Is the sleeping giant of the American electorate awakening to the destruction of our country by greedy corporatists? Well, maybe.

A new poll released by a Toronto company shows that Americans’ enthusiasm for capitalism has dropped from 80% in 2002 to 59% in 2010.

Since 2002, Globescan has been asking the question “Is the free market the best ecomonic  system in the world?” every year to citizens in 23 countries.

According to an article in Globalpost, Americans are less happy with the free market than citizens in Germany (the happiest capitalists at 68%), China (aren’t they supposed to be communists? 67%), or Brazil (67%).  Those socialists in France, of course, really don’t like capitalism; only 30% of the French said capitalism was a good economic system. From Globalpost…

“America is the last place we would have expected to see such a sharp drop in trust in the free enterprise system,” Globescan chairman Doug Miller said in a statement announcing the results. “This is not good news for business.”

The U.S. figure dropped 15 percentage points from 2009. It was led by a huge decline in America’s poor and women. Here’s how Globescan parsed the decline in these two groups:

“Americans with incomes below $20,000 were particularly likely to have lost faith in the free market over the past year, with their support dropping from 76 percent to 44 percent between 2009 and 2010. American women have also become much less positive, with 52 percent backing the free market in 2010, down from 73 percent in 2009.”

I find it telling that the Germans are the happiest capitalists, since Germany has the strongest unions in the world + has a thriving economy (because they didn’t dismantle their manufacturing base, as the US and the UK did). Comparing the Germans with the low-income Americans, you find that happy, well-paid workers who have universal healthcare say that capitalism is a good system, which underpaid and/or underemployed US workers with little or no healthcare say capitalism is not working for them.

By oppressing unions in the US and trying to squeeze every once of productivity out of workers while cutting wages and benefits, the capitalists are unwittingly breeding unrest. Now that the capitalists own the US House of Representatives and several state Legislatures, I don’t see the greed train slowing down any time soon. If Teapublicans continue to cut jobs in the name of fiscal responsibility while freely doling out corporate welfare, Americans are going to continue to be disgruntled. Is it November 2012 yet?

How progressive is Tucson? Yes, it is general knowledge that Pima County is one tiny blue spot in a sea of blood red, but just how liberal are we?

Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) started a Tucson Chapter in February. According to PDA leader Phil Lopes, since then PDA’s mailing list has grown to more than 800 Southern Arizonans. As with all mailing lists, they have e-mails and/or street addresses for most of the people who volunteered to receive information about the fledgling organization. Looking at the local PDA members with street addresses in their database, PDA plotted their membership by Legislative District (above) and Congressional District (below).

This map shows where the above Legislative districts are located. LD28– the district with the most PDA members (209)– is Tucson proper; pieces of 26, 27, 29, and 30 are also within the city limits. Yes, this is totally unscientific data, but it does give us a glimpse of Tucson’s progressive leanings.

We see our Democratic Party leaders sidling up to the right, but is this a good strategy? If PDA continues to gain steam statewide, I would venture to say, no! Purely conjecture here, but I can’t help wondering if the dismal turnout at the LD28 Democratic Party meeting last Wednesday (~25 people) is related to LD28′s strong presence in PDA. Pima Dems– take note. Maybe cozying up to the Southern Arizona Leadership Council isn’t such a good idea.

Raul Grijalva represents CD7. Gabrielle Giffords represents CD8.

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.

The Roberts’ Court ruling overturning campaign finance laws in January 2010 opened the gates for corporations to flood the 2010 midterm election with cash… anonymously. Hundreds of millions of dollars in secret funds are being pumped into media markets across the nation in order to defeat progressive candidates and stop the progressive agenda in Washington, DC.

Right here in our own backyard, small government advocate Grover Norquist created a $230,000 TV attack ad for politically-untested, 28-year-old, Tea Party darling Ruth McClung, who is challenging CD7 Congressman Raul Grijalva.

If you connect the dots, you can see that local big businesses are using money and influence to change our local government, change the way we hold local elections, control key political positions, and basically take over Tucson. Here is the evidence…

1. The Southern Arizona Leadership Council (SALC), a group made up of the richest businessmen in Southern Arizona, is sponsoring Prop 401. This proposition– if passed by voters on November 2– would change to the Tucson City Charter  and make the unelected city manager the most powerful person in Tucson; increase the power of the Mayor; diminish the power of the City Council (while giving them a 155% pay raise to roll over); and change the City Council election cycle, enabling all Council members to be elected in the same year (and also enabling people with enough money to sweep the Council).
2. If you follow the Prop 401 money trail, you will see that there are several donations of $1000-$10,000 and almost no donations under $100. The moneyed backers include Tucson Association of Realtors, Diamond Ventures, Jim Click, several other car dealers and developers, and many other businesses. (Although the Yes on 401 advertising says that unions back Prop 401, there are no union donations.)
3. It was revealed this week in the Tucson Citizen that Raytheon’s political action committee made one campaign contribution in this election cycle– $15,000 to Yes on Prop 401. (Raytheon belongs to SALC. Ov course, thanks again to the Roberts’ Court, Raytheon probably also made other anonymous donations.)
4. On last week’s All Things Political talk radio show hosted by former City Councilman Steve Leal on AM 1330 we learned that SALC sided with the Arizona Legislature in a lawsuit against the City of Tucson. (Click the link to hear the audio from the radio show.) In the last legislative session, the Arizona Legislature passed a law forcing the City of Tucson to hold non-partisan elections. The City of Tucson is suing the Legislature over this law that specifically targets Tucson, and SALC is a co-defendant in the suit. Tucson voters have rejected non-partisan, ward-only elections more than once at the ballot box. Now the Arizona Legislature and SALC are trying to shove it down our throats. (Unfortunately, this is nothing new; SALC has a history of trying to manipulate Tucson and Southern Arizona.)
5. SALC is in the process of installing their vice president, John Pedicone (1, 2), as the new superintendent of Tucson Unified School District. SALC has a side project– Tucson Values Teachers– which encourages private citizens to buy schools supplies and gift cards for teachers. Helping and valuing teachers is a noble cause, but I find it ironic that the richest men in Southern Arizona are asking the rest of us for financial support. Also, no where on the TVT website does it say that they value public education. What would Pedicone do as superindent of TUSD? Will he be a champion for public education? This is unclear. Who does SALC back for state superintendent of public instruction? I have hunted around for the answer to that question but couldn’t find the answer. Do they favor Republican John Huppenthal, who as a state legislator worked to dismantle public education? Or Democrat Penny Kotterman, a life-long educator and advocate for children?
6. Not stopping with trying to take over city government and TUSD, a Raytheon employee– Ruth McClung– is running for Congress in Congressional District 7. McClung and her husband both work for our local defense contractor. (Interestingly enough, McClung campaigns against big government spending, while being supported 100% by big government spending.) I’m sure it would be a sweet deal for SALC and Raytheon to have an inexperienced, young Congresswoman at their disposal.  (Also, don’t forget that Tucson Mayor Bob Walkup is a retired Raytheon big-wig.)

Personally, I think this is chilling evidence of a local coup in the making. It shows that these local moneyed forces are working behind the scenes at several levels to change Tucson. Is democracy for sale? I hope not. For more on this topic, check out this link to today’s version of All Things Political.

From the get-go, tonight’s Pima County Democratic Party meeting had the feeling of a showdown on Prop 401, and it was.

The room was tense as each member of the Executive Committee spoke for the allotted 2 minutes, and there was no call to the audience. Most people passed or said just a few words. Tom Prezelski and Jim Hannley, both EC members and officers in the Protect Local Control No on Prop 401, spoke eloquently against the measure.

Chairman and Prop 401 supported Jeff Rogers gave the history of the measure; first the Democrats were working with the City Council on a strong mayor charter change, but eventually he folded his efforts into those of the Southern Arizona Leadership Council (SALC), who was proposing strong city manager charter changes.

One young EC member read excerpts from a letter from the three City Council members who stood with their constituents and voted against the charter changes back in July. He asked that the EC “not throw them under the bus.”

In the end, the mostly white, mostly male, mostly over 60 Democratic EC voted 19 yes, 5 no, and 1 abstain to endorse Prop 401.

The Feldman Neighborhood, which has a reputation for fiery politics, hosted the most polite community forum ever last night. Was it the gentle ambiance of the historic but hard-to-find St. Luke’s Chapel, built by Josias Joesler. Or the lack of suits?

About a dozen citizens gathered in the chapel to discuss the pros and cons of Prop 401, the proposed changes to the Tucson City Charter. Local lawyer, environmentalist, and Tucson Charter Change Coalition (TC3) executive committee member, Mitch Coker spoke in favor of Prop 401. Political gadfly and former blogger, Luke Knipe represented Protect Local Control, the No on 401 committee.

The free-form, unstructured forum was dotted with controversy and consensus. There was major discussion of what the charter changes would fix, deceptive advertising by Prop 401 supporters, government accountability, the impact of shifting the election cycle, the pros and cons a stronger city manager, and the pay raises for politicians.

When asked what city government problems the charter changes would fix, neither Coker nor Shirley Kiser (one of the architects of Prop 401, along with her husband Jim Kiser) could answer the question. They waffled around what the charter changes would do but couldn’t name any problems they would fix. I asked a follow-up question but still no specifics.

My point to them was that the Southern Arizona Leadership Council (SALC) has raised almost $50,000, talked with hundreds of people, and spent thousands of dollars on yard signs and a giant “Fix city government” billboard at the gateway to downtown. And they can’t tell us what they want to “fix”?

Finally, since they couldn’t come up with an answer, I said that I believe SALC is trying to “fix” the City Council. The proposed charter changes would dramatically weaken the City Council’s power and influence over decision-making. Here’s how: 1) electing the entire city government in one election (instead of stagger elections, as they are now) would allow moneyed forces (like SALC) to a sweep the entire Mayor and Council out in the same year; 2) the charter changes would take the City Council out of many hiring and firing decisions and give all authority to the unelected city manager; and 3) giving more power to the Mayor weakens the City Council.

Taking power away from the elected City Council reduces government accountability. Repeatedly Coker and Kiser gave examples of strong city manager cities that are “well run”. The examples they gave were cities that had had the same unelected city manager for 10-20 years. It dawned on my later that the corporatists want an iron-clad impervious leader for the city; they want the City of Tucson to be run by a despot– a CEO!

Unfortunately for them, we live in a democracy, and democracy is messy.

As to be expected during election season, I am greeted with campaign ads in my mailbox nearly everyday.

Yesterday, I received the above pro-Prop 401 card (without the circles and numbers, of course). This is one deceptive ad; in fact the statements circled in blue are blatant lies. (The items circled in yellow can be dismissed as unsubstantiated public relations claims.)

Prop 401 does absolutely NOTHING to (1) streamline city government or (2) cut bureaucracy. Prop 401 changes some hiring and firing procedures, but these changes actually strengthen the city’s bureaucracy by further consolidating power in the office of the unelected city manager. No bureaucratic positions are eliminated, no budgets are cut, and no departments are eliminated by Prop 401.

Regarding (3) hold bureaucrats accountable, I contend that only elected officials are accountable to the voters– not bureaucrats. Less government accountability is my biggest beef with Prop 401. By taking power away from the Mayor and City Council (while at the same time more than doubling their salaries), Prop 401 strengthens bureaucracy. (Yes, with Prop 401, certain department heads will lose their civil service protection, but the bureaucrats in these positions never have been accountable to voters, so it’s a bit of a red herring, in my opinion.)

So, I’d like to see the Southern Arizona Leadership Council (SALC) send out a mailer that tells what Prop 401 actually does:

1- Prop 401 more than doubles the salaries of the Mayor and Council, while diminishing their power.

2- Prop 401 changes hiring and firing processes to increase the power of the unelected city manager.

3- Prop 401 eliminates civil service protection for some department heads and allows the unelected city manager to more easily eliminate staff, which also increases his power.

4- Prop 401 eliminates the off-year elections, thus, enabling the election of the Mayor and all City Council members in the same year. (This saves money, but also potentially weakens our elected officials. SALC members have big bucks; if the entire city government is up for election in the same year, they could easily flood the election with money in an attempt to take over the Democratically-controlled City Council in one fell swoop.)

The bottomline is that Prop 401 is an attempt by big business to weaken and, therefore, control Tucson city government (the way they control the Arizona Legislature). These corporatists are using money and lies to sway your vote.

One look at the Yes on Prop 401 campaign finance reports tells us who the puppeteer is behind the curtain– big business. Yes on Prop 401 has received a handful of $100 donations, but by far the donations in support of Prop 401 are $500- $10,000 donations from businesses. What are they doing with these funds? Yes on Prop 401 has paid thousands of dollars to a public relations firm, a marketing firm, and a paid lobbyist– to sway your vote.

In stark contract, the grassroots, all-volunteer Protect Local Control Vote No on Prop 401 group has $70 in the bank.

Don’t buy the lie. Vote NO on Prop 401.

P.S.– As a snarky side note to the PR firm, you’ve got a run-on sentence in the blue section at the top.

UPDATE October 4: The Arizona Daily Star posted a story about the groups for and against Prop 401. They reported that as of last week, Prop 401 supporters have raised $47.000, while the Protect Local Control committee has raised $320.

Today, September 30, and Monday, October 4, two neighborhood groups will host community forums on Propositions 400 and 401, which will be on the November ballot.

Prop 400 would increase the city’s sales tax to pay for core services (police, fire, parks) (1, 2), and Prop 401 would change the city’s charter (1,2).

The Tucson City Council voted in July to allow both initiatives to be put on the ballot. The sales tax increase would help the city balance its budget, but it has been a contentious issue on the City Council, with Councilman Steve Kozachik offering alternative Plans C and D to City Manager Mike Letcher’s Plans A (Prop 400) or Plan B (15% across the board cuts).

Prop 401, although more esoteric, also has been very contentious. Prop 401 is the baby of the Southern Arizona Leadership Council (SALC); this big business group claims that the City Charter should be changed because city government doesn’t run efficiently* and because it’s old. The grassroots opposition to Prop 401 takes issue with the huge Mayor and Council pay increases that are included. (I am against Prop 401 because it increases the power of the city’s bureaucracy [particularly the unelected city manager] and, therefore, makes government less accountable.)

Want to learn more about these initiatives, ask questions, or voice your opinion? Check out one of these forums. The last Props 400-401 forum, hosted by Ward 6, was a standing-room-only event (above). (Kozachik called the event “lively;” other attendees described it as wild political theater.)

Southside
Tonight, the Southside Neighborhood Association Presidential Partnership (SNAPP) will host a community forum on both Props 400 and 401 from 6-8 p.m. The event will be at the El Pueblo Activity Center Multi Purpose Room, 101 W. Irvington Road. The entrance to the parking lot is south of Irvington Road on Nogales Highway.

University area
On October 4, the Feldman Neighborhood Association will host a community forum on only Prop 401, beginning at 6:30 p.m. The event will be at the chapel of St. Luke’s Home at Lee and N. First Ave.

* Regarding the efficiency of city government: well, anyone who has been following the downtown hotel hell (1, 2, 3, 4) or the other Rio Nuevo real estate deals could make a case for inefficiency. But, personally, I don’t think bigger bureaucracy is going to fix it. I believe we need strong leadership. Prop 401 should have been broken up, which would have allowed people to vote for the parts they favor.

Ward 6 City Councilman Steve Kosachik will be hosting a townhall on 2 propositions which will be on the November ballot– Prop 400 which would increase the city’s sales tax to pay for core services (police, fire, parks) (1, 2) and Prop 401 which would change the city’s charter (1,2).

Want to learn more about these initiatives, ask questions, or voice your opinion? Come to the Ward 6 office, 3202 E. 1st Street, at 6:30 p.m. today (Sept. 16). In addition to Kozachik, City Manager Mike Letcher and City Attorney Mike Rankin will be in attendance.

Here’s a news clip from KVOA about tonight’s meeting.

This morning Arizona Public Media aired a balanced report on Prop 401 by Robert Rappaport.

Several pro-401 corporate talking heads were interviewed, and Tom Prezelski, former state legislator and chair of the grassroots Protect Local Control coalition, provided the anti-401 opinion.

Two of the pro-401 group’s arguments that were aired today don’t hold much water in my opinion.

A representative from Cox Communications who was identified as the head of the Yes on 401 group pumped up the cost savings which would be earned from consolidated elections. (I can’t give you her name because she is not identified on the Yes on 401 website. I think that it is telling that they do not name the officers of their committee on their website. Maybe the pro-401 group is not as diverse as they would lead us to believe. Just look at the parent company’s membership list.)

The nameless head of Yes on 401 said that by having the entire Tucson City Council elected in the same year we would not only same money, but the Council would be more likely to work together, since they were elected in the same year. (Well, maybe, but I don’t see much evidence of this in the Congress or the Arizona Legislature. That assertion is just unsubstantiated PR, in my opinion.)

What the nameless head of Yes on 401 is not saying is that by electing the entire City Council in the same year, forces with enough money could sweep the entire Council– thanks to the corporate personhood/campaign finance ruling from the Roberts court. Who would have the money to do this? The corporatists from the Southern Arizona Leadership Council (SALC)– Diamond Ventures, TEP, Jim Click, Chase Bank, O’Reilly Ventures, SW Gas, Tucson Realty and Trust, etc.– the same people who are bringing you Prop 401. How convenient is that?

Another pro-401 argument that is regularly touted is the “it’s-old-so-let’s-get-rid-of-it” argument. Local lawyer Jeff Rogers offered that rationale this morning on the radio. Personally, I think this is the weakest argument the SALC corporatists have.

The Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, the “Star Spangled Banner”, the Statue of Liberty, the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, the works of Shakespeare, my Mom, etc., etc. (should I go on?) are all older than Tucson’s City Charter. Should we throw them out “because they’re old?”

Let’s not be fooled by big money. Vote No on 401.