, who says Gronkowski’s success goes beyond his athletic ability. Gronkowski is able to quickly take lessons from the practice field and film room to Saturday game day.

“You can show some guys everything, but when you get on the field, it’s about processing,” Dimel said.

“And if you don’t have a guy who is a great processor, then all the coaching in the world doesn’t matter. He’s a great processor.”

Tomey-Tedy reunion

The New England Patriots played at San Francisco on Sunday, then stayed in the area to prepare for a game at San Diego.

San Jose State coach Dick Tomey offered his team’s facilities to the Patriots, if only to be able to spend some time with ex-UA All-American Tedy Bruschi, now in his 13th season as a Patriots linebacker.

“It was a no-brainer for me because Tedy is one of my absolute, all-time favorite people,” Tomey told the San Jose Mercury News.

The Boston Globe reported Tomey has the 1994 Sports Illustrated college football preview issue in his San Jose State office. That’s the “Rock Solid” cover that pictured Bruschi and defensive mates Tony Bouie, Jim Hoffman, Brandon Sanders and Sean Harris.

Bruschi was scheduled to talk to the Spartans after practice Friday – a rare move for Tomey.

“I don’t trust most people that they would say the right thing, no matter whether they’re some football coach or politician or president or whoever,” Tomey told the Boston Globe.

“Some coaches have every Tom, Dick, and Harry talk to their team. I don’t because I want to know that whoever it is is going to represent reality in the best way to the players, and I know (Bruschi) will.”

The envelope, please

Arizona has some clear advantages, especially in the passing game.

Stanford has had trouble, in particular, defending the deep pass.

What I like about the Cardinal, however, are its consistent physical play and persistence with the running game. Stanford is going to put up a fight, no matter what happens.

Arizona, I don’t think, has answered all the questions about its defensive line. New Mexico pushed around the Wildcats. The Cardinal could, too.

Stanford typically is aggressive on defense and could force UA’s Willie Tuitama into a couple of mistakes. Hearkening back to the New Mexico game again, Tuitama has to show he can make better reads and decisions in the face of pressure.

Arizona has more talent, but something bugs me about this game.

This is the kind of game UA has lost in recent years. Come out flat, make a couple of turnovers . . . and it all slips away.

Stanford 28, Arizona 27.

Anthony Gimino’s e-mail:

agimino@tucsoncitizen.com

Citizen Staff Writer

‘Satan in a bottle” is what Tucsonan Monya Ballah calls alcohol.

And with damn good reason.

The stuff is not only thought to be responsible for last weekend’s death of her grandson, Johnny Smith, but also killed her daughter, Smith’s aunt, in 2005.

Smith, a Desert View High School graduate and Wabash College freshman, was found facedown in a pool of vomit in the Delta Tau Delta fraternity house at the college in Crawfordsville, Ind.

The 18-year-old was pronounced dead at the scene.

Smith rarely drank at parties, once in a while had a beer or two, said cousin Eddie Brown, but wanted so badly to belong to the fraternity that he’d go to any length to fit in. The final length was his death.

Smith’s aunt – Glenda Denise Renaut, 38 – died in a fiery car crash that also killed her husband – Richard Pierre Renaut, 31 – and the family baby sitter, Jodie Lynn Samuelson, 31.

The three were seen leaving a bar before the collision, and sheriff’s investigators believe alcohol was a factor in the crash.

Richard Renaut was driving an estimated 70 mph when he swerved over the center line and head-on into a truck on West Lambert Lane west of Oro Valley.

The car burst into flames.

The three were burned beyond recognition and identified through X-rays.

Ballah, 64, said her daughter was planning to leave her husband, partly because he drank too much, once she finished her master’s degree later that year.

She never got the chance.

These folks aren’t the only ones not given a chance because of the often fatal grasp of alcohol.

Tucson has had six DUI deaths so far this year, police say.

And the nationwide toll last year was 12,998 deaths, according to the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration.

That’s more than 14 times the 900 students attending Wabash College.

Make that about 898, since Smith’s death and another freshman’s alcohol-related death last year.

Patrick Woehnker, 19, climbed atop and tumbled off a campus building. The coroner ruled alcohol a factor in his death.

Nationwide, about 1,700 college students ages 18 to 24 die every year in alcohol-related incidents, reports the National Institutes of Health.

That’s more than four deaths a day.

College drinking also leads to about 500,000 injuries and 70,000 cases of sexual assault or date rape every year.

No recent alcohol-related deaths have been reported at the University of Arizona. But that doesn’t mean students are not drinking.

A typical weekend ends up with a few UA students in the hospital with blood-alcohol counts of 0.40 percent, Ford Burkhart writes in the latest “Alumnus” magazine. A typical year includes about 1 percent, or some 370 students, kicked out of residence halls for serious alcohol or drug offenses.

“I am so angry,” Ballah said of her grandson’s death. “Johnny grew up in a household where he wasn’t around drugs or alcohol at all.”

UA has implemented some steps to limit excessive or underage drinking. Violators must enroll in a six-hour class that sets each back $100. Police plaster red tags on apartments of unruly students. Homecoming beer sales are restricted and monitored.

Very few students binge drink; those who do wind up with grades of D’s and F’s, warn posters put out by the Campus Health Service’s substance abuse program.

Perhaps a similar campaign should reach beyond campus boundaries. Every billboard featuring a bottle of vodka or beer next to suave men, glamorous women and a pristine beach should have a counterpart.

Show those same fine folks after a bar fight or car wreck.

Show people passed out on a heavily littered beach the morning of July 5. Coney Island needs bulldozers to clean up.

Moderation and common sense are the keys to drinking safely. But those are also the first things to go out the window once the booze starts flowing.

This wisdom won’t bring back Smith, his aunt or countless others dead because of alcohol, but it might save someone someday.

Artist, poet and Citizen reporter Ryn Gargulinski has seen too many lives destroyed by drink. E-mail: rynski@tucsoncitizen.com

——-

Tucson had six DUI deaths so far this year. And the nationwide toll last year was 12,998 deaths.

Citizen Staff Writer
DENOGEAN COLUMN

As I watched the presidential debate on television Tuesday night, I waited for the question that never came.

What are you – Sen. John McCain, Sen. Barack Obama – going to do about illegal immigration, about the estimated 12 million folks without legal status living in the shadows?

Just 15 months ago, comprehensive immigration reform was front and center on the national agenda. For obvious reasons, the economy – the Dow dropped 679 points Thursday, gasp – has taken center stage.

But immigration reform tumbled into the orchestra pit a long time ago, without anybody noticing.

Not only was the issue ignored in both presidential debates and the vice presidential debate, it has also largely been absent from the stump speeches of both candidates. With the exception of competing (and inaccurate) ads on Spanish-language channels, the candidates seem to have taken a vow of silencio on illegal immigration.

Tuesday’s 90-minute debate covered much of the same territory as the Sept. 26 debate. Is it too much to ask of the candidates that they move out of their comfort zones, away from talking points, and speak to some other issues of importance to Americans?

You know, the direction of public education, the selection of Supreme Court justices and, pretty please, illegal immigration?

To some degree, the break from the hostile and divisive debate over illegal immigration has been welcome. On the other hand, the problem doesn’t go away just because we stop talking about it. It is intertwined with too many other critical issues.

You can’t talk about a national health care plan without talking about what to do about millions of uninsured illegal immigrants, the cost of whose care now falls on the hospitals. You can’t talk about the economy without considering the negative and positive impacts of illegal immigrant labor. And you can’t talk about public education, as we in Arizona know too well, without a discussion of how to educate English Language Learner students while not breaking the bank.

Angela Kelley, director of the Immigration Policy Center in Washington, D.C., said she sees a lot of energy – and desire for solutions – on this issue at the local and state levels across the United States.

Americans are frustrated with Congress’ failure to pass reform and will be turning on the heat in the coming months, she predicted.

“I think America’s mantra on the issue is going to be ‘Fix it now,’ ” Kelley said.

During Tuesday’s debate, moderator Tom Brokaw asked the candidates to place their priorities in order of how they would address them as president. Neither candidate mentioned immigration.

But members of both camps claim their candidate is committed to addressing immigration reform during a first term.

“The fact that neither candidate is running with the banner in front of them, I’ll grant that point,” said Rep. Raúl Grijalva, the Arizona Democrat who advises the Obama campaign on Hispanic issues. “But the issue is the commitment, and I’m pretty comfortable that we’re going to deal with that thing in the first year.”

He said if McCain is elected, “we’re not going to deal with it.”

Mike Hellon, McCain’s southern Arizona campaign manager, said many issues aren’t being discussed right now, as everybody worries over the economy, but that doesn’t mean nobody is working on them. A McCain presidency would take on illegal immigration in its first term, with securing the border being the first order of business, he said.

“McCain will have to address it sooner and with more focus than Obama because of the political dynamics in our party,” Hellon said.

Prior to Tuesday’s debate, Kelley’s organization sent out a media list of immigration experts available to talk after the debate. Some on the list promised to take calls until 3 a.m.

Not surprisingly, those on the list were able to call it an early night.

The final debate, to be held Wednesday at Hofstra University on New York’s Long Island, is to be dedicated to domestic issues. Kelley said CBS newsman Bob Schieffer is moderating and has indicated illegal immigration will be among the topics.

So, Kelley’s group will send out its list of experts again.

They’ll sit waiting for someone to answer or ask a question.

And so will we.

Anne T. Denogean can be reached at 573-4582 and adenogean@tucsoncitizen.com. Address letters to P.O. Box 26767, Tucson, AZ 85726-6767. Her columns run Tuesdays and Fridays.

Citizen Staff Writer
GIMINO COLUMN

Arizona assistant football coach Jeff Hammerschmidt wakes up his laptop, clicks the mouse a few times and grabs the laser pointer.

He’s ready to explain how Mike Thomas scored on a 48-yard punt return against Washington last week.

The entirety of the play – from snap to touchdown – took 18 seconds.

But the story doesn’t start with Washington in punt formation from its 5-yard-line with 8:31 left in the second quarter.

It doesn’t start with game-week preparation. It doesn’t start with Hammerschmidt’s hiring as special teams coordinator last spring.

Much of coaching is the accumulation of passed-along knowledge, so who knows where these particular X’s and O’s had their origins, but for Hammerschmidt it started when he was at San Jose State last season.

“A coach from Menlo College, Fred Guidici, came in and said, ‘This is all we do, we run the wall,’ ” Hammerschmidt said. “That is what we did at San Jose State. It was very effective.”

The wall. That’s what Arizona does. A Lazer return sets up a wall of blockers to the left. A Rocket return sets the wall to the right.

“I’m sure everybody draws up that return. There’s no magic,” Hammerschmidt said.

“It is nothing but being the same. Over time, the guys know where to go. You just try to make it simple. I’ve learned during my time on special teams, if you change a little stupid thing, it just messes them up.

“You think it’s easy, but it’s not.”

• • •

The first thing is to identify players who fit the profile. Many of UA’s special teams aces in the past couple of decades have been players who – with all due affection – were a little crazy between the ear holes when they stepped onto the field.

Heath Bray. Donnie Salum. Paul Kasprzyk.

“You have to be a little bit reckless,” Hammerschmidt said. “You don’t have to be an over-thinker.”

Arizona is developing a couple of those kind of players, including sophomore defensive back Trevor “Tito” Foster, whose role is to set the first block of the wall.

“On special teams you can’t have fear. You just go out there and give it all you have,” Foster said.

“There are times when I have to go against guys who weigh 300-and-something pounds. I weigh a buck-ninety-one. It takes pure heart.”

Most of the personnel in the return game come from offense. The punt return team features five backup receivers – Derick Barkum, David Douglas, Joe Reese, David Roberts and Juron Criner.

“You see the importance of having depth in athletes behind our starters,” said head coach Mike Stoops. “That really helps.”

It helps to make it fun, too. Hammerschmidt gives away Crunch Bars for significant blocks, hits or tackles. He hands out PayDay bars for big plays.

He said that’s something he picked up from former UA head coach Jim Young, who was an assistant at Arizona from 1992-94 during Hammerschmidt’s first coaching stint at Arizona.

Seems to work as a motivational tool.

“It reminds them about things,” Hammerschmidt said. “Plus, the guys like them.”

• • •

Most of Arizona’s big returns this season have been on the Lazer return.

Thomas nearly had a touchdown off that against Idaho, but officials ruled he stepped out of bounds along the way.

“He didn’t step out,” countered Hammerschmidt.

Also in that game, Thomas fumbled a punt catch, but Marquis Hundley was there to pick up the ball. It’s no accident Hundley scored. Knowing the wall of blockers was to the left, he made a coverage man miss, then cut behind the wall for an 87-yard score.

Arizona’s scouting indicated a Rocket return would be best against Washington because the Huskies linemen to that side of the field were bigger and slower. Easier to block.

Arizona’s first return attempt was thwarted because the wind held up the punt. Thomas had to let it bounce.

On the Huskies’ second punt, Hammerschmidt called for pressure to come off the corners. The Arizona players who are supposed to block the gunners – the players split wide on the team punting the ball – came in close to the line and rushed the punter.

“We’re trying to get the punter uncomfortable,” Hammerschmidt said.

“Not so much to block it; our main thing is to return it. I think you always kind of have to make a decision – are you a block team or a return team? I think with Mike, we’re a return team.”

That little blitz might not sound like much. But one coaching decision is connected to another. Certain moves set up certain moves.

When the Huskies punted next, they responded to the previous rush by bringing their gunners in close to the line for better protection.

That forced Chris Stevens – UW’s most dangerous gunner – to chip block on a Wildcat before he released downfield. That half-second or so likely was critical.

This was a Lazer return because of where the Huskies were between the hash marks. As Thomas caught the ball on the right side of the field, Stevens still had the first shot to make the tackle, but Trevin Wade made the block and Thomas had a step.

“When Mike catches it right there, I know we have a pretty good chance,” Hammerschmidt said.

In that moment, frozen on the coaches’ game tape – which is shot from high atop Arizona Stadium – you can see the wall has formed.

Four players have peeled back to the left. They are supposed to sprint to the numbers, run up the field and then come back to Thomas. In a perfect scenario, they are staggered five yards up and five yards over from Thomas, like pieces set up diagonally on a checker board.

Thomas followed the script and took off to the left, retreating about nine yards to avoid a would-be tackler.

As he turned up field, the wall was doing its job. Orlando Vargas picked off Stevens, who had raced across the field. Joe Perkins shielded tight end Michael Gottlieb and two other Huskies.

Barkum blocked multiple guys closer to the goal line, including Quinton Richardson. He was the guy on the ground who Thomas hopped over to get into the end zone.

“You always see at least one questionable block,” Hammerschmidt said of punt returns. “This last one was clean as can be.”

Just like he drew it up.

• • •

Arizona ranks eighth nationally in punt returns, averaging 19.95 yards per attempt, with two touchdowns.

What the Wildcats do isn’t complicated, but Hammerschmidt is confident Arizona is adept at returning left and right, into the boundary or to the wide side of the field, making it dicey for opponents to load up one way or another.

Whatever way, he figures this will be a difficult week for punt returns. One of Stanford’s gunners is Wopamo Osaisai, one of the fastest athletes in the Pac-10.

Hammerschmidt knows. He coached at Stanford in 2006.

“He can’t even be double-teamed,” Hammerschmidt said. “When I was there and we were playing Cal, he beat double teams and stopped DeSean Jackson cold. So, who knows if we’ll have anything this week.”

It’s best to stay humble.

“I’m sure right now someone is writing up a fake against us,” Hammerschmidt said.

It’s that kind of thing that keeps him up at night. Opposing coaches are sleepless because of Thomas.

“Mike has a little bit of magic in him,” Hammerschmidt said. “The guys just stay on their blocks because they know he is going to make something happen. He gets the whole thing going.”

Anthony Gimino’s e-mail:

agimino@tucsoncitizen.com

Hard work by Wildcats pays of on returns

ANTHONY GIMINO

agimino@tucsoncitizen.com

Gimino

Continued from 1C

Citizen Staff Writer
KIMBLE COLUMN

PHOENIX – Well, there was some good news. When I looked up in the gallery, I didn’t see people climbing over the railing and throwing themselves to the floor 20 feet below.

But other than that, things looked grim as legislators and those hoping to be legislators gathered in the state House chamber last week to get a look at the state’s economy.

Actually, grim is too cheery a description. “If everything goes well, it will be a bad year” was economist Elliott Pollack’s view of 2009. If everything doesn’t go well, 2009 will be “terrible,” he added. “Good won’t be in the equation for 2009.”

So that’s the outlook: If things are good, it will be bad; if things are bad, it will be terrible.

Look back several months as people were deciding whether to run for the Arizona Legislature. Way back then, it probably seemed like an OK idea.

But on this day last week, not so much. As current legislators sat at desks on the floor of the House chamber, legislative candidates were invited to sit in the gallery, so they had some idea what a victory would net them.

The first clue of what lay ahead came as state Sen. Carolyn Allen, a Scottsdale Republican, gave the invocation: “Lord, we have problems in this state and in this great nation,” she said.

Well, that’s putting it mildly.

As Pollack, an economist at Arizona State University, spoke, he raced through a 147-page PowerPoint presentation. The title on each slide changed, but the squiggly lines on his graphs were pretty much the same.

Consumer spending on durable goods. Retail sales. Median price of resale homes. Mortgage equity withdrawal. Dow Jones stock prices. Savings rate.

It didn’t matter. There was a 15- or 20-year trend line with some moderate blipping up and down along the way. Then, near the right side of the graph, the blips got more exaggerated, followed by an unbroken downward jerk at the end.

A couple of charts were different, with an upward tick at the end. U.S. exports. Percentage of banks reporting tougher loan standards. Number of vacant homes for sale. Foreclosures.

Pollack did his best to make the presentation entertaining. There were some twitters and gasps when a slide titled “Predictable danger ahead?” showed a photo of a baby in a tiny washbasin scrubbing the head of an enormous reticulated snake that encircled him.

Only slightly less alarming was a series of charts showing that Arizona has plunged deeper in the financial well than much of the rest of the nation.

Through three decades and four recessions, Arizona has almost always had more jobs created than all but a couple of states. In three years, we were No. 1 in the nation. In 1988, when the savings-and-loan crisis hit, Arizona dropped to 38th. But within five years, we were back at No. 5.

As recently as 2006, Arizona was No. 2 in creating jobs. Then in 2007, we dropped to 22nd. So far this year, we’re at 46th – down there with Ohio and Michigan and the heart of the Rust Belt.

“Embarrassingly, we are doing worse than Cleveland,” Pollack said.

Phoenix is the economic engine of Arizona, but that engine has seized up. Phoenix is likely to have two consecutive years in which the number of jobs is lower than in the previous year – something that hasn’t happened since the Great Depression.

The gloomiest news was – no surprise – housing. During the first half of 2008, Pollack said, more than 4 of 10 resale homes sold had been foreclosed. In Phoenix, foreclosures leapt from 5,000 to 27,000 annually in two years.

Homebuilding has slowed to a crawl – down 60 percent in a year. But in 2010, Phoenix still will have 30,000 excess homes, Pollack said.

All of this means, of course, big problems for the state’s budget. The budget deficit may be $1 billion in less than nine months. A year later, it may be twice that much. Or more.

Those are problems the men and women on the floor of the House and in the gallery last week will have to fix.

Yes, it probably seemed like an OK idea to run for the Legislature back then. Now, not so much.

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 at mkimble@tucsoncitizen.com or 573-4662.

MARK KIMBLE

mkimble@tucsoncitizen.com

Sales tax revenue change, by sector

July retail sales

change total category from FY08 sales tax

General merchandise -4.8% 30%

Motor vehicles -28.8% 22%

Housing and furniture -10.6% 14%

Other -3.3% 34%

Source: Joint Legislative Budget Committee report

Syndicate
NAVARRETTE COLUMN

Elected officials always look for ways to celebrate Hispanic Heritage Month, which runs from Sept. 15 to Oct. 15.

This year, they have the unique opportunity to use what’s left of the month to right a wrong and honor an American hero who was stripped by bureaucrats of the recognition he deserves.

Congress and the White House should celebrate Hispanic Heritage Month – and the American spirit – by finally awarding the Medal of Honor to Sgt. Rafael Peralta.

A Mexican immigrant from Tijuana, Peralta entered the United States illegally when he moved to San Diego as a teenager. He joined the Marines on the day he received his green card.

Later, he became a naturalized citizen. He also became, in the words of one of his colleagues, “a Marine’s Marine” who was “all about taking care of his guys.”

For Peralta, there came a day when taking care of his guys called for a brave and selfless act, the sort of which usually makes one a shoo-in for the Medal of Honor: smothering a grenade to save the lives of others.

That’s what 22-year-old Marine Cpl. Jason L. Dunham did on April 14, 2004, in Karabilah, Iraq.

And what 19-year-old Army Pfc. Ross McGinnis did in Baghdad on Dec. 4, 2006.

And what 25-year-old Navy Seal Michael A. Monsoor did in Ramadi on Sept. 29, 2006.

And, according to top military officials and a half-dozen witnesses, that’s what 25-year-old Rafael Peralta did on Nov. 15, 2004, in Fallujah.

All four men died from their injuries. Dunham, McGinnis, and Monsoor were posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor. But Peralta was not, even though the Marine Corps, U.S. Central Command and Navy Secretary Donald Winter said he should be.

The reason: conflicting theories from a gaggle of military doctors. The Army pathologist who performed the autopsy insisted that a bullet fragment that struck Peralta in the back of the head “would have been immediately incapacitating and nearly instantly fatal” and prevented the Marine from executing “any meaningful motions.”

Four other doctors concluded that Peralta could have grabbed the grenade and tucked it into his chest, like a half-dozen Marines at the scene claimed he did, because the bullet fragment was traveling at such a “low velocity” that it probably didn’t kill him instantly.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates asked a civilian panel to review the case. It concluded Peralta didn’t deserve the Medal of Honor. Gates adopted that view.

There are those, including his family and some in the military, who insist that politics are at work here and that what hurt Peralta’s chances was the possibility that his wound came from ricocheted friendly fire.

Even if that were the case, it wouldn’t change what happened with the grenade. The issue is what damage the bullet fragment did, not where the fragment came from.

In the end, Peralta was awarded the Navy Cross, the second-highest decoration for combat valor. But, to Peralta’s family, it is a consolation prize.

The same goes for Peralta’s comrades in Alpha Company who have joined the fight to ensure that the Marine who saved their lives receives recognition for it.

Whereas once they fought armed insurgents in Iraq, they now battle arrogance and ignorance in Washington. The deck is stacked. But, being Marines, they’re in no mood to surrender.

Hopefully, neither is a bipartisan delegation of five members of Congress from southern California who recently stepped into the fray by urging the Pentagon to reconsider its decision and asking President Bush to intervene.

There is also support for Peralta in the Hispanic community, which is no stranger to the Medal of Honor. Hispanics have the highest ratio of recipients relative to their percentage of the population. They’ve received 42 Medals of Honor. The first three were awarded during the Civil War.

Meanwhile, Rosa Peralta hasn’t decided whether she’ll accept the Navy Cross because she and many others are convinced her son deserves much more.

If you read about this story (on Web sites such as www.rafaelperalta.org) and listen to the accounts of the Marines who were actually there – as opposed to bureaucrats and civilian boards that pretend they were – chances are you’ll also become convinced that Rafael Peralta was shortchanged.

But be warned. You will also become enraged – that a nation that owes such an incalculable debt to its warriors could treat one of them so disrespectfully.

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

Citizen Staff Writer
STANTON COLUMN

University of Arizona students and other young voters across the country stand ready to make history.

Their votes, along with the vicious attack ads of Sen. John McCain, well may cement a Democratic victory Nov. 4.

“Everywhere you go (at the UA), there are a ton of people walking around with Obama T-shirts, lapel stickers, you name it,” says James J. Jefferies IV, president of the UA Young Democrats.

Such visible support of Sen. Barack Obama is mirrored on many campuses, with Liberty University in Virginia serving as a notable exception.

There, Jerry Falwell Jr. is canceling classes on Election Day to bus his overwhelmingly Republican students to the polls, clearly an effort to push the state McCain’s way.

McCain will do quite well at UA, too, says Ry Ellison, president of UA College Republicans.

“We’ve had outstanding turnout at our meetings,” Ellison says. “And we can’t keep enough McCain-Palin bumper stickers.”

Among new young voters, including about 3,000 recently registered in a drive at UA, the majority this year have been Democratic.

“Historically, young people have tremendously undervoted, not because they’re lazy or don’t care, but because politicians didn’t speak to them about their issues,” notes former Tucson Mayor Tom Volgy, Ph.D., political science professor and executive director of the UA International Studies Association.

“Obama all of a sudden started speaking to them, and they responded very strongly.”

It’s not only what Obama says, but how he says it.

His campaign’s masterful use of technology – by Internet, text-messaging and online and telephone videos, for example – has been widely noted.

Now add the first-ever television station for a candidate (with the exception of Fox News for Bush/McCain, of course).

The Barack Obama Channel – which appeared as Channel 73 last week on Dish Network – broadcasts the candidate outlining his economic plan and ideas for health care reform along with his life story.

Such smart use of technology is appealing to today’s high-tech young adults, who surely also are attracted by Obama’s own youthful energy and interest in issues that affect them.

Perhaps most effective about this campaign, though, is its truly grass-roots approach.

Rather than telling people what to think, the Obama campaign has asked voters for ideas and used those insights. Such give and take may be unprecedented in U.S. politics.

No wonder the McCain campaign is concerned. If current polls are any indication, the Republican camp has reason to worry.

In unleashing negative attack ads, though, the McCain campaign may be making a major misstep.

The more negative the campaigns turn, the lower the voter turnout, Volgy notes.

“One of the primary functions of negative campaigning is to lower turnout,” he says. “So the nastier the campaigns get, the more people stay away.

“Democrats are going to have to walk this really tricky line between needing to respond and not going so negative that more and more people get turned off.”

Even negative campaigning may be unable to quell the enthusiasm and excitement among Obama supporters – including new voters, young voters, minority voters and all of us who have had it with the status quo.

Ultimately, by resorting to negative campaigning and smear tactics, the hopes and dreams that McCain destroys just may turn out to be his own.

Reach Billie Stanton at 573-4664 or bstanton@tucsoncitizen.com.

Citizen Staff Writer
DENOGEAN COLUMN

Unbelievable. Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and I share something in common. We don’t understand the mind-set of the Washington, D.C., insiders.

She doesn’t understand how Sen. Joe Biden, Barack Obama’s pick for vice president, could have voted for the war but now say he didn’t support it.

I don’t understand how Palin’s running mate, Arizona Sen. John McCain, can rail against socialized medicine while benefiting from it.

Last week, the Republican candidate for president had an interesting exchange with The Des Moines Register’s editorial board on the topic of health insurance.

A board member asked whether McCain has been covered his entire adult life by a taxpayer-financed health care plan – by virtue of being a veteran, a member of Congress and, now, a senior citizen.

McCain rambled a bit about not being an astronaut but still understanding the challenges of space. Huh?

Then he said he believes in the free market and allowing families to make the best choices for themselves, while Obama wants to create a huge health-care bureaucracy for America (McCain’s health care plan would provide tax credits to help people buy insurance. Obama would expand government-provided health care and require most employers to provide health insurance).

Finally, McCain returned to the question, throwing down the “I was a prisoner of war” card.

“The answer is that most of my life in serving my country, I have had health care. I did go a period of time when the health care wasn’t very good,” he added, a reference to his five-and-a-half years in the Hanoi Hilton.

With a smile and wink, he quickly closed the door on the more substantive question: Why do conservatives like him insist that socialized medicine can’t work, even when they know from personal experience that it does work?

Under the broad definition of the phrase, socialized medicine is any publicly funded health-care program. That would include the U.S. military’s TRICARE program, Medicare for seniors, Medicaid for the poor (in our state, the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System) and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (in our state, called KidsCare).

Tens of millions of Americans receive health care through these successful programs. Yet McCain and other free-market proponents insist that government isn’t the answer to the health-care crisis.

Well, for many Americans, the free market hasn’t provided the solution. Nearly 46 million Americans are uninsured, 80 percent of them belonging to working families.

A 2005 Harvard University study found that half the country’s personal bankruptcies were caused by illness and medical bills. The authors said all but the wealthiest Americans were just one serious illness away from bankruptcy.

Having a good education, a decent job and private health insurance offered no guarantee that a person wouldn’t be financially wiped out by illness.

Private health insurance, the researchers said, was like “an umbrella that melted away in the rain.”

Insured families were buried in unaffordable co-payments, deductibles and bills for uncovered items. And many of those with private health insurance at the beginning of their illnesses lost it when they became too sick to work.

As a nation, do we really believe that people should lose everything they’ve worked for their whole lives because they or a family member have the misfortune to become ill or suffer a disabling injury?

Do we believe some Americans are less deserving of health care than others?

Last month, the Tucson Citizen editorial board interviewed Al Melvin, the über conservative candidate for the District 26 state Senate seat. After he said he could see “socialized medicine rearing its ugly head,” I asked him about his health-care coverage. He’s covered by TRICARE because of his service in the Merchant Marine.

Isn’t that socialized medicine? I asked.

No, he said, “I earned it.”

Last fall, President Bush vetoed an expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, which covers the children of working-class families across America.

It’s too costly, he said, even though the bill for the program for five years was about the expense of six months in Iraq.

I didn’t and still don’t understand how taxpayers can afford to wage an unpopular war, at a projected total cost of $3 trillion, but we can’t afford health care for our children.

Today, just days after Congress passed the huge bailout bill, with the support of both McCain and Obama, I wonder how we can justify spending $700 billion to rescue the fat cats of Wall Street while refusing to help out the uninsured of Main Street.

Anne T. Denogean can be reached at 573-4582 and adenogean@tucsoncitizen.com. Address letters to P.O. Box 26767, Tucson, AZ 85726-6767. Her columns run Tuesdays and Fridays.

ANNE T. DENOGEAN

adenogea@tucsoncitizen.com

The Arizona Republic
ROBB COLUMN

Nothing seems to bring out the paternalistic instincts of the left these days more than payday lending.

The Arizona Legislature passed a law permitting the practice in 2000. The law, however, had a sunset provision and evaporates in 2010.

The industry got worried that the Legislature wouldn’t extend the law. So, it put Proposition 200 on the ballot, which extends the law without an expiration date while restricting certain industry practices.

Payday lending involves small loans (from $50 to $500) for a short period (five to 35 days).

The borrower gives the payday lender a check for the amount to be borrowed and, under Proposition 200, up to a 15 percent fee, to be tendered at some later date. The borrower walks out with cash.

It’s a terrible deal.

It’s not as bad as opponents depict it. Opponents take the maximum fee on a two-week loan, annualize it, and say that it’s an interest rate of 391 percent.

Under Proposition 200, those having a problem repaying the loan can have, at their option, a repayment plan of up to four months with no additional fee. In that circumstance, it would be an annualized interest rate of more like 36 percent.

Still, a terrible deal.

However, it’s an understandable transaction in dollars to those who make it. Get $200. Pay $230.

The question is whether state law should prohibit that transaction, as Proposition 200 opponents would like to see.

To get a payday loan, a borrower has to have a job and a checking account. As a practical matter, it’s a mechanism used by the lower middle-class, not the poor.

Opponents claim that payday lending is a debt-trap, that people end up owing much more than what they originally borrow. Nationally, according to the opposition’s literature, the average payday borrower pays “nearly $800 on a $300 loan.”

In Arizona, however, that’s a mathematical impossibility.

The practice opponents object to is rolling over the debt for an additional fee. So, a guy borrows $300 and owes $345. But he can’t pay it, so the lender extends it for another period for another $45 fee. And so on.

Arizona law already limited such rollovers to three times, so here the debt could never have become the multiple opponents claim.

And Proposition 200 would eliminate such rollovers entirely. The payback period could be extended, but no additional fee could be charged.

Payday loans are a very bad option. But there are not really many alternatives for small, short-term loans.

The industry is competitive. There are several national players and many local firms crop up wherever the practice is permitted. These days, that includes the vast majority of states.

There aren’t major barriers to entry. So, if money can be made by providing such loans for less, the door is wide open.

About 5 percent of Americans have taken out a payday loan. There’s scant evidence that their lot would have been better if denied that opportunity.

A study by two economists with the New York Federal Reserve Bank found that after Georgia and North Carolina abolished payday lending, bounced checks and Chapter 7 bankruptcies increased.

Opponents of payday lending tend to depict those in the industry as loan sharks, because of the very high interest rates they charge. However, if you don’t pay back a payday lender, he has to take you to court. If you don’t pay back a loan shark, he breaks your legs.

That’s an important difference. Creating legal opportunities for high-rate loans reduces the market for illegal ones.

No one makes anyone take out a payday loan. It’s a voluntary decision on easily understood terms.

Proposition 200 opponents think it’s a bad choice for lower middle-class people and want to make it unavailable.

If Proposition 200 opponents don’t like payday lending, they should channel their energy into stimulating and publicizing less-expensive alternatives for small, short-term loans.

However, this particular option, the payday loan, shouldn’t be taken away from those who want to use it.

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