Televangelist Pat Robertson (Photo Credit: Beliefnet.com)

On a recent 700 Club show, televangelist and standard bearer for the Christian right, Pat Robertson, mused about the folly of criminalizing pot use and mandatory sentencing. (No, this is not a joke.)

Robertson has a history of crazy talk– like when he said Haitians had made a “pack with the devil” and that is why their country was destroyed by an earthquake early in 2010.

Here is what Robertson has to say about tough-on-crime laws that turn youth into hardened criminals– because they were caught taking “a couple of puffs of marijuana.”

“It got to be a big deal in campaigns: ‘He’s tough on crime,’ and ‘lock ‘em up!’” the Christian Coalition founder said. “That’s the way these guys ran and, uh, they got elected. But, that wasn’t the answer.”

His co-host added that the success of religious-run dormitories for drug and alcohol cessation therapy present an “opportunity” for faith-based communities to lead the way on drug law reforms.

“We’re locking up people that have taken a couple puffs of marijuana and next thing you know they’ve got 10 years with mandatory sentences,” Robertson continued. “These judges just say, they throw up their hands and say nothing we can do with these mandatory sentences. We’ve got to take a look at what we’re considering crimes and that’s one of ‘em.

“I’m … I’m not exactly for the use of drugs, don’t get me wrong, but I just believe that criminalizing marijuana, criminalizing the possession of a few ounces of pot, that kinda thing it’s just, it’s costing us a fortune and it’s ruining young people. Young people go into prisons, they go in as youths and come out as hardened criminals. That’s not a good thing.”

Robertson’s comments about mandatory sentencing for pot use ruining young lies is refreshingly Christian. What would Jesus do? Of course, Jesus would forgive. Merry Christmas, Mr. Robertson.

Finally, there is something that the Southern Arizona Leadership Council (SALC) and I agree on:

1. To stabilize Arizona’s economy, the tax code should be overhauled;
2. Arizona’s tax code relies too heavily on growth, such as taxes and fees related to retail sales, construction, or housing. Consequently, when growth is slow or negative, the state suffers financial hardship– as it is now.

Initially, I was heartened to see the article in the Arizona Daily Star about a meeting between the Southern Arizona Leadership Council (SALC), the Tucson Chamber of Commerce, Tucson Regional Economic Opportunity, and 11 state legislators to discuss the state’s tax system. (I guess the invitations for Abie Morales and me were lost in the mail.) From the Star…

Overhaul the state tax system and improve the climate for high-paying jobs, officials of Tucson’s leading business organizations told a group of Southern Arizona legislators on Thursday [December 16, 2010].

The officials said the state needs more stable tax-revenue sources to prevent creation of what one called a $2 billion structural state budget deficit by 2012 – a deficit that would reach that level regardless of whether the economy grows.

They also said the state needs to do more to diversify its economy beyond dependence on what one official called the consumption-related industries of real estate and retail.

Today, when it comes to economic-development tools, the state is going into “gunfights with butter knives” when it competes with other states for jobs,

I agree with these statements. How one achieves a more stable tax system is where I disagree with these business leaders. Besides the idea of gaining some state revenue from copper mining (you mean we don’t do that already?), local business leaders proposed raising individual income taxes and property taxes.

[Ron] Shoopman, the leadership council’s [SALC's] president, advocated a tax-system overhaul. Potential targets for new revenue could include raising state property and individual income taxes, he said, noting that Arizona has a high corporate income-tax rate but one of the lowest individual income-tax rates in the country.

“We don’t want high taxes for the state. We do need enough revenue for us to support programs important for the state’s future,” Shoopman said in an interview. He told the crowd, “We can’t tax our way out of the problem. We can’t cut our way out of it. We can’t even grow our way out of it.”

Again, although I agree that Arizona can’t cut or tax its way out of the economic mess we are in, I take issue with the corporatist view that the budget should be balanced on the backs of individual taxpayers. Here is what I found when I researched the claims that Arizona individual income tax rates are low– compared to other states– and corporate taxes are high here.

Arizona Corporate Taxes

According to the Tax Foundation, these assertions are not quite true. Arizona has a flat corporate tax rate of 6.968 percent, which is pretty much in the middle when compared to other states. Among the flat-corporate-tax-rate states, only a handful are lower than Arizona (Colorado, 4.63; Florida, 5.5 Kansas 4.0;  Michigan, 4.95;   South Carolina, 5.0; Utah, 5.0). Four others are about the same (Alabama, 6.5; Missouri, 6.25; North Carolina, 6.9; Tennessee, 6.5; Virginia, 6.0). Five states have no corporate taxes (Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming). The remaining 34 states have higher flat taxes than Arizona or have sliding scale tax rates that range up to 12 percent at the upper end (Iowa).

The bottomline is: fewer then 1/4 (22 percent) of US states have lower corporate taxes than Arizona; this can hardly be characterized as “high”.

I think the sliding scale corporate tax rate is a great idea. It would allow Arizona to lower the tax rate for very small businesses, and increase the rate on larger, more profitable businesses– thus increasing revenues. For example, Alaska’s corporate tax rate ranges from 1 – 9.5 percent; Maine, 3.5 – 8.93 percent; and Iowa, 6 – 12 percent; each of these states has a modest upper income that is taxed at the higher rate.

Individual Income Tax in Arizona

From the Tax Foundation, again, we see that the states are all over the place on individual income tax, and again, we see that Shoopman’s assertion that individual income taxes are low is not quite right.

Arizona has a sliding scale income tax which ranges from 2.50 percent on all income down to zero up to 4.54 percent for the highest bracket, $150,000+. I agree that the tax rate on wealthiest Arizonans is low compared to other states, but we are taxing the poorest Arizonans higher than other states. (Surprise, surprise.) Some states have one or more higher individual tax brackets above Arizona’s top end of $150,000 (ie, California, Maryland, Ohio, Wisconsin, New York, etc.) while in other state’s the top end is very low, thus even more inequitable than Arizona’s tax rates. (This is hard to believe; don’t tell Russell Pearce.)

Again, Arizona could gain some revenue by adding another tax bracket in the $250,000 – $1 million income range. (After all, the Congress just extended federal tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, so, we know they have the money.)

National Picture

Interestingly enough, this local meeting with business leaders and legislators is a scenario that is playing out nationwide. From the Associated Press story, New GOP wave pushes pro-business agenda in states…

Having won big in the fall elections, Republicans preparing to take over statehouses around the country are proposing to cut corporate taxes, weaken union clout and rewrite laws on discrimination, whistle-blowers and injured workers to the benefit of employers.

In short, they intend to push through a business lobbyist’s wish list. In some cases, these priorities may even take preference over their short-term costs to state governments, many of which will start the year billions of dollars short.

“It’s going to be a good year for businesses,” said Missouri Sen. Brad Lager, the commerce committee chairman in a state where Republicans won historic legislative majorities.

When a new wave of politicians takes office in January, Republicans will hold a majority of governorships and their greatest number of state legislative seats since 1928 — giving them the muscle to enact the pro-business agenda they promised to voters concerned about high unemployment and an economy that has yet to make its big rebound following the Great Recession.

But those pro-business policies are in some cases theories — not yet clearly proven to create jobs. Next year could initiate a historic test of these ideas. And if they do work, the measures could take some time to produce the kind of growth that results in higher tax revenue for cash-strapped states.

In the meantime, each new business tax break enacted could add to what the National Conference of State Legislatures forecasts to be an $83 billion shortfall for the upcoming budget year in about two-thirds of the states. (Emphasis added.)

Many states are going broke already, and the federal government gave states billions to keep services and jobs. Now what are they going to do? Throw it away! There is a huge list of states marching in lock step with Arizona on cutting education and healthcare, while giving money to businesses in the form of tax cuts.

All of this falls into the WTF are they thinking? category. George Bush I was correct: Trickle-down economics is voodoo economics. It hasn’t worked yet, so why do right-wingers keep pushing it on us?

So, yes, Arizona needs to get its fiscal house in order. By adding sliding scale corporate taxes and by adding some upper income tax brackets for individuals, we can increase revenue and make the code fairer.

9/11 first responders need our help now. (Photo credit: Reuters)

No, a rule dictating who can evoke the memory of 9/11 to promote their re-election campaigns was not included in the James Zadroga Health and Compensation Act– which finally passed the US Senate today– but it should have been.

Senate Republicans filibustered passage of the bill to provide healthcare funding for 9/11 first responders for weeks and tried hard to “run out the clock” on this bill and others before Christmas.

Hundreds of first responders are suffering from cancer, heart disease, respiratory problems, and other adverse medical conditions because they worked on the 9/11 rescue and clean-up crews. For one reason or another, many 9/11 first responders have been dumped by their  insurance companies or have reached the ceiling caps on coverage, so they turned to the federal government for help with their medical costs. They even suggested a corporate loophole that could be closed to pay for said coverage.

Shamefully, Senate Republicans tried to kill the Zadroga Bill– named for a first responder who has passed on. Equally shamefully, FOX News– the number one source for 9/11 outrage (remember the Ground Zero mosque?)– was silent on the Zadroga Bill and never reported that Senate Republicans were the ones trying to kill it.

Today, a deal was reached in the Senate. Senators cut back the dollar amount of the compensation and changed the end-date for funding to 2016 from 2031, but eventually the legislation passed today.

I agree with Jon Stewart: Republicans who fought so hard against the Zadroga Bill should no longer be able to evoke the memory of 9/11 in their stump speeches and campaign advertisements. Check out the Jon Stewart link here; it juxtaposes maudlin 9/11 speeches by Republicans with their “no” votes against the 9/11 first responder legislation on December 9, 2010.

Honk if you can read. (Photo credit: Pamela Powers)

Is public education “mission critical” to national defense?

This is a question we as a nation should consider as we watch our leaders perform during the looming budget battles. Arizona’s twin embarrassments in the US Senate– Jon Kyl and John McCain– will fight for defense spending and trickle-down economics at the expense of public education, while on the home front, Governor Jan Brewer and the Arizona Legislature will fight for business tax cuts at the expense of public education and healthcare.

Two recent studies reveal the US is a country in decline– despite the GIANT Christmas present the President and Congress will be giving us in 2011.

A new study by The Education Trust shows that nearly a quarter of high school graduates cannot pass the Army entrance exam. Thirty-nine percent of black high school graduates; 29 percent of Latinos; and 16 percent of whites failed the test of basic questions. How bad is it when you’re not educated enough to be blown up? [Sarcasm warning.] From today’s Arizona Daily Star (emphasis added)…

The report by The Education Trust bolsters a growing worry among military and education leaders that the pool of young people qualified for military service will grow too small.

“Too many of our high school students are not graduating ready to begin college or a career – and many are not eligible to serve in our armed forces,” U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan told the AP. “I am deeply troubled by the national security burden created by America’s underperforming education system.”…

“If you can’t get the people that you need, there’s a potential for a decline in your readiness,” said Barnett, who is part of the group Mission: Readiness, a coalition of retired military leaders working to bring awareness to the high ineligibility rates…

The military exam results are also worrisome because the test is given to a limited pool of people: Pentagon data shows that 75 percent of those ages 17 to 24 don’t even qualify to take the test because they are physically unfit, have a criminal record or didn’t graduate high school.

A second study also released recently shows that US students are mediocre performers when test scores are compared with students from 65 other economies around the world. In reading, US students are average; in math, they are below-average; and in science, they have improved and are now average. From the ED.gov website…

“The hard truth,” [US] Secretary [of Education] Duncan said at Tuesday’s PISA announcement, “is that other high-performing nations have passed us by during the last two decades…In a highly competitive knowledge economy, maintaining the educational status quo means America’s students are effectively losing ground.”

According to Duncan, the US is in the process of reforming our educational system to mirror high-performing systems worldwide. Here are some of the other findings from OECD, the group that conducted the study. (Emphasis added.)

The OECD studied differing results between girls and boys, as well as the influence of class size, teacher pay and the degree of autonomy schools have in allocating resources. Findings include:

• Girls read better than boys in every country, by an average of 39 points, the equivalent to one year of schooling. The gender gap has not improved in any country since 2000, and widened in France, Israel, Korea, Portugal and Sweden. This is mirrored in a decline of boy’s enjoyment of reading and their engagement with reading in their leisure time.
• The best school systems were the most equitable – students do well regardless of their socio-economic background. But schools that select students based on ability early show the greatest differences in performance by socio-economic background.
• High performing school systems tend to prioritise teacher pay over smaller class sizes.
• Countries where students repeat grades more often tend to have worse results overall, with the widest gaps between children from poor and better-off families. Making students repeat years is most common in Belgium, France, Luxembourg, Portugal and Spain.
• High performing systems allow schools to design curricula and establish assessment policies but don’t necessarily allow competition for students.
• Schools with good discipline and better student-teacher relations achieve better reading results.
• Public and private schools achieve similar results, after taking account of their home backgrounds.
• Combining local autonomy and effective accountability seems to produce the best results.
• The percentage of students who said they read for pleasure dropped from 69% in 2000 to 64% in 2009.

So, where do we go from here? I believe that state and federal government officials should look long and hard at the data from both of these studies. There are some clear take-home messages in my opinion:

1- Funding Arizona’s educational system in 2011 below 1986 levels is an abomination (1, 2).

2- Given that locally-designed curricula, equity in education, and student-teacher relationships are all supported by the data, Arizona should stop its vendetta against Raza Studies at Tucson High School.

3- Teachers, students, and the public education system should be valued and not vilified by ideologues.

4- Basing the attack on public education solely on student test scores– like the AIMS test– is bunk because it doesn’t take equity in education, poverty, and parental involvement into account.

5- The future of public education is the future of our country.

6- Yes, public education is “mission critical” to national defense and our future.

Larger commercial signage will now be allowed along Tucson's scenic routes. (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

After hearing several Tucsonans– including former City Councilman Brent Davis– speak in favor of keeping the current Scenic Corridor Sign Code or fixing just the problem area along Houghton Road, Tucson’s Mayor and Council voted in solidarity to allow larger signs on all scenic corridors in Tucson.

Three plans were considered: Plan A which was drawn up by sign industry lobbyists; Plan B which was drawn up by city staff; and Plan C, a compromise plan that gives business larger signs but not as big as they had hoped for. A fourth plan– dubbed the community plan– was proposed by signage watchdogs Mark Mayer and Kathleen McLaughlin, who sits on the Citizens Sign Code Committee. Although the McLaughlin-Mayer plan was submitted to the Mayor and Council and some residents spoke in favor of it, it was not distributed online with other documentation, and it was not seriously considered at the meeting.

Davis, who had been on the City Council when the initial sign code was developed, spoke eloquently about the vision they had for Tucson’s Scenic Corridors, “It [the Scenic Corridor Sign Code] has worked for almost 30 years. We had a vision to preserve the city’s natural beauty. All City Council members before you– regardless of Democrat, Republican, Independent, whatever– have supported it.” He and others urged the Council to think of their legacy on this issue.

If you increase the size now, you will never be able to go back because the larger signs will be grandfathered, he warned. Noticeably proud of the vision and the work that was done on the sign code in the 1980s, Davis said those who have lived in Tucson for a while will agree that streetscapes have changed dramatically since the code was adopted.

In the end, it didn’t matter that there were fewer large sign supporters than Scenic Corridor supporters, the Mayor and Council voted for the compromise Plan C and talked about revisiting the issue in a year. Another issue that came up in the public comment and was mentioned by Councilwoman Karin Ulich was review of the make-up of the Citizens’ Sign Code Committee; there were several charges that the committee– which originally proposed the most lenient signs for the Scenic Corridors– is dominated by people who would benefit from more and larger signs (ie, developers, sign makers).

Personally, I think the Mayor and Council threw the baby out with the bathwater. Changing the designation of South Houghton Road, which will soon be widened, to a Gateway Corridor– thus allowing different signage– and protecting the other scenic routes would have been a better course of action– even though it would have taken longer.

Driving near Gates Pass (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

Tucson is surrounded by the natural beauty of the desert and the majesty of the sky islands. Less than 15 minutes, from little abode in midtown is the scenic route along River Road and access to the Rillito River Park trail. Maybe there is something primal about being surrounded by the natural world, but all I know is that it cleanses the soul and calms the mind.

In an attempt to preserve Tucson’s beauty, the local sign code includes a section that limits business signage and billboards along the designated scenic routes. The roads highlighted in red on this city map mark designated scenic routes. When the sign code was written several years ago, these routes were on the outskirts of town. Thanks to sprawl, the city has encroached upon some of these areas.

Now the Citizen’s Sign Code Committee, a business-oriented advisory committee to the Tucson Mayor and Council, wants to weaken the sign code along Tucson’s scenic routes and allow for larger signage. Obviously, this would increase blight and lead to the destruction of scenic views like the one above.

In her ward newsletter, Councilwoman Karin Ulich alluded to finding a balance between preserving the natural beauty of the surrounding desert and mountains and promoting commerce.

Councilman Steve Kozachik took this idea a step further in his ward newsletter and tried to tie bigger signs to jobs:

More on jobs? We are looking at restructuring some of the provisions to the sign code. While everybody on the council recognizes the need to protect the natural beauty of our scenic areas, we must find the balance between jobs creation/ preservation and protecting that public good. There is general consensus that the sign code needs an overhaul. What we will vote on next week is a step in that direction that I am confident will reflect our mutual concern for the environmental sensitivity of our surrounding areas and the need to allow businesses to operate in ways that give them a fighting chance at survival during this economic downturn.

Sorry, Koz, but I don’t buy this. Primarily, the jobs you will create with larger signs along the scenic corridor are short-term, sign-building jobs. In this era of social networking and Internet marketing, having a big-ass sign is not essential to business survival. In fact, I would argue that having a facebook page, a Twitter account, a blog, an e-mail marketing list, and/or a well-organized website with good search engine optimization are far more important to business success than a giant roadside sign. (Also, Internet marketing provides ongoing jobs– not short-term jobs.)

View from Pima Canyon (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

Having a tasteful sign with your business name and street number (please!) that is designed with a type style and color scheme that drivers can read at 40mph is important– yes– but that sign doesn’t have to be giant. After all, eventually drivers who see those big-ass signs every day just ignore them; in contrast, you can update your customers and their friends on facebook or Twitter continuously.

Businesses that are stuck in the big-sign-equals-success mindset need to wake up to the 21st century marketing techniques. Who is motivated to buy something from a roadside sign? Friend referrals (in person or through social networking) and an easy-to-find website are far more important. Seriously, I always “let my fingers do the walking” around the Internet before I get in the car, and I don’t know anyone under 60 who doesn’t.

At the December 14  City Council meeting, changes to the sign code for Scenic Corridor Zone District will be discussed. If you have an opinion, come to the meeting and voice it during the call to the audience. The meeting begins at 5:30 in the Council Chambers, 255 W. Alameda.

2010 Scrooge of the Year: Governor Jan Brewer

Governor Jan Brewer handily won the Tucson Jobs with Justice Scrooge of the Year Award on Saturday evening at the anual awards dinner.

Seven people were nominated for the 2010 Scrooge Award, but Repulbican politicians dominated the field with  five of the seven nominations. Tucsonans who nominated these would-be Scrooges– two teachers, a former politician, a union leader, and two new media representatives– presented impassioned, detailed, and often sarcastically humorous nominating speeches in front of a crowd of nearly 100 who attended. Here are a few highlights from the nominating speeches.

Brewer was nominated for signing SB1070, lying about beheadings in the desert, scapegoating immigrants to win her election, allowing lobbyists to run the government, championing cuts education and healthcare (while offering additional business tax cuts), defending her transplant patient death panel.

State Senator Russell Pearce was nominated for being the father of SB1070 and other offenses similar similar to Brewer’s but Pearce continues to blaze new trails into white supremacy, immigrant scapegoating. and Constitution-tweaking. While Brewer is seen as more of a dupe and a follower, Pearce is more of an evil doer.

Current Superintendent of Public Instruction and Attorney General-elect Tom Horne was nominated for overseeing the dismantling of public education in Arizona, for standing idly by while the Arizona Legislature repeatedly hacked away at K-12 and university education budgets, and for spearheading the discriminatory anti-ethnic studies law that targets one program at one high school.

Superintendent of Public Instruction-elect John Huppenthal was nominated for being one of those Arizona Legislators who repeatedly hacked away at K-12 and university education budgets; as head of the state’s public education system, it is feared he will kill it.

US Senator Jon Kyl (the 2009 Scrooge of the Year) was nominated for being controlled by corporate lobbyists and saying “no” to any idea or legislation that was suggested by President Obama– regardless of whether it or not it was good for the country– No on healthcare reform, No on financial reform, No multiple times on extension of unemployment benefits, No on plans to help small businesses, No on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, No on the Dream Act, No on the New START treaty.

Southern Arizona Leadership Council (SALC) was nominated for trying to control Tucson and southern Arizona politics and governments through ballot initiatives and manipulation in order to benefit their wealthy corporatist members.

Sean McClusky was nominated for leading the charge against the proposed 1/2 cent city sales tax by promoting the “cut waste first” slogan; failure of that ballot initiative will result in cutting jobs.

As you can see, party-goers had a very strong slate of evil-doers to choose from for the Scrooge Award. Party tickets (which cost $10) counted for 10 votes, plus party attendees could “buy votes– just like in a regular election in order to stuff the ballot boxes” for favorite candidates. In the end, it wasn’t even close; Governor Brewer won the Scrooge of the Year Award, hands down.

Here are the tallies:

• Kyl: 41
• McClusky: 60
• Huppenthal: 66
• SALC: 93
• Horne: 135
• Pearce: 136
• Brewer: 207

It’s bad enough that Arizona government was such a joke that the state had a special link on the front page of The Daily Show’s website and that Brewercare’s Death Panels are a regular feature on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, but now the state’s reputation has spiraled to a new low.

Olbermann’s show has started collecting donations from viewers to pay for organ transplants for Arizona residents. Just shy of 100 Arizona residents, who are enrolled in Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS), the state’s Medicaid program, have been denied organ transplants.

As of October 1, 2010, Arizona’s governor and Republican-controlled Legislature cut organ transplant from the list of medical services that can be funded through the AHCCCS. Although Brewer has said repeatedly that the state can’t afford to pay for transplants, it can afford more business tax cuts.

In an Associated Press story, Brewer whined that “bickering and ankle-biting [by Democrats and other critics] is very unfair…”

Give me a break! I’m sure the would-be transplant patients on AHCCCS feel that it is you, Governor Brewer, who is being unfair.

In the category of laugh-to-keep-from-crying, local humorist David Fitzsimmons lampooned Brewercare in his weekly news round up:

While watching a school production of Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol, Governor Jan Brewer of Brewercare fame was briefly embarrassed. She was the only audience member to stand and cheer when Scrooge said, “Let them die then and decrease the surplus population.”

Image Credit: David Fitzsimmons, Arizona Daily Star

Back in the early 1980s, I interviewed an old rancher who lived in Dragoon, Arizona for a feature story about rural Cochise County.

His 1800s stone ranch house was decorated with rustic furniture, a smattering of family heirlooms, and a large collection of old glass bottles. Being somewhat of an antique buff myself, I remarked at the variety of old bottles he had collected. As I photographed him, his house, and the bottle collection, I asked where he had gotten them all.

“This house is on the Mormon Trail,” he explained. “I found them all on my property.”

“The Mormon Trail?” I inquired– thinking it was a migration route like the Oregon Trail or Cornado’s Trail.

The grizzled old rancher chuckled, “The Mormon Trail is the route the Mormons took from St. David to the bars in Willcox. They didn’t want their family members or church elders in St. David to know they had been drinking in Willcox, so they dropped the evidence– the alcohol bottles– along the Mormon Trail as they rode their horses back home.”

I was reminded of the old rancher’s story this morning when I read Mesa seeks to seclude shops selling medical pot in today’s Arizona Daily Star.

In an attempt to legislate morality and control the temptation of the evil weed– even though it has been approved only for medical purposes– Mesa’s city council is considering highly restrictive zoning laws. Here is an excerpt from the Star (with emphasis added).

Mesa won’t let medical-marijuana shops open in most of its commercial districts, with city leaders saying they don’t want the substance sold near neighborhoods or in prominent locations.

Instead, the shops will be forced to industrial areas and just one kind of commercial use.
The city is taking a different approach from most other Arizona cities, which so far have been restricting the shops to commercial zones. The city staff had proposed that kind of regulation, but members of the City Council feared that would put the stores at the corner of major intersections.

The stores will be restricted from most areas in the city, as they must be at least a mile from each other, 2,400 feet from rehab facilities, 1,200 feet from churches and schools, and 500 feet from day-care facilities or preschools.

A map prepared by the city shows only slivers of land where the shops could open.

This is folly, and obviously another example of Arizona’s nanny state leanings. Once the Arizona Department of Health Services sets up the system for licensing dispensaries, caregivers, and medical providers, medical marijuana sales will begin in Arizona. It will be legal– even for Mesans– to purchase medical marijuana with a doctor’s recommendation.

The Mesa city fathers should learn a lesson from the Mormon Trail story. If people want or need drugs– legal or otherwise– they will find a way to obtain then, even if it means driving to an industrial district of their lily-white city or (heaven forbid) driving into Phoenix.

Raytheon– like so many other multi-national corporations– is trying to hold our local government hostage in exchange for corporate welfare. “Give us money, land, and tax breaks and rework your infrastructure to suit us, or we may hire workers elsewhere” is the mantra of corporations and major league sports teams who pit cities against each other to see who will give them the best deal– at the expense of the taxpayers.

And cash-strapped local and state governments trying to “do the right thing” fall for this scam all the time. Currently, our bankrupt state is considering offering million of dollars in tax breaks to unnamed corporations to move here, and now the cash-strapped county and city are considering offering millions to Raytheon and Diamond Ventures.

In Plan aims to assist Raytheon expansion, Arizona Daily Star reports that the county was “stung by Raytheon Missile Systems’ decision to build a new missile facility in Alabama instead of Tucson”, and that this is the reason it is considering going further into debt to help Raytheon expand here. Part of the expansion is $8 million for the purchase of land south of Raytheon– now owned by Diamond Ventures.

I know that the county is considering this in the name of keeping “good jobs” in Tucson, but frankly, this deal is just corporate welfare. According to the Star (quoted below), one of the reasons that Raytheon expanded in Alabama recently instead of here was that there wasn’t enough room physically to expand in Tucson.

Taxpayers need to help facilitate Raytheon’s expansion because one of the reasons Tucson lost out to Huntsville, Ala., for Raytheon’s new missile facility is that Raytheon didn’t have enough room at its south-side site here, [Pima County Administrator Chuck] Huckelberry said.

When it awarded the new facility to Huntsville – which will employ an estimated 300 workers at an annual average wage of $60,000 – in July, Tucson was a finalist. But the company said Tucson was bypassed because of limits to expansion at Raytheon’s current missile plant and a lack of development-ready alternative sites.

Richard A. Mendez, Raytheon’s director of facility management, told the City Council that Raytheon is confined in a box where it is now, which causes problems for the company and limits potential expansion.

If Don Diamond has $8 million worth of land south of the existing Raytheon plant for sale, that sounds like there is room for expansion. This issue is that Raytheon wanted it for free; perhaps you could call it another corporate bailout? Certainly, it is corporate welfare. (Another question is: Where is this land in relation to the TCE-contaminated land near Raytheon, and is it really worth $8 million? From the map on the EPA Superfund website, Diamond’s land is definitely close to the contamination– if not overlapping. What would Diamond do with this land — other than sell it to Raytheon or the Tucson International Airport? No one would want to live between those two noisy and environmentally messy neighbors. And, if Tucson funds the purchase of this land, who owns this wasteland in the middle of no where? The taxpayers or Raytheon?)

I have an alternate proposal for that $40 million. Give most of it– say $30 million– to The University of Arizona to create well-paying, clean, non-violent jobs in research and emerging technologies. The UAFoundation has mounds of data that show small donations that fund pilot research projects help UA scientists gather data to win large research grants. Grant funding and the spin-off businesses that often are created by new research findings provide good-paying jobs, often in emerging industries.

With the remaining $10 million, invest in local small businesses and help them expand. Small businesses created by local residents have an investment in Tucson; they’re not going to Huntsville, Alabama or China. (You’ll note in the Raytheon deal that there is no commitment to stay or expand in Tucson.)

Raytheon and Diamond Ventures should be weened off of the teet of the nanny state. Let them make their own deal without taxpayer funds greasing the wheels. Also, if Raytheon wants the county and city to rework the roads south of town, maybe they’d be willing to pay a bit more in corporate taxes. (I’m sure they’ve got some sort of sweetheart deal now.)

Wry Heat in his column today questioned the plans to rework Pima County’s roads on the south side (at taxpayer expense) to suit Raython and offered alternatives.

I question why Pima County would offer $40 million in corporate welfare to a highly profitable, multi-national corporation whose primary business is fueling violence worldwide. If the county and city want to grow the local economy and create new jobs, invest in research and education at the UA and in local businesses.

Tucson Tea Party– where are you on this? You railed against corporate welfare for the big banks and the auto companies. Where do you stand on using taxpayer funds for corporate welfare for the military-industrial complex? State Senator Frank Antenori, what about you?