Mini-dorm in the Feldman Neighborhood. (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

Michael Goodman, Richard Studwell, and other local developers have been merrily knocking down old houses and replacing them with mini-dorms for years now. They saw dollar signs when the University of Arizona announced that it would increase enrollment gradually from 38,000 to nearly 50,000 students but wouldn’t have enough dormitories to house them.

In addition to the mini-dorms, developers have proposed building multiple large dormitories in downtown Tucson.

Enter the Arizona Legislature to mess things up for these local businessmen.

The latest proposed budget cuts millions more from all levels of education, including $92 million from the UA budget. To make up part of that loss, the UA wants to raise tuition…again. From the Arizona Daily Star…

The University of Arizona wants to increase base tuition and fees for Arizona students by $1,790 next year, a 22 percent hike [for in-state students].

If the proposal is accepted by the Arizona Board of Regents, the UA will have nearly doubled tuition and mandatory fees in six years as it uses more tuition revenue to cover increasing expenses and lost state support.

The increase would raise $22 million in extra tuition revenue for the UA. Gov. Jan Brewer has proposed a $67 million budget cut for the UA next year, and state Senate leaders have proposed a $92 million cut. The UA would make up the balance of the deficit through reduced spending and use of federal stimulus dollars.

Students would pay just over $10,000 next year, up from about $8,200 this year. Students also pay additional tuition and fees for particular programs, classes and services.

The UA has raised tuition– due to budget cuts– 24 of the past 25 years. Including the new proposed tuition increase, tuition at Arizona universities has increased 58 to 64 percent since the 2007-08 school year, depending on the campus. At what point will the UA become unaffordable for most Arizona high school graduates? Or is it already?

As tuition skyrockets, the Arizona Legislature may accomplish something the Tucson Mayor and Council have grappled with for years– stopping the spread of mini-dorms.

That 50,000 student enrollment figure is looking more like pie in the sky everyday, if the UA can’t get reliable funding from the state. If I were Goodman and Studwell, I’d be riding to Phoenix with UA President Robert Shelton to lobby Governor Jan Brewer to veto the budget as it currently stands. Remember her? She’s the one who says she values education. Now is the time for her actions to match her PR. With that veto pen, she has the opportunity to be both education friendly and business friendly.

The Tucson City Council unanimously voted business friendly twice at last night’s meeting– approving a new Land Use Code requiring fewer parking spaces and approving a billboard along Tucson’s scenic corridor for the Jewish Community Center (JCC).

Parking and the Land Use Code

The Land Use Code changes to vehicle and bicycle parking were contentious at the March 8 City Council meeting. Last night’s discussion was a continuation, but in the interim, a compromise was negotiated. Cyclists and businessmen alike spoke glowingly in favor of the Land Use Code changes and the civil discourse that resulted in the compromise. In a nutshell, the new business construction will be able to provide few parking spaces for cars; in addition, there are formulas which allow for customization in vehicle and bicycle parking.

Tucson’s cycling community is trying achieve a platinum rating from the League of American Bicyclists, a distinction held by only two other American cities. Cycling enthusiasts at last night’s meeting said the new bicycle parking laws will help move Tucson forward toward a platinum rating.

Councilwoman Regina Romero praised the Land Use Code negotiations and said that requiring fewer parking spaces and good bicycle parking will allow for more infill construction, while encouraging the use of alternative transportation.

JCC Billboard and the Sign Code

Last fall, the Tucson’s Sign Code Appeals and Advisory Board (SCAAB), a citizen’s advisory board made up of local business people, denied JCC’s application for a sign code variance. Among other nuances, the current code says a business can have a 50 square-foot sign. The JCC already has one over-sized lighted monument sign with a changing text and wanted to erect a 750 square-foot, changing-text billboard on the south face of their building on River Road at Dodge, at the base of the Catalina Mountains.

The JCC lost the variance case last fall, and their last ditch effort to erect a billboard along Tucson’s scenic corridor was at last night’s Tucson City Council meeting.

Since this was an appeal, discussion was limited to the JCC and any neighbors or concerned parties directly affected by the proposed billboard. Council Members were given the SCAAB’s meeting minutes and all records in advance. The JCC’s president and another representative talked in warm and fuzzy platitudes about how a giant sign will promote the mission of the JCC. (In other words, a changing-text billboard on River Road will help sell their services to commuters whizzing by.)

At first it appeared as if no one was there to speak against the billboard, so… I raised my hand and said, “Well, I’m not exactly a neighbor, but I live directly south of the JCC and will be affected by this.”

I think the City Council hearing on a scaled-back 500-square-foot sign was supposed to be an orchestrated no-opposition, slam-dunk for the JCC, so to have some trouble-makin’ blogger raise her hand gave them all a bit of a pause. (Oh, God, what’s she going to say if we let her have the mike?)

They did let me speak– on behalf of those River Road commuters and the hundreds of Tucsonans who use the Rillito River Path and Brandi Fenton Memorial Park– across the street from the proposed billboard. I said people like me use the bike path for exercise and commuting and frequent Brandi Fenton because of the great facilities and the breath-taking view of the Catalinas– a view that would be spoiled by a billboard. I questioned the size and location of the billboard. The JCC president had said that the sign would be visible only from the Alvernon Way direction (east of the JCC), but I remain skeptical that a billboard that large will not be visible from the park and the river path.

Of course, my pitch for preserving natural beauty over commercial signage didn’t stop the process the steam-roller process. The Council approved the 500-square-foot billboard variance– 10x the sign code recommendation. I know that the JCC believes that erecting a billboard at the base of the Catalinas will help their marketing effort. I believe this marketing move could cause public relations problems and hurt the JCC’s public image– particularly with those who are concerned with environmental sensitivity. With its changing text and giant size, if the sign is too visually intrusive, those River Road commuters and park-goers aren’t going to like it, and that could backfire on them. Only time will tell.

This City Council has now voted twice to allow increased signage along Tucson’s scenic corridor; this is a dangerously slippery slope. Environmentalists– this should be a wake up call.

Is it just me or are local businesses looking more and more like uncaring, greedy bast**ds every day? The constant business friendly drumbeat is getting old.

Yesterday, local businesses were whining about Tucson’s sign code on the front page of the Arizona Daily Star. Today, they are whining about bicycle parking on the front page of the Star. A few weeks ago, they were clamoring about mini-dorms and their right to tear down historic properties to build giant boxes made of ticky-tacky.

What happened to cities and businesses that prided themselves on being people or consumer friendly?

Take today’s business issue: bicycle parking. According to the Star, the city has been working on relaxed parking regulations in an attempt to more “business friendly.” From the Star…

Bike racks now must be within 50 feet of the entrance. Advocates objected to a proposal to make it 75 feet from the entrance if extra security measures for the bikes are added.

They also objected to a new formula to determine the number of bike spaces required and provisions for employee bike parking. [Since cyclists are objecting, I guess there will be fewer spaces.]

Developers and business owners say close-up racks are not always practical or even necessary, and the debate is delaying needed changes to reduce the number of parking spaces required for businesses – rules that have been years in the making.

The issue arose when the City Council was about to give final approval to land-use-code changes that would have eased parking requirements to be more business-friendly – an key issue in the 2009 city election that is back for this year’s campaign. [Emphasis added.]

So, businesses want to “ease” parking regulations, so they can provide fewer vehicle and bicycle parking spaces. This move is considered “business friendly,” but is it “customer friendly”? Hell no! Who wants to waste time driving around trying to find street parking because a business doesn’t have adequate parking spaces? Not me. I’ll spend my money at a business that shows they want my business by giving me parking.

On the issue of reduced bicycle parking, this is seriously short-sighted. The business owners are only thinking of themselves and their profits right now; they are not thinking about the future. Gas is over $3/gallon, and the middle east is exploding in turmoil. The smart business would add MORE bicycle and motorcycle parking– not less.

Tucson is currently adding more commuter cycling boulevards (like 3rd Street). Making it easier to cycle to work while reducing the number of bicycle parking spaces is schizophrenic. Bicycle enthusiasts quoted in the paper talked about obtaining a platinum rating for Tucson as a bike-friendly city. Beyond that is the question of sustainability. Riding a bike to the store or to work is much more sustainable than driving.

In the Star, some business owners said they didn’t need bicycle parking because customers don’t come to them. What about bicycle-commuting employees? A local developer said you don’t need bicycle spaces at Home Depot. I’ve ridden my bike to Home Depot; he shouldn’t jump to conclusions.

My question for local businesses is: When are you going to stop thinking about yourselves and start thinking about your customers? Seriously,  inadequate parking will hurt your business more than a sign-code-compliant sign. It doesn’t matter how big your sign is, if your business doesn’t have adequate, well-lit, safe parking, customers will go to your competitor who does.

My question for the Tucson City Council is: When are you going to stop bending over every time a developer or a business person wants lower fees or lower taxes or city intervention to protect profits or relaxed zoning or a sweet land deal (1, 2, 3, 4)? Hasn’t the city been screwed over enough already?

Changes to the parking regulations and a sign code appeal which would allow the Jewish Community Center to put a billboard on the side of their building are both on today’s City Council agenda. Be there if you care!

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

Business-friendly whiners made the front page of the Arizona Daily Star today– with old news. The story– Tough Times Make City’s Sign Code a Target– features three business owners who are perpetual complainers about Tucson’s sign code. (Although two of them were allowed to use the offending signs after appeal, they’re still whining about them.)

The third complainer is Thoroughbred Nisson– who bought the old Kinney Shoe Store building and its GIANT, old, ugly sign across the street. The sign code says that old, non-compliant signs are grandfathered in and can be used until the business changes hands. If the business type remains the same (ie, a restaurant opens where an old restaurant was), the non-compliant sign can be used– regardless how old, ugly, and out-of-scale it may be. If the business type changes, the signage is subject to review.

Thoroughbred Nisson tried to play the historic card with the old Kinney Shoe Store sign– erected on east Broadway Blvd. in 1960 (during the same era when Life Magazine said Speedway Blvd. was the ugliest street in America). It was 3x as tall and almost 4x as big as new signs, and there was nothing esthetically pleasing about it. I agree with the decision to tear that sign down and with the neighborhood opposition to that sign. Quoting the Star: “As Ron Spark of El Encanto Estates argued in a letter to the city, it would be a charade to classify ‘older, oversized, grotesquely ugly signage’ as historical.” What the Star article doesn’t report is that Spark was only one of many neighbors who were tired of looking at that sign.

Interestingly enough, businessman and would-be Republican mayoral candidate Shaun McClusky, who was trying to make a case for big signs, actually made a case for the effectiveness of small signs.

The Internet is great, McClusky said, “but I’m in the real estate business. We can advertise a property on 18 websites on a daily basis, but I get far more calls from dropping signs in front yards.”.

Summarily dissing Internet advertising because yard signs are effective real estate tools is silly. Receiving more calls from small real estate signs has more to do with the property the sign is in front of than the sign. If he’s not getting hits from the websites, try a different website! Also, does he know how many people looked at the house on the web before they drove by?

I think GIANT sign cheerleaders would have a more convincing case if they actually had data to show that GIANT signs bring in more business than sign-code-compliant signs. Yes, they can be seen, but does that translate to sales?

Is a sign code actually bad for business? I don’t think so.

Take Palm Springs as a good example of a thriving metropolis with strict signs and LOTS of business. On a recent trip to Palm Springs, I was impressed with the short, tasteful signs and almost complete lack of billboards. We stayed in one of the five or so hotels near their convention center and enjoyed breakfast in a quaint shopping/restaurant area nearby. We thought, “This is what downtown Tucson should look like!”

In this electronic age, giant signs and billboards are dinosaurs. A tasteful, READABLE sign that includes the business name + street number is only one component of a marketing plan. Businesses also should have a well-designed, functional, and up-to-date website, a facebook account, a Twitter account, a stylish business card, and membership in one or more networking groups. And, if you want eye-catching signage, get a car wrap.

March 22 update: The Tucson City Council will hear a sign code variance appeal at tonight’s meeting (March 22, 2011). The Jewish Community Center– a beautifully design building set into the Catalina Mountains– wants to cover the south face of their building with a billboard.  The center already has one non-compliant, over-sized sign. Now they want a billboard, which will not only destroy the architectural elegance of their building but also destroy our view of the Catalina Mountains. If they are allowed to erect this billboard, every time you sit on a bench at Brandi Fenton Park to watch the sunset over the Catalinas, you will see a billboard.

Cold beer on a hot day. (Photo Credit: Green Living Network)

Tucson’s weather has been absolutely gorgeous lately, but we all know what’s coming in a few short months… summer!

One of the hallmarks of springtime in Tucson is the 4th Avenue Street Fair. Life is good when you can take a lazy stroll down 4th Ave. with a cold brewski in your hand.

Now a group of whiny bar-owners on 4th Ave. want to take that cold brewski from your sweaty hand, and they have solicited the help of “business friendly” Councilman Steve Kozachik to do it.

According an article in this week’s Tucson Weekly, some 4th Ave. bar owners– led by Scott Cummings who owns O’Malley’s on Fourth– want the Fourth Avenue Merchants’ Association (FAMA) to restrict or stop beer sales at the Street Fair.

As a small businessman, Cummings is a capitalist. Capitalists believe in the free market– right? Wrong. They only believe in competition on the free market when they’re making money. When there is a threat to their profits, they want government intervention or laws that restrict others from making profits.

Cummings, Jill Brammer (from Che’s), and the other whiny bar owners should man up like real capitalists and see the beer booths as a marketing opportunity– rather than competition that should be squashed by regulations.

What marketing advantages do the bars have over the beer booths? Here are some hints…

1. The beer booths generally sell crappy beer and have no variety. Most of the 4th Ave. bars go way beyond Budweiser and offer dozens of beers.
2. The beer booths sell only beer– leaving the wine and alcohol drinkers high and dry– or not high but definitely dry. (Of course, not all 4th Ave. bars have discovered wine yet; some have seriously poor wine selections.)
3. When you’re walking around the spring Street Fair, you can get hot, tired, and hungry. The bars have seats and air conditioning, and a few of them actually sell real food.
4. The music at the Street Fair can be spotty at best. Bars can hire some of Tucson’s best bands to attract customers inside. (A few years ago, Che’s had legendary Tucson bluesman Tom Whalbank playing there during the Street Fair. The place was packed.)

So, 4th Ave. bar owners, rather than look to government intervention or ask FAMA to change a Street Fair model that has been working for years– use a little marketing know-how to set your product apart. The question for Koz is: Which group of businesses are you going to be friendly to? Or what about if everyone involved decided to be consumer friendly? Consumers want choice, quality products, and a good price.

Union-busting Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker was caught in a telephone sting. A blogger from the BuffaloBeast posed as David Koch (notorious right-philanthropist, major donor to Walker’s campaign), and owner of 18 factories in Wisconsin and talked with Walker on the phone about his union-busting plans.

Above is part one; here is a link to part 2.

In part 2, Walker brags about “doing something big” as a new governor and brags about how popular his union-busting activities are with Wisconsinites and other governors, who are contacting him. He and the fake Koch also discuss placing thugs among the friendly protesters, and he agrees with the fake Koch when he disses the “liberal bastards” on MSNBC.

“This is our time to change the course of history,” Walker tells the fake Koch, as he compares his struggle with the unions to President Ronald Reagan’s “Mr. Gorbachov, tear down this wall” challenge to the communists.

“It’s all about getting our freedom back,” Walker says. [Huh?] “… The bottom line is we’re going to get to the world movement here.”

Ed Schultz– one of those “liberal bastards” on MSNBC– is going to be covering this story on his show on Wednesday night on MSNBC.

One Dollar = One Vote (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

Billionaire Brothers’ Money Plays Role in Wisconsin Dispute from the New York Times may belong in the “duh” category, but I think it worthwhile to note the connection between billionaire right-wing philanthropists Charles G. and David Koch, Wall Street, and the current union-busting activities in Wisconsin and other states.

According to the Times, Koch Industries was one of the largest contributors to union-busting Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. The article excerpted below also says that Koch Brothers’ political operatives have been working with state governments in Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, and Pennsylvania to bust public employee unions.

From the NY Times…

WASHINGTON — Among the thousands of demonstrators who jammed the Wisconsin State Capitol grounds this weekend was a well-financed advocate from Washington who was there to voice praise for cutting state spending by slashing union benefits and bargaining rights.

The visitor, Tim Phillips, the president of Americans for Prosperity, told a large group of counterprotesters who had gathered Saturday at one edge of what otherwise was a mostly union crowd that the cuts were not only necessary, but they also represented the start of a much-needed nationwide move to slash public-sector union benefits.

“We are going to bring fiscal sanity back to this great nation,” he said.

What Mr. Phillips did not mention was that his Virginia-based nonprofit group, whose budget surged to $40 million in 2010 from $7 million three years ago, was created and financed in part by the secretive billionaire brothers Charles G. and David H. Koch.

State records also show that Koch Industries, their energy and consumer products conglomerate based in Wichita, Kan., was one of the biggest contributors to the election campaign of Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, a Republican who has championed the proposed cuts.

Even before the new governor was sworn in last month, executives from the Koch-backed group had worked behind the scenes to try to encourage a union showdown, Mr. Phillips said in an interview on Monday.

State governments have gone into the red, he said, in part because of the excessively generous pay and benefits that unions have been able to negotiate for teachers, police, firefighters and other state and local employees.

“We thought it was important to do,” Mr. Phillips said, adding that his group is already working with activists and state officials in Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania to urge them to take similar steps to curtail union benefits or give public employees the power to opt out of unions entirely.

To union leaders and liberal activists in Washington, this intervention in Wisconsin is proof of the expanding role played by nonprofit groups with murky ties to wealthy corporate executives as they push a decidedly conservative agenda.

“The Koch brothers are the poster children of the effort by multinational corporate America to try to redefine the rights and values of American citizens,” said Representative Gwen Moore, Democrat of Wisconsin, who joined with others in the union protests. Check this link for the rest of the article.

A few weeks ago, Common Cause linked the Koch Brothers to Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia (who voted in favor of corporate personhood and the right of corporations to donate unlimited secret funds to political campaigns). At issue is Thomas’ and Scalia’s attendance at soirees hosted by the Kochs before the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling in January 2010.

How much more evidence do we need to show that the US government is a corporate oligarchy and not a democracy? How about this story from Rolling Stone Magazine and Democracy Now?

Ohio’s union-busting Republican Governor John Kasich worked for Lehman Brothers. As such, he was “intimately involved” in selling risky investments to Ohio’s pension fund managers and those of other states. Of course, a big part of the reason pension funds are under water now is that they lost money on Wall Street during the crash– the crash that Kasich’s former employer Lehman Brothers helped to create. From Democracy Now…

Governor Kasich, yeah, and he was intimately involved with selling—getting the state of Ohio’s pension fund to invest in Lehman Brothers and buy mortgage-backed securities. And of course they lost all that money. And this, broadly, was really what the mortgage bubble and the financial crisis was all about. It was essentially a gigantic criminal fraud scheme where all the banks were taking mismarked mortgage-backed securities, very, very dangerous, toxic subprime loans, they were chopping them up and then packaging them as AAA-rated investments, and then selling them to state pension funds, to insurance companies, to Chinese banks and Dutch banks and Icelandic banks. And, of course, these things were blowing up, and all those funds were going broke. But what they’re doing now is they’re blaming the people who were collecting these pensions—they’re blaming the workers, they’re blaming the firemen, they’re blaming the policemen—whereas, in reality, they were actually the victims of this fraud scheme. And the only reason that people aren’t angrier about this, I think, is because they don’t really understand what happened. If these were car companies that had sold a trillion dollars’ worth of defective cars to the citizens of the United States, there would be riots right now. But these were mortgage-backed securities, it’s complicated, people don’t understand it, and they’re only now, I think, beginning to realize that they were defrauded. Check this link for the rest of the interview.

I agree with the Progressive Democrats of America. I’m fed up with politicians who are owned by corporatists; this includes Walker, Kasich, and Arizona’s own Governor Jan Brewer and State Senate President Russell Pearce (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). How do these people get elected? Oh, yeah, money. Lots of money.

Republicans actually like the other Grover (Norquist) better than this one. (Photo Credit: Sesame Street)

If only the Arizona Legislature could fix the state’s budget problems as quickly as they passed the corporate welfare package this week… sigh…

In a matter of days, Governor Jan Brewer proposed a $538 million corporate tax cut package, it was passed by both the House and the Senate– with no amendments allowed– and it is expected to be signed into law today. This is a travesty.

How does giving away more than a half-a-billion dollars in corporate welfare help a state that is millions– if not billions in debt– hasn’t balanced its budget in years and is closing schools and parks, laying off teachers, and killing healthcare for the poor? The answer: It doesn’t.

At just over 6 percent, Arizona already had one of the country’s lowest corporate tax rates, and we have one of the country’s worst economies, worst unemployment rates, and poorest k-12 school systems. Reducing the state’s corporate to 4.9 percent will help no one but the corporatists. Even House Speaker Kirk Adams admitted the lawmakers don’t know the impact of the new legislation. From the East Valley Tribune:

The votes in the House and Senate came after extensive debate about whether there’s proof that anything in the package will actually create a single job in the state. Even House Speaker Kirk Adams, R-Mesa, conceded there is no guarantee.

“But this much we know: By reducing taxes on business employers, on entrepreneurs, by getting competitive again, Arizona will finally, thankfully, be in the game,” he said.

None of the Democrats and a few Republicans in the Legislature voted against the corporate tax cut legislation. Some wanted to amend it; others complained that it was ramrodded through so quickly that legislators didn’t have time to read it.

What will the Chamber of Commerce and big-business lobbyists say to Governor Brewer today after she signs the corporate welfare bill into law? Wham. Bam. Thank you, ma’am.

Ironically, it was just a few short months ago (when Brewer was running for office), that she said there was “no way” she would support corporate tax cuts after asking the voters to approve a sales tax increase. Remember that sales tax increase we approved because they said it would fund k-12 education? Gotcha. They just gave that away!

What the New York Times’ Paul Krugman wrote recently about Republicans on the federal level holds true for Republicans in the Arizona Legislature: They are sacrificing our future.

Arizona has been in a state of devolution since Governor Jan Brewer, her right-hand man State Senate President Russell Pearce, and their lobbyist cronies took two years ago.

You know the details– over $1 billion in debit with no plans to fix it; sacrificing K-12 and higher education to fund private prisons; ducking out of Medicaid and defunding transplants to fund lower corporate taxes; pandering to gun nuts (yes, anyone who wants looser gun laws in AZ is nuts) to hold onto her right-wing base while ignoring the facts that our gun laws are out-of-control; and diddling with side issues– anchor babies, two-tiered birth certificates, Obama’s birth certificate, guns on college campuses, and shooting varmints– rather than working on legislation to put Arizonans back to work. Need I go on? (Seriously, we should have would-be lawmakers take an IQ test.)

How did we get here? Or, more importantly, how did Russell Pearce– Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio crony, former Chief Deputy under Sheriff Joe, and  former head of Arizona’s Department of Motor Vehicles (who was fired for tampering with records)– get to be the most powerful man in Arizona?

The old fashioned way– money.

For more background on Pearce and the rich “White Panthers” behind his rise to power, check out this story.
Arizona’s New White Panther Party: Money & (Anchor) Baby Hate

And after you’re thoroughly disgusted, check out the Pearce recall effort launched yesterday. If you want to volunteer to collect signatures or donate to the effort sponsored by Citizens for a Better Arizona, check out their RecallPearce website.

What does the Republican Party stand for? Small government and reduced spending. Right? Wrong. That’s their PR story, but that’s not their behavior.

The graphic above leaves little to the imagination when you look at government spending under Republican Presidents Ronald Reagan (the father of the small government ideal), George Bush I, and George Bush II (the winner of the out-of-control spending award who was helped greatly by his 100% Republican-controlled Congress.)

I offer this history lesson because in the coming weeks we are going to hear a lot of Republican rhetoric about spending cuts and balancing our budgets at the kitchen table. Keep in mind that many of the Republicans who will be spouting this new fiscal conservatism marched in lock-step with President Bush as he destroyed our economy with tax cuts and entitlement programs we couldn’t afford, AND they were involved in the Republican Congressional blockade in December 2010 when they held out for tax cuts for the richest Americans and refused to discuss any other legislation until they secured tax cuts (which we couldn’t afford) for their cronies.

Check out Chris Hayes’ smackdown of the Republicans’ disingenuous fiscal policy decisions on the Rachel Maddow Show: GOP haunted by big spending and corporate favors.

The beginning is devoted to the Republican who will deliver the response to President Obama’s State of the Union address tonight. Paul Ryan, Congressman from Wisconsin, is now known as a fiscal conservative and has written the Roadmap for America’s Future which features privatization schemes and a number of draconian cuts– including cuts in Medicare and Social Security but, of course, not military spending. There is a bit of a problem with Ryan wearing the fiscal conservative mantel. You see, during the Bush II era, Ryan was one of the Congressional drunken sailors who spent like there was no tomorrow; he voted for the Republican tax cuts and unfunded expansion of Medicare under Bush II.

At about 7 minutes, Hayes talks about out-of-control spending by Bush and Reagan, and about 10 minutes, he talks with economist James Galbraith.

So, as you listen to state and federal government Republicans in the coming months, take their new-found fiscal responsibility with a grain of salt. We need to be vigilant or we will lose everything that doesn’t help the military-industrial complex.