Citizen Staff Writer
CARLOCK COLUMN

Judy Carlock catches us up on the week’s news – laced with attitude.

Are we bailed out yet? I keep counting zeroes, lopping them off and arriving at the same conclusion: $700 billion – 700 followed by nine zeroes – divided by 300 million Americans means every man, woman and child in the United States is supposed to fork over $2,300 to avert bank collapse and a long, deep depression.

I can see it. The phony Main Street vs. Wall Street ignores the reality that we all live in the same economy, one that depends on paper retaining an agreed-upon value. Wouldn’t matter if it were gold: That, too, has an agreed-upon value. The only really safe investment may be guns and ammo, which is what’s left when the social contract falls apart.

You want to see that soufflé collapse? I don’t.

Still, when the dust settles, I want my piece of the pie. If that turns out to be 6 square feet of overpriced real estate in downtown Detroit – I’ll take it.

BE AFRAID: What planet do University of Arizona faculty members live on? They spoke Wednesday of a “climate of fear” surrounding the admittedly scary-sounding UA Transformation Plan.

A proposal from UA President Robert N. Shelton and the provost calls for drastically cutting administrative costs by centralizing business and administrative processes among colleges and departments.

Most academic units have their own business and administrative staff, according to Tucson Citizen coverage of Wednesday’s meeting.

Professor Ute Lotz Heumann spoke against such consolidations, citing his experience in Germany.

“I believe that you will find within five years, if you have these centralized units, faculty will be doing their own work,” he said.

Well, yeah. And plenty of professionals have found themselves doing clerical work to deal with cost-cutting. Even at the Citizen.

You want to know about fear, work for an afternoon newspaper.

LIFE IN THE BIKE LANE: Two fatal bicycling collisions, one that killed a 14-year-old boy, were in the news this week. Kevin Barajas-Robinson was hit on his way to school by an Amphitheater Public Schools bus. His mother seeks $15 million from the Amphi district.

The bus driver wasn’t cited in that case, and neither was the driver of a Saturn in the Sept. 27 death of George Goode, 46, on North First Avenue.

Bicyclists might as well assume they’re invisible, even when they have the right of way. In a collision with a car, let alone a school bus, the bike riders will always lose.

It’s not fair. It’s physics.

A HEARTBEAT AWAY? Vice presidential candidates Joe Biden and Sarah Palin had at it in a debate Thursday and, as with John McCain and Barack Obama, no embarrassing gaffes gave the mainstream media anything to cackle about.

Dignified debates may not make for sizzling TV, but along with newscasters offering (some) post-event fact-checking, viewers get information along with the party politics and prattling pundits.

I’ll take either slate, if we can just move up the inauguration.

FUN AT THE FIREHOUSE: Sigh. The city fire chief heads a big bureaucracy, so I guess it matters how he feels about the rights of transgender people. But before I read this week’s article, it never occurred to me to question a firefighter’s sexuality.

Like, someone’s about to save my life and I’ll worry whether their plumbing is original equipment?

I call 911, I’ll take what I get. And trust he or she is the best person for the job.

Judy can be reached at 573-4608 or jcarlock@tucsoncitizen.com.

For more on these stories, go to www.tucsoncitizen.com.

Citizen Staff Writer
GIMINO COLUMN

A Saturday smorgasbord of sense and nonsense: Fans have asked in the comments section of newspaper articles and on message boards this week about the last time Arizona was such a big favorite against a Pac-10 team.

The Wildcats, who opened Sunday night as an 18-point favorite over Washington, have been darlings of the bettors all week. As of Friday afternoon, the point spread was up to 23 points.

Not to encourage betting behavior (no, no, never, never), but since the question was asked and we aim to please, here is the answer:

A long time.

Well, OK, to be more specific, the last time Arizona was considered so superior to a Pac-10 team was, as you might suspect, back in the fabulous 1998 season.

I found two betting-line sources for the Nov. 7, 1998, game against Washington State, when UA was favored by either 23 1/2 points or 24 points.

For the record, Arizona won 41-7.

So, it’s been nearly 10 years since the Wildcats were this kind of a favorite. But what if the line for Saturday’s home game against the 0-4 Huskies moves even higher? This point spread might get really historic.

The Wildcats were such a low-scoring team for much of the 1990s that they never became huge betting favorites against conference foes. There is not another case in the 1990s when Arizona was favored by 24 points or more.

Anything earlier than that is going to involve some serious time in the archives.

Safe to say, this is rare territory for Arizona.

Chalk it up to a combination of UA’s sometimes-explosive offense and a woeful Washington team that is without star quarterback Jake Locker.

Now, the Cats have to deliver amid high expectations.

UA wanted Rodgers

Oregon State true freshman running back Jacquizz Rodgers was the toast of college football last week, scorching USC for 186 rushing yards and two touchdowns in an upset of the No. 1 Trojans.

Do you know which school gave him his first scholarship offer?

Yep, Arizona.

According to an old Rivals.com story, the Wildcats offered Rodgers late in his junior season, which was even before coach Mike Stoops made a change in offensive coordinators to Sonny Dykes, hired from Texas Tech.

Rodgers, from Richmond, Texas, ended up with staggering high school numbers – including a state record 136 touchdowns – but his height (5 feet 7 inches) and lack of blazing speed didn’t interest many of the really, really big schools.

Dykes knew Rodgers – shifty and a good pass-catcher – would be superb in his brand of one-back spread offense.

“He’s more quick than fast, and that scares off some teams,” Dykes said.

“But, shoot, I loved him on film. He’s as good as I’ve seen coming out of high school for this system. He didn’t look like Adrian Peterson or anything, but he looked like a good one-back back.

“Those kind of guys are hard to find.”

Arizona ended up with freshman running back Keola Antolin, who fits the Rodgers mold. He’s 5-8 and shifty.

Antolin hasn’t had much of a chance yet to show what he can do in the backfield. He’s behind starter Nic Grigsby and has been slowed by a toe injury.

“I’m anxious to get Keola back because I think he gives us a little bit of the same dimension (as Rodgers), where he can maneuver his way through things,” Dykes said.

“And he runs harder than you think he does. I think they’re pretty similar.”

Willingham almost gone?

I haven’t seen a coach at Arizona Stadium with this little job security since UA’s John Mackovic strolled onto the field against TCU on Sept. 27, 2003.

He was fired the next day.

That’s probably not going to happen Sunday to Washington’s Tyrone Willingham – he has supposed administration support through the end of the season – but the countdown is on.

Willingham is 11-29 in his fourth season at Washington and can’t catch a break.

The Huskies were a promising 4-2 in 2006 when quarterback Isaiah Stanback, playing at an all-league level, was lost for the season with a foot injury. UW finished 5-7.

This season’s schedule was simply too much. Washington opened at Oregon, then played BYU and Oklahoma. Then, Locker broke his thumb last week against Stanford.

When the dust settles, Washington will begin the 2009 season with its fifth coach in 12 seasons.

Pac has bad rep

Oregon State squandered a late lead at Utah on Thursday night, losing 31-28 and dropping the Pac-10′s record against the Mountain West to 1-6 this season.

That helped cement the Pac-10′s lousy reputation this year, with little chance to rehabilitate it. There are only four nonconference games left, three against Notre Dame.

One of those is Saturday when Stanford plays in South Bend. Stanford is more consistently physical than the Irish, but one of the improvements in Notre Dame this season is the ability to throw deep, which is a Cardinal weakness.

Edge: Notre Dame.

Notre Dame will play at Washington on Oct. 25 (another edge to the Irish). The Irish are at USC on Nov. 29 (hey, the Pac-10 can win this one!), and Washington State is at Hawaii on Nov. 29.

Let’s call that one a toss-up for now.

The envelope, please

A member of the Seattle media told me Friday that “you will not believe how bad the Washington defense is.”

The Huskies are last nationally in passing efficiency defense and tackles for loss, and second-to-last in total defense. They rank 116th out of 119 teams in rushing defense and 114th in scoring defense.

They are the only team in the country without a sack.

Beyond that, they have only one punt return all season – for a loss of 1 yard.

Arizona, in its last game, let UCLA hang around a little too long before winning 31-10. The Wildcats have the ability to be more definitive against the Huskies from start to finish.

Let’s just call it a comfortable 35-14 victory.

Anthony Gimino’s e-mail:

agimino@tucsoncitizen.com

Citizen Staff Writer
DENOGEAN COLUMN

The Beijing of Tucsonan Chi Newman’s memories “is like no other place in the world.” Though it’s been six decades since Newman called China home, she remembers vividly the details of a charmed childhood.

She and her twin sister, Lu, the daughters of a high-ranking official, were raised in a lavishly decorated home of many courtyards, tended to by a cadre of servants and educated in French and English at an exclusive Catholic school.

They played in private gardens while swans glided around a man-made pond. In the wintertime, they nestled in the warmth of their beloved father’s long, blue cape as he told them stories about Chinese history in his outdoor library.

It all ended abruptly in the late 1940s when the communists seized power.

But Newman, now in her 70s, has never forgotten the misty and colorful Beijing dawns and the city coming to life each day to the music of roosters crowing, dogs barking and street vendors peddling their goods.

Prodded by family and friends, Newman has written her life story and self-published it as a memoir, “Farewell My Beijing: The Long Journey from China to Tucson,” through Wheatmark, a Tucson-based publisher. She has sold several hundred copies since the June publication.

In the memoir, she described the beginning of the end of her life in Beijing,

The twins had moved back and forth between the worlds of their beautiful home and French school, largely insulated from the turmoil of the Chinese civil war.

But one day, when their parents were away, the girls were in the entrance courtyard playing with a ball when they heard banging on the front gate.The girls opened the gate to find 50 to 60 young men carrying their belongings on their back.

“They shouted and pushed while they forced themselves into the courtyard. ‘We know you have a large house with many gardens. We are poor peasants and have no place to live, so we are moving in,’ they shouted at us,” Newman wrote. “The garden was dark with young bodies. They filled every space in the garden and then moved into our beautiful house. Dirty feet trampled over Oriental rugs. Jade, cloisonné and lacquered screens were pushed aside to make room for more and more people. We were terrified and held on to each other as we watched them.”

Later, a servant took the girls to the school, “where Mother Superior calmed our fears and took us to the chapel to pray.”

Just a few months hence, shortly after the twins turned 13, their parents arranged for the girls to be flown out of Beijing to an aunt in Nanjing.

“All I can remember is they woke us up about four in the morning. Mother Superior was there, too,” Newman said in an interview this week at her Northwest Side home. “They gave each of us a suitcase. I can remember how cold and scared we were. I can remember their disappearing figures.”

She would never see her father again and would reunite with her mother only briefly before her mother’s death. Newman said she knows little of what became of her parents after the communists came to power, only that they may have gone into hiding in the south of China and that her mother’s worldly possessions at the time of her death fit into one suitcase.

The twins stayed for a couple of months with their aunt before being sent to live in Taiwan. Now blossoming into beauties, they added three years to their ages for employment purposes.

Lu found a job with China Airlines. Chi was hired as a secretary at the French embassy.

For the first time, Newman lived on her own. She was ferried to the office in a chauffeur-driven car, worked with handsome Frenchmen and smoked Gauloise cigarettes.

She spent most of her salary on tailor-made dresses of silk and brocade and handmade shoes to match, at least until a co-worker persuaded her to put away 60 percent of her pay in a safe at the embassy.

She dated a Chinese pilot, followed by a dashing but jealous American. After she broke it off with “Jack,” he introduced her to another American, Dick Newman, who would become her husband. They have two children.

Dick Newman spent a career as a administrative and financial manager with the U.S. State Department and, later, with the World Health Organization. His work took his family around the world: Paraguay, Uganda, Bolivia, Chile, Brazil, Guatemala, South Africa and Barbados.

Dick Newman said wives of diplomats play very important roles in their spouses’ careers. His superiors didn’t rate just him each year. They also rated his wife’s performance, he said.

“The wife has to be able to entertain because diplomats have to mingle,” Dick Newman said.

Chi Newman, who speaks five languages, excelled at her hostess duties. She learned to cook and took up tennis and bridge. Adherence to the Chinese principle of “never lose face” served her well, she said.

But the life of a diplomat’s wife wasn’t all bridge tournaments and dinner parties.

While serving in Guatemala, Dick Newman was kidnapped at gunpoint by Marxist guerrillas. They held him for eight week in a series of small rooms with little light. Chi Newman put on a brave face in public during the ordeal but let the tears flow in private. She didn’t know if he was dead or alive until his captors sent a photograph and cassette.

After Dick Newman’s release, the couple recuperated in Tucson, cementing his desire to retire here.

“We specifically chose Tucson because we were looking for a hot climate, a mixed ethnic group, to be able to speak Spanish and because of the beautiful sunsets,” Chi Newman said

Their home is decorated with the treasures of their travels, including a wall of miniature doors from each country they’ve lived in. Chi Newman loves doors because they hold secrets. I asked what secrets she had learned about people as a self-proclaimed “citizen of the world.”

“I think human nature is alike all over the world,” she said. “We might have different cultures and different ways of doing things. But it you go down deep into the heart, we are all the same.”

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

To purchase a copy of the book, which sells for $14.95, call Chi Newman at 742-0120 or Wheatmark at 798-0888.

Citizen Staff Writer
KIMBLE COLUMN

I know it’s early, but I’ve already decided to collect signatures for an initiative on the 2010 Arizona ballot.

The name of the initiative is set: The Free Cookies for All Act.

What’s the initiative about? Who cares? I haven’t decided yet. I have the title, so I’ll come up with the initiative later.

It won’t have anything to do with cookies. Or with free stuff. But The Free Cookies for All Act is a catchy name, and I’m sure people will vote for it once I send out literature that includes the name of my initiative.

Maybe it will be an initiative on property taxes. Or smoking. Or gay marriage (that seems to be a regular thing). Maybe something to do with illegal immigrants.

It doesn’t really matter. The title is all that counts. People will hear about free cookies, and who could possibly be opposed?

Sadly, there is no Free Cookies for All Act on next month’s general election ballot. But there are a bunch of propositions that are similar: The name of the measure is designed to tweak your interest and keep you from digging deeper into the real meaning of what you’ll be voting on.

In most cases, it’s outright dishonesty. Supporters of the propositions know they are peddling an unpopular cause, so they slap on a misleading label and hope that does the sales job.

Arizona is hardly alone in permitting this – but we do it better (or worse) than anyone else, one expert in the field says.

“Arizona has one of the worst systems in the nation for selecting titles,” said Joel Foster. He is deputy executive director of the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, based in Washington, D.C.

But Joe Kanefield, Arizona state elections director, says it’s not his fault. He agrees some initiative titles are misleading – but he says the state constitution prevents him from doing anything about it.

“They are required to have a title,” Kanefield said of initiatives. But the state constitution “doesn’t specify whether the title has to be accurate.”

Take a look at some of the initiatives on this year’s ballot. Clearly accuracy was not a paramount concern when a title was chosen:

• Prop. 101 is Medical Choice for Arizona. But it actually would limit some possible future medical choices.

• Prop. 105 is Majority Rules – Let the People Decide. The initiative would actually allow people who don’t vote to decide. Propositions that involved spending money would have to win the support of a majority of all voters – not just all voters who vote. The majority who voted wouldn’t get to decide.

• Prop. 200 is the real doozy. It’s called the Payday Loan Reform Act. But the only real reform it includes is allowing payday loan operators to stay in business instead of being forced to close shop, as current law requires. Payday loan operators knew they wouldn’t stand a chance calling their initiative the Payday Loan Preservation Act, which would have been accurate.

• Prop. 202 is called Stop Illegal Hiring. But it makes changes to the state’s employer sanctions law – which has stopped a lot of illegal hiring – to make it less stringent.

There is a common goal. The idea is to come up with a title that elicits a positive response. Yes, we want payday loan reform! Yes, we want medical choice! And yes, we want illegal hiring stopped!

The tobacco industry is the recognized expert in initiative obfuscation – in Arizona and elsewhere. In 2006, the industry placed and financed the Arizona Non-Smoker Protection Act. It didn’t protect nonsmokers. It would have allowed smoking in many indoor places – but was defeated by the more strict Smoke Free Arizona initiative placed by the health care industry.

Foster, of the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, says Colorado does it right when it comes to the titles of ballot initiatives. There are public hearings to gather views on the accuracy of titles and an appeal process before a final decision is made.

“Arizona really should consider some reforms,” Foster said, “to make titles as clear or as unambiguous as possible.”

That would require a change to the state constitution, Kanefield said. And that would require – of course – a ballot initiative. And a title.

Maybe that’s what should be called The Free Cookies for All Act. Use a misleading title to prohibit the use of misleading titles.

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

MARK KIMBLE

mkimble@tucsoncitizen.com

Citizen Staff Writer
STANTON COLUMN

If a federal officer manhandles, handcuffs and arrests a woman way out in the desert, what’s a gal to do? Pay the small fine and slink away?

Not if you’re Kathryn Ferguson. Not if you’re one of those courageous activists who regularly put themselves in harm’s way to save lives.

Ferguson was headed to federal court Tuesday when the government dropped the misdemeanor charge of “creating a nuisance” that had been filed against her after a bizarre incident Jan. 11.

Although pleased by the dismissal, Ferguson still is appalled by the actions of federal officials on a roadside outside of Arivaca as well as the U.S. marshals who fingerprinted her in Tucson.

The well-known dance teacher has volunteered for five years with Samaritans, doling out water, food and medicine to save the lives of illegal immigrants – hundreds of whom die in our desert each year.

“Kathryn has more experience in the field for Samaritans than anyone else. Anyone,” says Bill Walker, the group’s pro bono lawyer. “She’s never had an altercation with any law enforcement officer of any type. There’s never been a complaint against her.”

So sitting in a Samaritans car Jan. 11 with another volunteer and that woman’s 12-year-old son, Ferguson didn’t worry when three men parked a truck behind them.

But the men, in plainclothes, soon demanded identification and explanations.

Ferguson said that when she asked for their names, agencies and badge numbers, a man later identified as Bob Ruiz of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, hit her in the chest, shoved her against the truck, handcuffed her and detained her for about 1 1/2 hours.

“She was traumatized by this,” says Walker, who has photographs of Ferguson’s bruises. “Every time we’d have to meet with her witness (pretrial), she’d be in tears by the time we were done. She was severely shaken.”

Ferguson says her fear kicked in after the incident in the desert, and she spent two weeks sleeping with every light on all night.

Even worse than that encounter, she says, was the rude and vulgar treatment she endured when sent to be fingerprinted by U.S. marshals, who screamed at her repeatedly and unexpectedly put her in a cell for 15 or 20 minutes.

Both instances surprised her.

Given the repeated instances of federal charges being filed against Samaritans and then dismissed, is a lawsuit or administrative complaint in order? Ferguson is considering such options.

Walker, meanwhile, says most Border Patrol and other federal agents are humane and “don’t have an ax to grind” with Samaritans.

The failure is the government’s lack of “any kind of policy recognizing we’re the good guys and we’re doing good work,” he notes.

The lawyer, like many others, is hoping that when a new federal administration takes over next year, whether Republican or Democratic, a sane policy toward humanitarians in the desert finally may be put in place.

Until then, people such as Ferguson will keep battling such challenges to their work.

It’s not Samaritans policy. But it’s clearly Samaritans principle.

Billie Stanton knows humanitarian aid is never a crime. Reach her at bstanton@tucsoncitizen.com and 573-4664.

BILLIE STANTON

bstanton@tucsoncitizen.com

Syndicate
NAVARRETTE COLUMN

America’s largest minority is a paradox. Latinos have a reputation for being fatalistic. Yet many, especially immigrants, also share an entrepreneurial belief that people chart their own destinies.

The result is 46 million Americans – 15 percent of the U.S. population – who vacillate between pessimism and optimism.

At the moment, pessimism has the upper hand. According to a new survey from the Pew Hispanic Center, Latinos in the United States are increasingly gloomy about their own situation, the economy and their prospects for future success.

That is true of many Americans. However, it’s precisely because Latinos – as with other groups with a strong immigrant tradition – are known for being optimistic and overcoming obstacles that a surge of pessimism should be taken seriously. Imagine what other groups typically less optimistic are going through.

Many Latinos say they are being picked on, discriminated against and turned into scapegoats. They have been blamed for crime, crowded schools and overburdened hospitals. Now they’re supposedly responsible for traffic congestion, pollution, global warming and the Wall Street financial crisis?

A reader who usually complains about how Latinos are changing the culture suggested a novel theory for the banking meltdown. The main cause, he said, was “loans to Hispanics who could and would not pay their mortgages.”

That’s odd. From what I’ve seen – including a story on CBS’ “60 Minutes” – most of the folks who are handing over house keys and deserting bad mortgages don’t look Hispanic.

Besides, all this blame heaped on Latinos makes you wonder what non-Latinos have been doing with their time. Haven’t they contributed anything to America’s problems? Can’t they be more productive?

It is little wonder that half of Latinos surveyed said that the Latino condition in the United States was worse now than a year ago.

In last year’s survey, a third felt that way. Nearly 10 percent of Latinos polled said they had been stopped by police or other authorities and questioned about their immigration status, including 8 percent of U.S.-born Latinos who shouldn’t have to put up with such harassment.

Nearly 15 percent claimed it had been difficult to get or keep jobs because of their ethnicity; 10 percent said the same thing about housing. And 57 percent of Latinos said they worried that a friend or relative would be deported.

This last figure seems high and, for many, it will reinforce the stereotype that most U.S. Latinos are undocumented. The Pew Hispanic Center made a point of not asking foreign-born respondents about their legal status. As a result, the sample may include a disproportionate share of illegal immigrants.

That may also explain why a majority of those surveyed opposed workplace raids and the criminal prosecution of illegal immigrants. According to Pew, a majority – 53 percent – even opposed the more innocuous practice of businesses attempting to electronically verify the legal status of workers.

I find this troubling. The Hispanic community always has put a strong emphasis on law and order. That is a tradition to be proud of, and it must not be compromised just because some Latinos favor an open border and won’t accept that illegal immigrants are breaking the law.

So what does the fact that so many Latinos are unhappy portend for the presidential election? It could be bad news for John McCain, the survey suggests.

About a third of Latinos say that the immigration issue will influence how they vote; 50 percent said Barack Obama was the better candidate for immigrants, while just 12 percent said that about McCain. Sixty-six percent of Latinos back Obama, and just 23 percent support McCain.

Others polls show more enthusiasm for McCain among Latinos. Experts insist that McCain needs 35 percent of the Latino vote to have a chance to win.

If McCain’s problems with Latinos go beyond illegal immigrants who can’t vote to include U.S. citizens who can, the Republican has miles to go – and not long to get there.

So should McCain give up on winning over Latinos? No way. He should be optimistic and channel that optimism into his message.

By doing that, he could connect with Latinos – and, at the same time, help them reconnect with the hopefulness that brought them to this country in the first place.

Ruben Navarrette Jr. is a columnist at The San Diego Union-Tribune. E-mail: ruben.navarrette@uniontrib.com

The San Diego Union Tribune

Gannett News Service
RAASCH COLUMN

The battles in Congress over a massive government bailout of the nation’s financial system have offered fresh insights into how Barack Obama and John McCain would work with what is likely to be a strengthened Democratic Congress in 2009.

In Friday night’s debate, but especially in the acrimonious negotiations in Congress in the days preceding, McCain essentially came across as a potential president with no permanent allies, even in his own party.

His decision to get involved with the negotiations over the proposed $700 billion economic bailout plan exposed conservatives’ unease with their party’s presidential candidate.

Obama, by contrast, embraced – and was embraced by – Democrats in Congress.

“Obama would be able to govern with a unified party behind him, while McCain would have a more difficult time keeping his party in hand,” said Jon Bond, a political scientist at Texas A&M, who has studied Congress and the presidency. “The conservatives in the party have never really trusted McCain.”

Paul Erickson, a Republican strategist who backed McCain rival Mitt Romney in the primaries, predicted that a McCain presidency “will launch a civil war within the Republican Party, the skirmish lines of which began to emerge during the primaries.

“The day after McCain’s inauguration, every party member will have to decide if they are a Republican or a conservative,” Erickson added. “Because McCain will, on an almost daily basis, adopt positions which will be identified as Republican based upon his affiliation, but which will bear scant resemblance to the tenets of Reaganism.”

McCain’s advisers and defenders argue that is precisely why McCain would be more effective than Obama in the hostile, partisan environment in Washington.

Democrats are likely to increase their majorities in the House and Senate in the November elections. But conservative Republicans, especially in the House of Representatives, proved in the debate over the bailout that they will demand attention from the next president.

Democrats accused McCain of jumping in the middle of deliberations and derailing a bailout agreement just when it appeared ready.

But McCain’s advisers said the Arizona senator recognized that Congress was more divided than its leaders realized and his presence at a White House meeting Thursday prompted disparate parties to move toward an agreement that would be more likely to get congressional approval and be more palatable to more Americans.

“What Sen. McCain is absolutely critical in doing is getting everyone together at the table,” McCain senior adviser Steve Schmidt said. He argued that McCain listened in the White House meeting while Obama launched a “five-minute soliloquy that soon erupted into chaos.

“Welcome to the Obama White House, I suppose,” Schmidt said.

But Obama senior adviser David Axlerod accused McCain of rapidly changing positions on the financial crisis, moving from saying that the fundamentals of the economy were strong and then, days later, suspending his campaign to jump into the deliberations over a bailout.

By contrast, Axlerod said, Obama “didn’t try to insert himself into the middle of that to turn it into a political spectacle.”

Chuck Raasch is political editor for Gannett News Service. E-mail: craasch@gns.gannett.com. For his Furthermore blog, see this column at www.tucsoncitizen.com/opinion.

Citizen Staff Writer
DENOGEAN COLUMN

This native Tucsonan rarely suffers from Phoenix envy. But I felt a pang of it earlier this month while reading an Arizona Republic story about the Valley’s near ready-to-roll light rail system.

In just three months, the $1.2 billion system will become operational with a first-phase route of 20 miles of track running through Phoenix, Tempe and Mesa.

You? Me? The rest of metropolitan Tucson? We’ll still be stuck in our cars at 5:23 p.m. at Grant Road and Campbell Avenue, sitting through the red light for the third time, leaving us plenty of time to contemplate how the once lovely Old Pueblo devolved into the Old Pothole.

Truly bummed by the signs of progress being shown by our neighbor to the north and, more to the point, by our corresponding lack of progress, I sought out the wisdom and commiseration of state Rep. Steve Farley, Tucson’s leading (only?) transportation visionary.

The Tucson Democrat, however, was upbeat.

“The good news is that we can still do this,” Farley said. “I don’t think that we’re that far behind Phoenix. We are actually in good shape in that we didn’t go ahead and build miles and miles of freeway, which are quickly becoming too expensive to be used.”

He reminded me that Tucsonans approved, as part of the 2006 Regional Transportation Authority plan, our own version of a light rail transit system.

The RTA plan, you may recall, included a $150 million modern streetcar system. When operational, the streetcar service will run on a four-mile route that will start near University Medical Center, pass through the University of Arizona campus, traverse University Boulevard and Fourth Avenue, go through the Fourth Avenue underpass, and head west on Congress Street, ending on the west side of downtown.

The project is awaiting $75 million in federal funding, which has been approved by Congress but not yet appropriated. If all goes well, the goal is to have the system completed by 2011.

Now, admittedly, this is light rail on a small scale – light rail-lite. But it might help to think of it as a pilot program, a test of light rail for Tucson.

And Farley is certain the system will be a huge success. Once Tucsonans see how light rail helps create a great, livable urban community and how it fits into smart growth, they will want more of it, he said.

“Once people see it moving . . . that will free up a lot of doubts,” said Farley, who spearheaded an unsuccessful grassroots effort to persuade local voters to pay for light rail in 2003.

Farley said what evolves here shouldn’t and probably won’t mirror the Phoenix version of light rail. He envisions a system that would combine modern streetcars circulating in the city core with a commuter system linking the city core to the outlying towns and cities.

“I think we will be able to grow in our own way,” he said.

And the benefit of having Phoenix taking the plunge first is we can learn from its mistakes and successes, he said.

Light rail gets people out of their cars and into a clean and efficient form of transportation, all while reducing congestion on the roadways. As an added benefit, light rail encourages economic development activity.

The Phoenix light rail system, before taking on a single passenger, already has resulted in $6 billion in private development – lofts and mixed-used retail – along the tracks, Farley said.

Tucson seems to operate under the fear that if you build “it” – “it” being anything that involves planning for inevitable growth – “they” will come.

As we keep an eye on Phoenix’s movement into the 21st century and the slower progress on our own scaled-down system, we’d be wise not to forget that we didn’t build “it” and “they” came anyway.

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

There were 240 ballots cast in major college football polls over the weekend, and I have just one question for 210 of the voters:

What the heck were you thinking?

The college football circus was back in town last week – down goes USC, down goes Georgia, down goes Florida, down goes Wisconsin – causing the first major poll shakeup of the season.

Not shaken enough, though.

The problem with having preseason rankings is that those initial perceptions, often misguided and based on reputation, remain long after the season starts and results began to pour in.

A reminder: The Associated Press instructs its voters to discard perception and rank teams based on performance.

So let’s consider performance.

If you just dropped into the season by parachute after five weeks – without any idea of where a team started in the rankings – the answer to who is No. 1 would be abundantly clear.

It’s Alabama.

Not Oklahoma.

Or anybody else.

Yet, the Sooners received 43 of 65 first-place votes in the AP poll, 57 of 61 first-place votes in the coaches poll and 102 of 114 votes at the top of the Harris poll.

No. 2 Alabama got 21 first-place votes in the AP poll, while a scattered eight other first-place votes went to LSU, Missouri or Texas.

Sidebar for a second. Texas? The Longhorns have defeated Florida Atlantic, UTEP, Rice and an Arkansas team undergoing a major transition.

Looking good while sweeping that not-so fearsome foursome is nice and all, but it’s not exactly the degree of difficulty that leads to gold medals or No. 1 ratings.

Let’s hold off on drinking the burnt-orange Kool-Aid until the team has attempted the high hurdles.

OK, now that I’ve angered the Hook ‘em Horns crowd, let’s get back to the Boomer Sooners.

The only plausible explanation for why Alabama is not ranked No. 1 is that the Crimson Tide started the season as a fringe top 25 team, actually unranked by the coaches. Oklahoma, meanwhile, was considered a national title contender.

Memo to voters: It’s not wrong to jump one undefeated team over another.

Try it some time.

The reason Alabama should be No. 1 is that its road victory at Georgia on Saturday stands as the most impressive performance of the season. The Tide, stunningly, was up 31-0 at halftime.

Alabama dominated the line of scrimmage, holding Georgia’s rushing game to 50 yards. That was similar to how Alabama crushed Clemson in the season-opener, holding the Tigers – with future NFL runners James Davis and C.J. Spiller – to zero rushing yards.

Now, Georgia came back in the second half – I wouldn’t expect anything less of such a good team – but Alabama ended up winning 41-30 after giving up two touchdowns in the final three minutes.

Oklahoma hasn’t done anything wrong.

The Sooners can’t do more than play the teams on their schedule, and they have been excellent in doing so, turning in a notable performance Saturday by easily handling visiting TCU 35-10.

As someone who has bemoaned the Pac-10′s poor record against the Mountain West Conference this season, I understand how good OU’s victory was Saturday.

But it doesn’t compare to Alabama’s deconstruction of Georgia. Although Clemson is again disappointing when expectations are high, beating the Tigers 34-10 in such good fashion on a neutral field counts for something pretty good, too.

Oklahoma’s résumé of Chattanooga, Cincinnati, Washington and TCU just doesn’t match up to Alabama’s.

Remember, this is not a projection of where the teams will eventually finish. This is a five-week snapshot.

If we were talking about projections, though, I think Alabama can keep this going.

The Tide is strong along both lines. The rushing defense has asserted itself. The offensive line, led by future first-round Andre Smith, gives Alabama a stop-me-if-you-can running game.

John Parker Wilson is a talented senior quarterback.

Young, exciting players are all over the field.

Coach Nick Saban knows a few things, too.

This is only his second season at Alabama, but you know who else won national titles in his second season? Urban Meyer at Florida. Jim Tressel at Ohio State. Bob Stoops at Oklahoma.

USC went from 6-6 in Pete Carroll’s first season to a semi-dynastic run in his second.

That’s all happened this decade.

These schools have something in common: They were national powers who had the right players and the wrong coaches.

Amazing what the right coach can do.

Of course, there is a lot more football to be played – thank goodness – and what looks good this week isn’t necessarily the same thing that looks bright and shiny next week.

But for this week, Alabama is No. 1.

And 87.5 percent of the poll voters got it wrong.

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

OU AP pickers leave this voter fit to be Tide

ANTHONY GIMINO

agimino@tucsoncitizen.com

Gimino’s Top 25 AP ballot

1. Alabama, 2. LSU, 3. Oklahoma, 4. Missouri, 5. Penn State

6. Texas, 7. Georgia, 8. Auburn, 9. USC, 10. Ohio State

11. Florida, 12. USF, 13. Utah, 14. BYU, 15. Vanderbilt

16. Virginia Tech, 17. Texas Tech, 18. Boise State, 19. Wisconsin, 20. Fresno State

21. Kansas, 22. Oklahoma State, 23. North Carolina, 24. Oregon, 25. Wake Forest

The Arizona Republic
ROBB COLUMN

There are two propositions on the November ballot to limit state taxation and spending.

That is something I customarily thump the tub for. However, both propositions are problematic.

Proposition 100 would constitutionally prohibit a real estate transfer tax. The wisdom of doing this can only be considered in the broader context of Arizona’s fiscal structure.

Virtually all economists believe the tax structure most conducive to economic growth involves low rates on broad bases. Conservative economists also generally believe that reliance on sales taxes rather than income or property taxes is more conducive to growth.

Arizona does have relatively high reliance on sales taxes. But Arizona’s sales tax base is rather narrow, basically sales of goods to end consumers.

In 2007, state government collected $5.7 billion in sales taxes. According to the Arizona Department of Revenue, expanding the tax to services would have netted another $2 billion.

Now, most economists, liberal and conservative, would agree that expanding sales taxes to services would be a good idea. It would allow a lower rate on a broader base and hitch state revenues more to the faster growing portion of the economy.

Voters, however, tend to say it’s spinach and they aren’t going to eat it. Sales taxes on services tend to be very unpopular and few states impose them.

Nevertheless, the discussion about expanding the sale tax base in Arizona and using the revenue to reduce other taxes – the sales tax rate on goods or preferably income taxes – should remain open. And a real estate transfer tax should be part of that discussion.

Most other states (35 by most counts) impose a real estate transfer tax. At the median rate of other states (four-tenths of 11 percent), a real estate transfer tax would raise north of $200 million in Arizona.

Advocates of Proposition 100, primarily the Realtors’ association, complain that a real estate transfer tax is double taxation, since homes and businesses already pay property taxes.

There is some merit to that argument and if Arizona ever got serious about fundamental tax reform, it should be taken into account.

However, virtually all excise taxes involve double taxation, and a tax on a tax, to some extent. The current sales tax certainly does. The property and income taxes producers and retailers pay are imbedded in the cost of the good to which the sales tax is applied.

Given that having a real estate transfer tax is the prevailing practice among the states, having one wouldn’t put Arizona at a competitive disadvantage. And using the proceeds to reduce other taxes could make Arizona’s economy more productive. Don’t take it off the table.

Proposition 105 would require initiatives that raise state revenues or mandate spending to be passed by a majority, not just of those voting, but of those registered to vote.

Although the proposition applies only to initiatives put on the ballot by petition, and not to measures referred by the Legislature, no ballot proposition in the last 10 years, initiative or referendum, has gotten a majority of registered voters.

So, as a practical political matter, Proposition 105 would abolish initiatives that raise taxes and establish new state spending programs.

I’m actually in favor of that. How much the state takes from the economy in taxation, and where it spends that money, is an inherent balancing act, requiring a comprehensive perspective. That can only be achieved in the Legislature. It cannot be achieved in the context of a ballot proposition focusing on just one program.

Unfortunately, Proposition 105 is loosely drafted, applying to any initiative that raises any state revenue or “mandates a spending obligation” on any public or private entity.

This is highly likely to catch up initiatives not customarily thought of as primarily taxation or spending measures, such as the increase in the state minimum wage and the smoking ban.

Even the ballot measure abolishing bilingual education would have likely fallen victim to the increased requirement, since it mandated more student testing.

All initiatives require someone to do something, and doing something almost always requires spending some money. Liberally construed, Proposition 105 threatens to do away with initiatives entirely.

Taxation and particularly spending in Arizona needs to be restrained. Unfortunately, these two measures either miss or overshoot the mark.

E-mail: robert.robb@arizonarepublic.com

Citizen Staff Writer
CARLOCK COLUMN

Editor’s note: Judy Carlock reviews the week in news – with her own personal twist.

I took a nap Thursday thinking civilization had taken a major step forward.

Whatever you think of a $700 billion bailout for banks, an abrupt about-face from partisan posturing made me believe well-informed wonks would prevail to save the American economy.

Maybe it was all a dream.

John McCain and Barack Obama had spent an hour holed up with President Bush to try to hack a path through a jungle of bad debt and corporate greed. The move must have been necessary, I reasoned, because why the heck else would they have all been in the same room?

Don’t get me wrong: I don’t think it’s right to reward lousy business judgment. But in a world where so much depends on perception, a prudent shoring up of the bank system seemed preferable to a crisis of confidence that could tip our dominoes toward depression.

McCain is way too pragmatic not to give himself some wiggle room from the statement issued by his campaign: “The plan that has been put forth by the administration does not enjoy the confidence of the American people as it will not protect the taxpayers and will sacrifice Main Street in favor of Wall Street.”

Catchy slogan. It may even be true. But this is not an issue to dismiss with a sound bite – unless it’s “Repubicans are revolting.”

And I am one.

WAR GRINDS ON: Tucson lost another soldier this week, Army Pvt. Joseph Gonzales. He was 18.

Gonzales was killed in Afghanistan, and although his family salutes his commitment, they did not want him to go.

Now his 15-year-old brother, Jorge, wants to join the military. “He wants to do payback for his brother,” said the boys’ father.

And Joseph wanted payback for the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

But how do you pay back a homemade bomb?

Let’s get Osama bin Laden. And this time, stay on task.

SHOP ‘N SHOOT: Who knew you could get heroin at Wal-Mart? I mean the parking lot.

A bizarre shooting at the North First Avenue-East Wetmore Road center started with an investigation into possible heroin sales at Canyon del Oro High School.

Reportedly, Oro Valley police Thursday followed two suspects into Tucson, where they witnessed a drug transaction.

A plainclothesman in an unmarked vehicle approached the suspects’ vehicle, but it rammed the cop’s car.

The cop opened fire, killing the driver. His passenger apparently had a heart attack. And the vehicle crashed into the beauty-supply store where I buy my Candlelit Golden Brown.

Fiction can’t begin to compete with real life.

BACK AT THE RANCH: A gunfight at a ramshackle ranch west of Tucson left three people dead. Happens all the time.

Well, not all the time. But Tucson has its share of weird violence (see above). And southern Arizona is so deadly that three bodies in the desert might not even signal foul play.

The El Rancho Diablo case, though, bucks the trend. No young gangbangers, these combatants: One was 72.

So far, though he’s not charged with a crime, a man found working a crossword puzzle in the area is pegged as a “lead” in the case.

One man found dead was wearing a bulletproof vest and had bombs in his vehicle.

If we figure out what’s going on, we’ll let you know.

BACK TO THE ECONOMY: The Citizen reported this week that 1 in 3 county homeowners owe more on their houses than their houses are worth.

Yeah, it’s dumb to get in over your head. And dumb to treat bad loans like good money. And maybe one day I’ll understand economics well enough to know why bubbles pop so hard.

Is this a crisis? Sure sounds like it. Leadership, anyone?

If Obama and McCain can get an agreement – hell, put them both in office.

Contact Judy Carlock at 573-4608 or at jcarlock@tucsoncitizen.com.

For more on these stories, go to www.tucsoncitizen.com.

jcarlock@tucsoncitizen.com

Citizen Staff Writer

Folks can live days without food and water, but some would surely perish without the dive bar.

Take a man known as O.D., for instance. He’s more of a fixture at the Shelter Cocktail Lounge, perhaps, than the zany swag lamps, tiger-striped walls or the nostalgic lit-up poster of JFK.

“I’m just a peaceful ex-hippie,” he said, leaning back on a red, vinyl stool at the groovy bar at 4155 E. Grant Road. “I come here for the ambiance.”

O.D., by the way, stands for Old Dog, Overdrawn or even Overdose, he said, whatever you wish.

This laid-back attitude is part of what makes a dive bar so attractive, even to those like myself who don’t drink.

My assignment this week was to gather information on a number of dives in Tucson, and bet your last beer money, Tucson has a number of them.

We could say Tucson has more dive bars than churches or schools, but that’s not true. The dives, however, are probably better attended.

We could also say dive bars are safer than churches or schools, but I don’t think that’s true, either.

Sure, you don’t usually hear about a disgruntled dive bar dropout returning with an automatic, but the joints do have their mayhem.

In finding out which dives serve dripping chicken wings and which have a bra collection dangling from the ceiling, I became fascinated with Tucson’s dives.

Then again, I also think living in a New York City subway tunnel is cool.

Dive bars are wholly intriguing in a risky kind of way – not unlike sticking your hand in a dark hole in the ground and hoping it doesn’t get chewed off.

They also create a microcosmic community, which is how they began in London’s 19th century. Legend has it a bunch of rebellious youth created dives as an alternative to the hoity-toity clubs of the day.

Legend also has it the name came about because the establishments were often below street level, and you could “dive” in for a drink.

This underground haven, even at ground level in Tucson, feels like a secret society.

Unlike societies where you have to slaughter a goat for initiation, your acceptance at a dive bar is pretty much assured, especially if you buy a round of drinks.

But getting drunk was not the reason most people gave for hanging out at dives. Mind you, many said this while sipping a cocktail or chugging a beer.

“We’re a family,” said “Big Mama” at The Chatterbox, 1601 S. Alvernon Way. “We look out for each other.”

She said this with arms wrapped around “Little Sister” (who happens to be bigger than Big Mama), and a third lady known as “Singing Diva.”

Being whomever you want to be is as easy as buying a scotch in a dive bar.

Bartender Brandy Wood has more than 100 costumes, from Tinkerbell to Wilma Flintstone. She wears one to work every Tuesday at Palo Verde Bar & Grill, 5801 S. Palo Verde Road.

Bartender Andy Ward – “Ward as in mental,” he said – sports a baseball cap with metal horns for his job at The Bambi, 5050 E. Speedway Blvd.

Dim lights help fuel the facades, as do daily drink specials.

In addition to the unique characters who pepper the dives, a dive bar would not be complete without the stereotypes.

You need the morose lady at the edge of the bar, nursing a drink and looking like the world just bashed her in the head. A young woman with face piercings at The Greens Bar & Grill, 1301 S. Alvernon Way, said she sometimes volunteers for that position after enough drinks.

You also need the guy who thinks he’s Cassanova. The version at Palo Verde Bar & Grill began his pickup by trying to be suave, then ended by complaining about his wife.

Finally, there’s the dude who wants to start a fight. One of them hovered about the jukebox at Midtown Bar & Grill, 4915 E. Speedway Blvd. The 5-foot man stood with his pool cue at the ready, eager to bash anyone who dared put on something weird like Led Zeppelin.

Maybe we should send him to church or school. Perhaps he could learn something.

Ryn Gargulinski is an artist, poet and Tucson Citizen reporter who hopes her next assignment includes dog parks and thrift shops.

E-mail: rynski@tucsoncitizen.com

Citizen Staff Writer
DENOGEAN COLUMN

Local faith leaders took a stand this week against religious extremists who would breach the separation between church and state, and write discrimination against gays into the Arizona Constitution.

About 30 clergymen and clergywomen gathered Tuesday in the sanctuary of Grace St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, 2331 E. Adams St., to urge Arizonans to vote no on Proposition 102, the “Marriage Amendment.”

“Legislation based on one group’s religious beliefs is completely contrary to all this country stands for,” said Rabbi Helen Cohn, spiritual leader of Congregation M’kor Hayim, which holds services at 1350 N. Arcadia Ave.

If Prop. 102 passes in November, it would amend the state constitution to say, “Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.”

This religion-based definition of marriage would exclude people of the same gender who love each other and want to make a future and possibly raise a family together from ever having their union honored by Arizona.

“Obviously, I believe that religion is an important part of life,” said the Rev. Anna Bell, pastor of Mosaic United Methodist Church., 3434 E. 22nd St. “At the same time, I do not believe that any religion should be able to force its views on the American people, nor have the ability to amend our constitution.”

Arizona already has a law banning gay marriage that has been upheld by the courts. But Prop.102 supporters are seeking a constitutional amendment because they fear that a future court will overturn the law.

Chief among those backers is The Center for Arizona Policy, a “pro-family” group that twisted arms at the Legislature to make sure Prop. 102 got on the ballot this year. The center has a conservative, Christianity-based social agenda and has been very successful on the legislative front.

The Mormon church and its members are providing the vast majority of the financial support for the Prop. 102 campaign, according to a recent media report. And Arizona’s Catholic bishops – Gerald Kicanas of Tucson and Thomas Olmsted of Phoenix – issued a joint statement earlier this month urging other Catholics to support the measure because it’s in line with the teachings of the church.

Scott Morris, a member of St. Francis in the Foothills United Methodist Church, 4625 E. River Road, said he organized Tuesday’s gathering to counter the public perception that the religious community stands in “monolithic support” of 102.

Prop. 102 opponent the Rev. Frank Bergen, who has served as a priest in both the Roman Catholic Jesuit order and the Episcopal Church, said some people think everybody “should be bound by our religious concept of marriage.”

“Uh, uh; not so,” he said.

He said his objection to Prop. 102 is actually rooted in religion.

“Proposition 102 offends my sense of justice, and my sense of justice comes right out of my religious faith,” Bergen said.

Cohn of M’kor Hayim said the Jewish Scriptures – the Old Testament – teach the values of justice and fairness for every person, regardless of social standing, race or any other characteristic.

“It teaches us not to deny certain groups the rights that other groups enjoy,” she said.

The Rev. John Fife, the former minister of Southside Presbyterian Church, 317 W. 23rd St., recalled being invited to a wedding anniversary of a white man and a Native American woman more than 40 years ago. He learned that they had to go to New Mexico to wed because Arizona had a law banning interracial marriage.

After doing a little research, Fife discovered that the law had been passed overwhelmingly by the Legislature with the support of “influential religious leaders” in the state. In hindsight, Fife said, what occurred was clearly “political pandering, bigotry and discrimination.”

Following this year’s legislative session, state Sen. Tim Bee, a Tucson Republican, met with the Tucson Citizen editorial board. He had introduced the marriage amendment referendum and, as Senate president, cast the final and deciding vote to send Prop. 102 to the ballot.

But when asked by a member of the edit board why gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry, Bee couldn’t come up with a good answer. In fact, for a full 20 seconds, he was rendered speechless.

I think Bee and other lawmakers who voted for this measure will someday look back with shame on their bigoted and un-Christianlike actions. They’ll wonder why they ever thought it was a good idea to prevent people who love each other, but who happen to be gay – a characteristic that the scientific evidence now points to as being biological and unchangeable in nature – from marrying.

In November, Arizona voters can pave the path toward that spiritual epiphany by decisively voting down Prop. 102.

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

The Bush administration’s proposal to set up a taxpayer-supported $700 billion fund to buy distressed securities is a terrible idea.

Among its worst consequences, it will inevitably trigger massive additional regulation of America’s capital markets.

Until the Bush administration’s ham-fisted response to the stress in financial markets, there was a relatively clear regulatory demarcation.

Financial institutions whose deposits were federally insured would be regulated for prudence and safety. The rest of the capital market would be regulated primarily for disclosure and not for prudence and safety.

The notion was that grown-ups should be free to invest, lend and borrow as they decide, reaping the profits from wise decisions and suffering the losses from unwise ones.

If, however, taxpayers are going to be on the hook for unwise decisions provided they are big enough, the demand for regulation that attempts to ensure that no such big unwise decisions get made will be irresistible.

That, however, is beyond the regulatory capacity of the federal government.

The capital markets are just too extensive, fast-moving and complex to be effectively regulated for prudence and safety. The attempt to do so will create stickiness and sluggishness in the capital markets, with potentially highly adverse effects on the long-term growth potential of the country for years to come.

The consequences of the Bush administration’s terrible idea will be felt in other areas as well.

The federal government now owns the country’s largest mortgage finance firms and its largest insurance company. So, would it really be such a breach in our free market system, as the Bush administration will have left it, for the federal government to own health care providers as well?

The Bush administration has been accused of having too much faith in the market. However, at times of stress, it has consistently failed to trust the self-correcting mechanisms in the market to work and intervened instead.

Bear Stearns wasn’t permitted to go into bankruptcy. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were seized when they still thought they could shore up their balance sheets. AIG was taken over, rather than allowing the market to revalue the debt it had guaranteed.

The Bush administration’s terrible idea was rushed to Congress when it became spooked over the stress in the short-term commercial paper market last week.

Money market withdrawals were large. Inter-bank lending rates spiked. Investors fled to short-term treasuries, bidding the interest rate for a three-month bill to zero.

The question, however, is whether such conditions would persist if government would show some forbearance. It’s highly unlikely that they would.

Investors aren’t for long going to, in essence, stuff hundreds of billions of dollars in a mattress. Rising interest rates can bring the capital back into the short-term market.

People are willing to take more risk for a 6 percent return than a 3 percent return. And they are willing to take more risk for a 9 percent return than a 6 percent return.

Higher short-term interest rates would have adverse economic effects. But the notion that the country is going to unwind from a large overinvestment in housing and excess debt in general without adverse economic consequences is fanciful.

In the meantime, the Bush administration has changed or waived virtually every financial rule except the one that would have done any good.

Mortgage-backed securities will inevitably be worth more than they are currently being traded at. After all, more than 90 percent of all mortgages are still current. Even two-thirds of subprime mortgages are still current.

Yet, when Merrill Lynch was cleaning up its balance sheet, it had to unload some of its MBSs at 22 cents on a face dollar. Accounting rules require that assets be “marked to market.”

An easing of that rule in these circumstances, when there really isn’t much of a market, would have obviated the perceived need for virtually everything else the Bush administration has done or is proposing.

All in all, this terrible idea is the Bush administration’s second worst moment. Its worst was the ad hoc flailing of Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chief Ben Bernanke that preceded it.

Buying distressed paper in a nondiscriminatory way, through a reverse auction that Congress should insist on, is better than making ad hoc and arbitrary decisions about who lives and who dies, and the federal government assuming ownership of large companies.

The best that can be said about the Bush administration’s terrible idea is this: It is the least bad way of doing the wrong thing.

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

Freelance
PLANTING YOUR FUTURE

This is the time of year that – in many parts of the country and other countries as well – gardeners think of nothing but bulbs and more bulbs, and what kind of huge displays of bulbs they will gleefully plant for their spring delight.

I miss that. Having grown up in the Midwest, that was part of my essential gardening education, and when bulb time comes around now, I feel a letdown. And it’s not that we can’t grow bulbs here. It’s the lack of huge displays and the delight of planning them, that I miss. But, with many other Midwest transplants in Tucson and the number of bulb queries we receive I am assured that I am not alone.

So for any of you who can’t imagine the holidays without pots of fragrant paper-white narcissus greeting your guests, or the end of winter being signaled by the first spring bulbs popping up like welcome surprises – don’t worry! You can have bulbs here, too.

Some bulbs will take just a little more planning, but what the heck; having your own hyacinths is worth it!

Hyacinth, tulip and crocus must be refrigerated for a minimum of six weeks to simulate winter. Longer is even better, but less isn’t going to do it! If you would like to have any of these, get your bulbs and make sure you mark on the calendar the day they go into the fridge.

To pack your bulbs for the refrigerator, make sure you have some sturdy paper bags and some peat moss, sphagnum moss or coco fiber for filler. The best place for the bulbs is the vegetable crisper, but they can really go in any location that doesn’t get too cold and freeze. Make sure you forgo placing apples in the refrigerator with the bulbs.

Mark the bags with the colors (and kinds if you won’t recognize them) and sift a bit of moss or fiber between layers of bulbs to absorb any moisture that might accumulate. Once six weeks or more have passed, the bulbs are ready to plant as you normally would. I find that pots are the best place for hyacinths, tulips and crocuses, so I don’t have to look for them to dig them up for the next year.

All other fall-through-spring bulbs can be planted in the ground. A great place for almost all cool-season bulbs is under deciduous trees. They really want full sun during their growth and blooming time, but as they go into their energy-gathering period, the desert is heating up and can shorten their energy-gathering period if it gets hot too fast.

There are many places that make ideal spots for bulbs. A native mesquite, desert willow or ash tree can look bare and boring in the winter. A swath of daffodils underneath can change the whole look. And you’ll be surprised how well any kind of narcissus goes in that location.

If you have kids or grandkids who are showing a little interest in nature, you can show them a natural magic act – producing gorgeous flowers from hard brown bulbs. It’s an easy-to-love show that never fails to restore my wonder at the magic of the natural world.

Cathy Bishop, co-owner of Mesquite Valley Growers Nursery, has more than 30 years of gardening experience. E-mail her at weekendplus@tucsoncitizen.com.

CATHY BISHOP

weekendplus@tucsoncitizen.com