Newly-elected Arizona Democratic Party State Chair Andrei Cherny (left) and Cochise County Party Chair Bob Bland, who nominated him. (Photo credit: Pamela Powers)

On Saturday, the Three Sonorans, Blog for Arizona, and Rum Romanisn and Rebillion reported that Andrei Cherny– No Labels co-founder and former candidate for Arizona state treasurer– won the office of Arizona Democratic Party state chair.

While progressive bloggers reported Chery’s win, none of them bothered to mention his role as co-founder of the National No Labels movement. (I’m sure Andrei appreciated the softball.)

I mentioned his connection with No Labels in my non-endorsement of either candidate on Friday but didn’t realize he was national co-founder until today, sorry loyal readers, for this mis-step.

The Rest of the Story
As venerated right-wing journalist Paul Harvey would say, today, I will report the rest of the story.

For some, at the Arizona Democratic Party State Committee Meeting, the big issue with the state chair elections was eligibility. Former Tucson City Council Member Rodney Glassman faced off with former candidate for state treasurer Andrei Cherny (who has never won an election).

Glassman’s personal issues (as annotated in excruciating detail on the Three Sonorans’ blog) aside and Cherny’s No Labels affiliation (as mentioned by no one but me) aside– there were several issues regarding Cherny’s eligibility to run for state party office.

The Three Sonorans, the Feathered Bastard and the other political bloggers tossed out or ignored those facts. It is also fascinating to me that Cherny NEVER mentioned his No Labels love affair in his speech yesterday or his Democratic Party pre-vote propaganda.

The Bylaws Controversy
Although the Three Sonorans and the Feathered Bastard want to paint the disconnect with Cherny’s candidacy and Arizona State Statute as trivial, it’s state law. Apparently, Maricopa County Democratic Party bylaws, Arizona Democratic Party bylaws, and Arizona State Statute all conflict regarding who is qualified to hold an office in an official political party. (Several people speak to this in the video.)

Excuse me… but with so many lawyers involved in politics, many at Saturday’s meeting were wondering why they didn’t see this disconnect before Saturday. Actually, according to outgoing State Chair Don Bivens, they did. Bivens said from the podium that the discrepancy was a known problem that the party had worked around it in the past, and he seemed to wonder what the big deal was this year.

There was extensive debate about this issue at the Democratic Party meeting– with multiple lawyers and politicos weighing in– including Pima County’s Jeff Rogers, Bill Risner, and Jeff Latas. (See the video below.) Risner, well known for election integrity lawsuits on behalf of Pima County, cited Arizona Revised Statute– which states that candidates for state party chair must be elected precinct committee persons and elected state committee persons– which Glassman is and Cherny isn’t.

Many theorized that Bivens, white male lawyer (see video), anointed Cherny, another white male lawyer, to be chair. (Of course, Glassman is also another white, male lawyer.) One can only speculate, but check out Bivens’ beaming smile as Cherny is elected. In my opinion, one picture tells 1000 stories.

Personally, I think Latas has a good point in the video: If you let the state chair bend the rules that lends itself to cronyism and corruption. (He clearly states in the video that he is not implying anything about the current situation.) The video below starts with the debate in the Progressive Democratic Caucus– dubbed “Progressive Wack-a-doodles” by the Feathered Bastard last week when he originally dismissed the eligibility issue. The video takes you through the whole meeting– from the morning Progressive Caucus through both candidates’ speeches (around 9 minutes) to Cherny’s election (279 Cherny – 232 Glassman).

What will be the future of Arizona’s Democratic Party under this new leadership? Only time will tell… I’m leaving an open mind but also have open eyes– not obscured by rose-colored glasses. If the party moves more toward Republican-lite, I believe this would be a huge mistake. There were hundreds of very progressive Democratic Party foot soldiers in attendance on Saturday, and the party would be remiss if it dismissed their views and glided further to the right.

One dollar = One vote (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

One year ago today, the US Supreme Court blew the doors off campaign finance reform with their decision on the landmark Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission.

The Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision ruled that limiting campaign contributions from corporations limits their freedom of speech. This decision is based upon the legal precedent of corporate personhood, which gives corporations the same rights as “natural persons” (AKA real people). This ruling permitted corporations and unions to directly fund campaign advertising, a practice that had been restricted; it also cleared the way for the creation of secret campaign financing groups, which poured billions into the 2010 midterm election.

The watchdog group Common Cause is now raising the question of conflict of interest in this case. Two of the court’s most conservative justices– Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, who voted in favor of Citizens United– have been linked to Charles and David Koch, conservative billionaires who push right-wing causes with their contributions and benefited from the Citizens United ruling.

At issue is the justices attendance at soirees hosted by the Kochs. Common Cause has asked the Justice Department to investigate the connection and has asked for a re-trial if conflict of interest is found.

For more details, check out this story in the LA Times…
2 Supreme Court judges had conflict of interest in campaign finance case, group says

And this one in Blog for Arizona…
Common Cause requests a U.S. Justice Department investigation of Justices Scalia and Thomas for a conflict of interest in Citizens United v. FEC

Ok, Ok, I know that this is supposed to be the new age of civility, but every time I hear Republican Party mouthpiece Bruce Ash’s twisted logic and his “This I Believe” audio editorials on the radio, I just wanna puke. It’s amazing to me that he can sound soooooo sincere while he bends the facts to suit his ideology. (See, I’m trying to be be nice.)

Today on John C. Scott’s Show on The JOLT (1330 am), Ash was in rare form. I so tempted to call up and debate Ash but decided to do it here instead.

Ash: Congressional Republicans are committed to holding the line on the budget and stopping the “out-of-control” spending of the Obama Administration.

Me: Are these the same Republicans that insisted on keeping all of the Bush tax cuts before they would consider any other legislation last December? This fiscally irresponsible move will add trillions to the debt. And are these the same Republicans who gave Bush II everything he wanted with no regard to the cost? I think so.

Ash: Congressional Republicans will vote against raising the debt ceiling in March, but it’s no big deal. It’s fiscally irresponsible to raise to continue to raise the debt limit.

Me: When Newt Gingrich did this, he shut down the US government. This eventually blew up in his face, and the Republicans lost credibility. How could it be no big deal now? Also, since Gingrich’s fiasco in 1995, Republicans and Democrats have voted to raise the debt limit several times. After spending like drunken sailors for eight years under Bush II, are you saying that Republicans have now sobered up?

Ash: Today, House Republicans made good on their campaign promise to repeal of Obamacare because it costs too much, takes away patient choice, interferes with the doctor-patient relationship, and provides federal funding for abortion. Besides most Americans don’t like the plan. We’re just doing what the voters want us to. [I wish I could have witnessed Ash's nose grow longer after spewing this string of Republican lies.]

Me: First of all, the Affordable Health Care Act saves the US money in the long term, and repealing it will add to the nation’s debt. This vote was no more than political theater, and it is diametrically opposed to your first statement that Republicans are committed to fiscal responsibility. Second and third, patients are free to choose their doctors, and they can keep their current doctor and plan or dump them if they want. Fourth, the healthcare reform law does not pay for abortions; if a woman has a plan that pays for abortions, she’s allowed to keep that plan and uses the services she has paid for. (It’s called patient choice.) Lastly, recent polls show that only 18% of Americans are against Obamacare, since millions more Americans now have healthcare insurance who didn’t and more provisions are taking effect. [Scott mentioned this, and Ash testily denied that polls show Americans now favor reform.] Also, earlier polls that showed most Americans didn’t like the plan included progressives who thought it didn’t go far enough + people who thought it went too far or just don’t like it because it was a Democratic Party victory.

[Scott asked Ash about gimmicks and fixes in Governor Jan Brewer's proposed new budget and alluded to the need to raise revenues, but Ash would have none of that. Instead he went for the Sarah Palin's folksy old saw about sitting around the kitchen table like a family.]

Ash: Like your family or mine, John, Arizona just has to sit around the kitchen table and figure out where to cut the budget to make ends meet. It’s just that simple. At the same time, Arizona has to be attractive to businesses in Arizona– to encourage them to stay– and attractive to businesses who may want to relocate. [Being attractive = cutting corporate taxes.] Arizona also should look at decreasing regulations.

Me: Arizona already has one of the lowest corporate tax rates in the country– 6.968%. Cutting corporate taxes when the state is in the midst of a fiscal crisis and has not balanced the budget for years is fiscally irresponsible. [Again, Bruce, see #1 above.] Businessmen in Tucson, as well as academics at Arizona State University, say that Arizona’s budget crisis can’t be fixed with budget cuts alone and that Arizona’s tax system is structurally unsound. The Governor’s proposal would only worsen this situation. Regarding making Arizona attractive to businesses, tax rates and lax regulations are not the only things that relocating business consider. They look at infrastructure, quality of life, and the education level of the workforce. Dramatic and repeated cuts to education at all levels will make Arizona less and less competitive. Cutting university funding also stifles innovation and research-based start-up businesses.

1036 E. Waverly St.-- an old house being destroyed by Michael Goodman. (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

A full hour of yesterday’s John C. Scott Show on the JOLT (KJLL 1330AM) was devoted to promoting the value of mini-dorms. Ick. (Hopefully, they had to pay for this lengthy advertorial on mini-dorms. If not, the JOLT missed an opportunity to make some serious change.)

Michael Goodman, Richard Studwell, and another developer chatted on the radio about the selfless community service they provide by knocking down old houses in historic neighborhoods and replacing them with mini-dorms for UA students.

Their schtick is that since the state of Arizona is too poor to build student housing, big-hearted developers– like them– must come to the rescue and build mini-dorms. Not enough student housing has been a long-term problem at the UA. Since the state makes money on students living in dorms, I don’t understand why the UA rarely builds them– unless, of course, the developers lobby the state not to build dorms. (After all, dorms would cut into their action.)

The latest flash point of mini-dorm construction is in the Jefferson Park Neighborhood (between Campbell and Park, south of Grant). On the radio yesterday, the developers’ contention was that the Jefferson Park is a ramshackled neighborhood of decaying 1950s ranch houses that have no architectural value. They said that many of the houses are so far gone that they can’t be renovated and should be torn down and replaced with mini-dorms.

They also tried to paint the neighborhood activists who oppose the rape of their neighborhood and demolition of family homes as small group of NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) kooks who don’t like living near noisy college students.

Territorial style house directly across the street from the demolished house which will soon be a mini-dorm. (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

To fact-check their statements on the radio, I drove around Jefferson Park on my way home yesterday.

Yes, there are some rundown rentals– as there are in all midtown and downtown neighborhoods in Tucson, thanks to local slumlords. (BTW, City Council Members, isn’t there something you can do about slumlords who allow their unkempt properties to blight our older neighborhoods?)

The majority of the Jefferson Park houses were well-kept older homes with mature vegetation. There was a mix of 1930s Territorial style homes and 1950s brick bungalows. I didn’t see any traditional ranch houses, as there are on the east side. The houses on East Waverly Street that surround 1036 (above), which is being demolished by Goodman, are all very nice. It’s sad that this residential street filled with well-appointed older homes will be plagued with the blemish of a mini-dorm.

Another Territorial style house on East Waverly, near the new mini-dorm site. (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

Many long-time Tucsonans lament the loss of Barrio Viejo historic homes that were demolished when the Tucson Convention Center was built. I believe that in 10 years when the mini-dorms are crumbling we will lament the loss of historic homes in the city’s core.

Don’t forget the candlelight vigil in front of 1036 E. Waverly on Friday, January 7 at 6:30 p.m. Also, don’t forget to take the mini-dorm poll.

Republicans who rode the Tea Party’s coat tails into office in 2010 are vowing to cut $100 billion from domestic spending, but can they really do it?

According to the New York Times, the only parts of the budget that would be exempt from a potential 20 percent across-the-board would be the military, domestic security, and veterans.

What would this mean for us? Cuts in Medicare and Social Security, reduced revenue-sharing with the states, more lay-offs, fewer teachers, less healthcare, crumbling infrastructure, etc. How can anyone believe that this is a good idea? (And, don’t forget, the returning Republicans– like House-Speaker-elect John Boehner– were the ones lobbying hard for continued tax cuts for the rich just a few weeks ago.) From the Times…

The budget-cutting exercise is perhaps the biggest test facing the House Republicans as they seek to remain united and to keep faith with Tea Partymembers, many of whom remain suspicious of the party’s willingness to vote for deep spending cuts.

But if Republicans vote for the size and range of required cuts in education, law enforcement, medical and scientific research, transportation and much more, it would give Democrats political ammunition to use against them in swing districts.

Such reductions are sure to draw protests from governors and local officials, including Republicans, who are counting on federal money to help balance their budgets. Many business and farm groups likewise would oppose cuts in their subsidies. And many economists would argue that immediate federal spending cuts of this size, especially on top of cuts and layoffs in the cities and states, would threaten the economy’s recovery and offset any stimulus from the tax cut deal Republicans and Mr. Obama reached just weeks ago.

Yet conservative analysts say even more spending cuts are desirable. Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative research organization, has outlined a plan for $343 billion in reductions, including cuts from corporate tax breaks and entitlement programs that are not in the portion of the federal budget that House Republicans are focusing on, the so-called nonsecurity discretionary spending.

“The difficulty for Republicans is that they’re concentrating their cuts in a small sliver of the budget,” Mr. Riedl said. “They should also be addressing large entitlement programs, such as Medicare and Social Security, which are the main source of our budget problems. Cutting $100 billion from these other programs isn’t just a matter of eliminating waste, fraud and abuse. It will involve real cuts in real programs.”…

The promise to cut $100 billion this fiscal year — in effect, taking government operations to 2008 levels — would mean cuts of more than 20 percent across the board from the $477 billion that Congress allocated for such programs in the 2010 fiscal year, which ended Sept. 30.

Such across-the-board cuts “would have very damaging implications for the long-term growth of the economy and the long-term future of our work force,” said Jacob J. Lew, Mr. Obama’s budget director. He is preparing the administration’s budget for the 2012 fiscal year, which would continue a three-year freeze of the same domestic spending at 2010 levels.

“If you look in areas like education, if it was applied across the board it would mean eight million students would have their Pell grants reduced by an average of $700,” Mr. Lew said. “You obviously could make policy not to do that, but then you’d have to save a lot of money somewhere else.”

A 20-percent cut also would mean 40,000 fewer teachers and school aides, he said, and big reductions in basic research, law enforcement and small business programs, among many others.

If the Republicans apply their promise literally, some programs would have to be scaled back even more because the government is already well into its fiscal year, so the cuts would have to be concentrated in a shorter period. The reductions would be about 30.6 percent, said James R. Horney, a former Congressional budget analyst who is now at the liberal-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

“That would require very large layoffs or furloughs of federal employees,” Mr. Horney said, “as well as big reductions in grants to state and local governments and government purchases of goods and services — all of which would offset a good portion of the stimulus achieved in the tax compromise and threaten the recovery.”

In new rules that the House is expected to adopt when it convenes on Wednesday, Republicans will empower the incoming chairman of the House Budget Committee, Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, to set limits for the various categories of domestic spending that are decided in the Appropriations Committee. That is more power than ever invested in a Budget Committee chief and a significant diminution in the appropriation panel’s traditional sway.

Initially, that would allow House Republicans to suggest what general areas the $100 billion would come from without identifying specific cuts.

“The reality of governing is different than the reality of campaigning, and it’s easier to throw out a number than it is to support it,” said David Axelrod, Mr. Obama’s senior strategist.

Maybe the impending budget battles will open the eyes of complacent Americans.

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.

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.

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?

Last week the US House of Representatives voted to extend the Bush Era tax cuts to poor and middle class but not to richest 2% of Americans. On Saturday, predictably, all Senate Republicans (including our own John McCain and Jon Kyl) + 5 Blue Dog Democrats killed the limited tax cut extension and continued to hold out for full extension of the tax cuts to everyone.

A CBS News poll shows most Americans favor a limited extension of the Bush Era tax cuts. (Source: CBSNews.com)

A recent CBS News poll shows that Republican grandstanding for the rich is out of step with most Americans. According to CBS, 53% of Americans favor extension of the cuts to income under $250,000, and only 26% favor extending the cuts to all Americans, including the wealthiest. You’ll note that only 10% of those “free-spending” Democrats want to extend the cuts to everyone, while 46% of those “fiscally responsible” Republicans want full extension.

Why are Congressional conservatives fiercely fighting for full extension of the Bush Era tax cuts? Their fight has even put national security at risk, according to Newsweek, because they have vowed to not vote on anything– not even the New START Treaty– until the tax cuts have been extended to all. Obviously, the vast majority of the constituents in Kentucky (Mitch McConnell’s state) or rural Southern Ohio (John Boehner’s district) or Arizona (John and Jon’s territory) will not benefit from extension of cuts to the richest 1% of Americans. So, why have these four men been been hawking millionaire welfare for months?

Besides the obvious link between the Republican Party and rich, conservative donors– let’s look at the Republicans’ cozy relationship with FOX News.

• Since its inception, FOX news has been a faithful 24/7 mouthpiece for the right.
• Before the midterm election, FOX News’ parent company even donated money to Republican candidates.
• Failed right-wing politicians– like Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, and Karl Rove– often land high-paying pundit jobs with FOX after their political careers dwindle.
• FOX News regularly promotes Republican ideas and candidates while hammering all things progressive.

Now thanks to Newsweek, Ed Schultz, and Rep. Alan Grayson, we learn of another reason why FOX News has been pushing for full extension of the tax cuts: their millionaire pundits stand to lose millions if tax cuts for wealthiest Americans are not extended. According to Grayson’s speech and his comments on the Ed Schultz Show (below), here is how much more in taxes popular right-wing pundits would have to pay if Congress does not extend tax cuts to all Americans:

• Rush Limbaugh – $2,689,135
• Glenn Beck – $1,512,352
• Sean Hannity – $1,006,352
• Bill O’Reilly – $914,352
• Sarah Palin – $638,352
• Newt Gingrich – $247,352

So, FOX News donates to Republican candidates and peddles their ideas, and Republican Senators and Congressmen return the favor. After all, it’s all “fair and balanced” in the “no-spin zone.”

P. S. Glenn Beck makes $33 million a year on FOX? And he has the nerve to say government workers are overpaid?