Judges: hike “court fees” to fund our benefits

Phoenix voters recently passed two pension reform ballot measures aimed at curbing benefits for new city employees. Although the union-supported plans were more cosmetic tinkering than meaningful actions, they shed light on seriously underfunded and economically unsustainable retirement plans. 

Now we hear that the judiciary wants to be spared from similar reforms. The issue was dire enough to bring Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice Rebecca Berch and Maricopa County Superior Court Presiding Judge Norm Davis down the street to the state legislature to urge the Arizona Senate Finance Committee to exempt judges from a bill that would create a more streamlined 401(k) style retirement plan for future Arizona elected officials — which includes the judiciary.

The Elected Officials’ Retirement Plan (EORP), the most generous of Arizona’s public pension systems, is significantly underfunded and carries a high price tag for taxpayers. To keep the program in place for future recipients, the judges came up with a bit of mathematical wizardry — increased court fees –  to subsidize the benefits of future elected officials and judges. These outrageous mandatory surcharges, among the highest in the nation, already add an incredible  83% on top of imposed fines and penalties. Fees, fines and surcharges assessed against criminal defendants are statutory and are imposed statewide. The 23-page fee schedule can be seen here.

The daily reports, the judges provided few specific details during Wednesday’s hearing on the ultimate cost of their plan. They also declined to provide details to a reporter after the hearing. A group representing the judges plans to meet privately Monday with legislators who are pushing for pension reform to craft a deal without public input.

“I’m not here to talk about the details,” Justice Berch told the committee. “Frankly, I think the details ought to be hashed out not in a committee meeting but in a private meeting afterwards.”

The news report also states that for the fiscal year that ended June 30, public funds paid into the trust for elected officials totaled $21.7 million, while contributions from politicians themselves totaled $6.8 million.

A knotty problem indeed.  And one that should not be shouldered by those folks engaged in already costly court proceedings.  The judges and other politicos might just have to chip in a bit more to ensure their own futures.

Arpaio recall: Fool’s errand runs short of ca$h, volunteers & Update

When even the Periódico de la República de Arizona (Arizona Republic) concedes the myriad problems associated with the recall of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, it’s clear the misadventure is in the toilet. Arpaio was elected to his sixth term in November, easily beating his nearest challenger by nearly 81,000 votes.

Laurie Roberts, a columnist for the daily, acknowledges what others have known: the effort to recall our recently reelected sheriff is going nowhere. 

Open borders and anti-enforcement proponents Randy Parraz and his wife Lilia Alvarez have had to admit that their deceptively misnamed effort, “Respect Arizona,” is doomed — due to lack of cash to pay petition circulators and overall disinterest in carrying off this trickery. 

Arizona’s Secretary of State’s Office lists these non-resident petition circulators who have come into our state to infringe on our election process.  The forms list their effort as “Recall Joseph Arpaio Maricopa County Sheriff.” Click on their individual names to view their redacted, notarized registration forms. They are here, intruding on our duly elected sheriff‘s election results to earn money, but the well has run dry.

The recall leaders, buoyed by their Nov. 2011 success in recalling Arizona Senate President Russell Pearce, need a minimum of 335,317 valid signatures by the May 30, deadline. There are major differences between the two efforts. Pearce was elected from a single legislative district (former LD 18) and the recallers needed only 7,756 signatures to carry off their sham effort.

Pro-amnesty activists were also aided by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints which places heavy emphasis on proselytizing Hispanics. Behind-the-scenes support of a well-known former Bishop and Stake President in the Mormon-heavy East Valley district hampered Pearce‘s campaign. Pearce, also a devout member of the church was the architect of SB1070, the law making illegal entry a state crime. The scant 33.67% Election Day turnout also worked in the activist’s favor. But the election zeal was short lived. Jerry Lewis, who won the recall was ousted in the following election, handily beaten by Democrat Ed Abelser — giving the liberal radicals what they wanted in the first place.

According to the calculations in Robert’s column, the campaign to recall Sheriff Arpaio “needs at least 450,000 signatures in order to ensure success. Assuming the campaign had 120,000 valid signatures 12 days ago, it needs about 26,000 more where they came from every week until the end of May.”

It ain’t gonna happen.

This information has been sent as an email from a district chairman:

I heard the news, and so did you…. but it’s NOT true!

You probably heard the news that the recall effort against Sheriff Joe Arpaio is lacking funding and will be hampered. It was all over the news, both locally and nationally.  But the ‘news’ was a dirty tactic by the leftists ordered to dampen the ‘counter recall’ effort.

This has been confirmed with both Sheriff Joe’s campaign manager, and other high ranking people who know.

You see, our efforts to counter the recall (we’re called ‘Blockers’) is having a stifling effect on the people hired to get petition signatures. So they used the media in an effort to ‘call off the dogs,’ and to minimize the effort of the Blockers. The petition drive is not quitting!  And neither should the Blocking campaign. We cannot even slow down! In fact, the blocking campaign desperately needs your help! We CANNOT leave this important work undone!

DON’T believe the media reports! Wanna know how you can help with the blocking campaign?  Contact:  Alive_Kicking@msn.com

AZ AG Horne argues Voting Rights Act to SCOTUS

Protecting the integrity of elections

Today is the day that Arizona’s argument supporting voter integrity will be heard, as Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne takes the case State of Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona before the justices of the United States Supreme Court at 10 a.m.  He will be allotted thirty minutes to make his presentation.

As a review: In 2004, Arizona voters passed — by an overwhelming vote of 1,041,741 – 830,467 –  the Arizona Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act, on the ballot as Proposition 200 — a commonsense measure intended to prevent non-citizens from illegally voting in elections. On the heels of its passage, a lawsuit challenging the law was filed by liberal activist groups.

After Arizona citizens passed the referendum, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled that the first part of the referendum was pre-empted by Federal law. This ruling came in tandem with an intentionally misleading brief from the Civil Rights Division of Eric Holder’s Justice Department. Hans A. von Spakovsky writing for National Review provides excellent background.

Sandra O’Connor — the left-of-center “cowgirl from Arizona,” who duped conservative Ronald Reagan in 1981 when he appointed her to the U.S. Supreme Court — sat on the Ninth Circuit panel that gutted the law.

Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne requested an “en banc rehearing” of the matter, in which an 11-judge panel reconsiders the ruling issued by the three-judge panel. He personally argued the case. The Court ruled that requiring voter I.D. on Election Day is permissible, but that Arizona could not ask for evidence of citizenship when people register to vote. Instead, the Court ruled that Arizona would have to trust the signature on the form affirming they are citizens.

This March 4, 2013 commentary by Attorney General Tom Horne was originally printed as a “My Turn“ piece in the daily. Titled “Preclearance of voting laws now irrational,” it provides key information regarding the Arizona’s voting rights issue.

Yesterday, that same newspaper ran “High court should help Arizona protect elections,” by Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett — whose office oversees elections — in which he writes, “…citizenship is the foundation from which eligibility is derived. Proposition 200 protects election integrity by ensuring voter eligibility. Requiring evidence of citizenship at the time of registration is an important safeguard against non-citizen voter fraud. Otherwise, the only protection would be the applicant’s sworn statement that they are a citizen. Do we believe that someone who would falsely claim citizenship on the federal voter-registration form would also commit voter fraud in an election? Is that fair to the voters who legally cast a ballot? Don’t they have a right to a fair and fraud-free election?

Our political process depends on a system of elections that empowers citizens with the ability to exercise their most fundamental of rights: the right to vote. It is the role of government to provide voters with a sense of confidence in the voting system.”

Secretary of State Bennett is correct. Godspeed Attorney General Horne.  Arizona’s citizens are fortune to have these two principled men serving in state office.

Desperate unionists solicit help from AZ GOP PCs

“Misinformation campaign” alleged by firefighter’s union

Tim Hill, President of the Professional Fire Fighters of Arizona, is deeply concerned.  So much so, in fact, that he has taken the unusual step of contacting Arizona’s elected Republican Party Precinct Committeemen. Hill says GOP PCs are in a “unique position to pass along accurate and relevant information to voters and your fellow party leaders.”

What has moved Hill to conferring such lavish praise?  He obviously hopes to ingratiate himself and his union to the Republican precinct committeemen he desperately needs to align with the union on its liberal legislation. Hill’s Machiavellian plea can be read here.

After slathering on a thick layer of unctuous schmooze, union leader Hill gets to the point. He alleges, “the bills in question all will impose severe restrictions on organizations like the Professional Fire Fighters of Arizona.”

Just last week many Phoenix voters received robocalls preceding Tuesday’s special election to effect changes to the city’s pension system. Interestingly, the calls urging passage were from District 5 Councilman Daniel Valenzuela — a Glendale firefighter and former president of the National Association of Hispanic Firefighters, a strong union, representing nearly 30 chapters throughout the country. What would move this union honcho to promote pension reforms?

Lliberal Mayor Greg Stanton actually issued a statement declaring, “Pension reform is the right thing to do.”

Even the uninitiated can easily grasp the fact that committed unionists, reliably Democrats, support tweaking rather than instituting meaningful reform and in their desperation, they beg Republicans to conspire with them.

All-too-rare truth was on display by short-term Phoenix City Councilman Bryan Jeffries, a Mesa fire captain.  He was appointed to fill a vacant seat though he lost  the election in which he ran to retain his perch. Jeffries was quoted in a past issue of the Professional Firefighters magazine saying, “Union work is a calling….” Throughout the publication firefighters are indentified with their union’s local number.

Of vital importance is the fact the union opposed SCR1026 (Secret Ballot: Fundamental Right) on the ballot as Prop. 108, a constitutional amendment which guaranteed the fundamental right of public employees to vote a secret ballot. The union preferred coercion.

The Arizona Supreme Court addressed the legal matter here. Page 19 provides a good summation as it was certified, removed and then certified once again for the ballot. The measure ultimately passed 60.5% to 39.5%

The real misinformation campaign is emanating from the unions.  They are the ones who need to cut the propaganda and give us the facts — not the other way around. Try as Tim Hill might, Republican precinct committeemen will not be conned by this over-the-top, liberal effort at deception.

Jan Brewer channels Obama’s socialized medicine

Gov’s bunk-laden email doesn’t cut it

Impossible to miss, glaring similarities, as both Obama and Jan Brewer use medical doctors* as props for the unconscionable expansion of socialized medicine.

As she works feverishly on behalf of ObamaCare’s Medicaid expansion, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer is encountering strong resistance from Republican legislators. Juxtaposed against the fact that various GOP districts have passed resolutions opposing the expansion, is the reality of the pro-expansion zealots waving the carrots of campaign a$$istance for playing well. What the daily refers to as a “well-heeled, tightly organized pro-expansion campaign led by the health-care industry and Arizona business leaders, in cooperation with the governor’s office and some of the state’s top lobbyists and political strategists,“ is making life difficult for the lawmakers down on West Washington Street. The pressure is intensifying as the high dollar campaign rolls out its own lobbyist, Jaime Molera, and a heavy handed promotion worthy of street thugs with wads of cash.  Keep your eyes on the GOP freshmen, the governor’s office hopes to sway.

For a Republican governor who stood in firm opposition to this costly scheme to do an about-face and expect Republicans to join in the kumbaya with the onboard Democrats, is a bridge too far.

This letter, emailed to Republican Precinct Committeemen by Gov. Jan Brewer, exemplifies the depth of her desperation.

* We have since found out that Brewer’s white-coated props were not doctors at all.  They are students at Glendale’s Osteopathic Midwestern University.

Boorish McCain denounces principled Rand Paul’s actions as “stunt”

Conservative U.S. Sen. Rand Paul’s principled 13-hour information-seeking filibuster concerning John Brennan‘s suitability for confirmation as CIA Director, has met with the wrath of John McCain and his sycophantic buddy, Lindsey Graham.

Sen. Paul should consider criticism from this feckless duo a feather in his cap.

Failed presidential candidate McCain and Graham took to the Senate floor to denounce Paul’s actions, claiming he was doing a “disservice” to the debate on drones.

Sen. Paul said he was filibustering to get the administration to affirm it won’t authorize military strikes against non-combatant Americans in the U.S. — and his effort was joined by more than a dozen other senators who said they, too, supported his effort to get answers.

Toady Graham said asking whether the president has the power to kill American citizens by use of drones on American soil is a ludicrous question. “I do not believe that question deserves an answer,” Graham said. The petulant Graham denounced the Republican Senators who supported Paul’s filibuster last night, and told reporters that he will now vote to confirm Brennan as a result of Paul‘s actions.

While Sen. Rand Paul was doing the heavy lifting on behalf of the American people, McCain and Graham were busy dining with Obama at the luxe Plume restaurant featuring an $85 prix fixe menu,

Graham, a South Carolinian cut from the same RINO fabric as McCain, is up for re-election next year and could face a primary challenge in his conservative home state.

Let’s hope he suffers a similar fate as Russ Feingold another senate buddy of McCain’s. In 2010, Democrat Feingold, (remember the McCain -Feingold campaign finance reform measure that undercut Republicans?) was defeated in his reelection bid by Republican Ron Johnson.

Here is U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder — the chief legal officer of the United States — dancing around the constitutionality of killing Americans, not posing an imminent threat, by use of drone attacks:

AZ República hearts Señor Juan McPhony, extols illegal releases

The amnesty devotees at the Periódico de la República de Arizona (Arizona Republic) are in a congratulatory mode. The object of their editorial affection is none other than the “senator [who] showed political moxie.”

That, of course would be John McCain, the doddering dodger who nearly got run out of several Arizona towns as he took his amnesty show on the road last week. Readers will recall that after facing angry crowds at Town Hall meetings — just preceding his chummy tête-à-tête south of the border with Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto — promising a path to citizenship for Nieto’s own citizens, McCain actually said “I’ve seen a shift in attitude….”

There’s not a chance he came away from those meetings with enraged constituents drawing that ridiculous conclusion, but when did reality matter to John McCain?

McCain’s new senate underling Jeff Flake rates editorial praise, also. The two of them are colluding with other pro-amnesty hustlers known as the Gang of 8, (although Flake managed to work in a short side trip to Cuba to shore up his creds in the Communist island). But back in March 2011, that was not the case. As his McMentor strolled the border claiming he wanted to “complete the danged fence,” Flake was busy shifting into campaign backpedal form. Clearly dismayed editorialist Doug MacEachern called Flake’s change of heart on legalizing millions of illegal aliens “jarring,” and declared Flake a mere “politician” — no longer a “statesman” — for emulating John McCain’s campaign border epiphany during his last senatorial campaign.

Now happily able to blame the mandatory federal budget cuts of sequestration, Janet Napolitano, Homeland INsecurity chieftain, has begun releasing illegal aliens held in detention centers across the country. An ICE spokesman farcically claims they will “be placed on an appropriate, more cost-effective form of supervised release,” monitored either by electronic device or by being required to check in with ICE by phone or in person.

Such clearly illogical reasoning begs the question, “How are committed lawbreakers, who hold our sovereign nation and its laws in the lowest of regard, going to be held on ‘supervised release’ and ‘required’ to do anything?”

The editorial concludes: “McCain didn’t take the easy way. He showed the kind of leadership that is essential to achieving immigration reform. Bravo Senator.”

Rational thinkers beware. Such language carries a high probability of causing gag reflexes to unexpectedly shift into high gear.

Ready to cede your voting rights over to Mary Rose?

Under the guise of standing against the recall being waged against newly reelected Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio by a pack of radical ethnic activists, East Valley Tribune columnist Bill Richardson takes a sharp left turn, veering into political La-la land.

He concludes his opinion piece venturing into the hazy territory of Home Rule. Slogging through his commentary guarantees you’ll come away even hazier.

Richardson, not keen on our current sheriff, but opposed to the recall, appears to think there is a better system. He’d like to cajole us to give up our right to vote. The so-called Home Rule he advocates does just that.  Maricopa County citizens, all of whom come equipped with voting rights granted us by our founding documents, would willingly cede their votes over to the Board of Supervisors, who would then select our sheriff for us.  Neat and clean.  Not even a stubby pencil or pesky ballot need touch our hands.

As the term is currently used, Home Rule, which must be re-approved by voters every four years, is an administrative item granting cities flexibility in setting their own budgets, apart from rules specified by the state   What Richardson doesn’t reveal is that the county-wide Home Rule scheme he advocates would remove our right to vote for all county offices.  The argument for this bitter pill invariably begins with a discussion of the county recorder.  Who is the recorder? What does that individual do? Why is the post elective?

Of great significance is the fact that the U.S. Constitution singles out the right to vote more often than any other rights — five times.

To make his case, Richardson’s not averse to tweaking the facts, as he ticks off a list of sheriffs dating back to 1968. Among those he considers unqualified for the post are candidates with a vast array of law enforcement experience — including Joe Arpaio whose impressive résumé is a standout, by any standards.

Richardson contends “Home Rule would allow the Board of Supervisors to function like a city council and the sheriff would be hired and fired based on experience, education and a successful professional track record instead of winning a popularity contest.”

Fortunately, it’s the voting citizens, exercising their judgment, who are entrusted with the decision making as they cast their ballots — in effect hiring and firing. The same argument could be made for every office where candidates stand for election. If we are ready to turn over our votes for county officers to the Board of Supervisors, will city, state and federal offices be next on this arrogant agenda’s chopping block?  It’s a sure bet most citizens would opt to keep this most basic freedom — their right to vote. And few would agree to turn their rights over to unsavory Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox.

A stroll down Memory Lane with John McCain

McCain memory jogger

Yesterday‘s post “McCain fails in defending amnesty scheme to angry AZ citizens,” details the hostile reception Arizona’s senior senator is receiving at the various Town Hall meetings where he struggles to sell his latest amnesty scheme to irate Arizona citizens. If they don’t buy, he hurls insults, dismissively calling them “jerks.”

Doing background for the article led to finding this gem from the 2010 senate race. It was purposely omitted since such a stand alone classic is deserving of its own day in the sun.

McCain’s own words are jarring in their outright deception  — all the more evident as he attempts to perpetrate the same old scam as the Gangster-in-Chief of a monstrosity known as “The Gang of  8,” his latest amnesty coalition.

McCain and his senate underling Jeff McFlake have cobbled together a motley crew of Democrat liberals and GOP squishes to perpetrate this expansive giveaway of the gift of American citizenship to those who thumb their noses at our laws and national sovereignty.

This campaign website is enough to make wistful conservatives long for an election do-over, minus Señor Juan’s infusion of McMillions.

Speaker Tobin: Union reform bills deserve debate, vote

The daily newspaper is up to its old skullduggery again. In the first two sentences on the union bills which have passed the Arizona Senate, the blatantly dishonest report used the identical words “restrict unions.” That should be the first clue that these bills being held hostage by pro-union House Speaker Andy Tobin, are worthy of getting fair treatment.  We exposed the leftward bent of the local daily on these issues just last month.

Three reasonable reform measures that have cleared the Arizona Senate will likely not see the light of day without vigorous citizen input. 

Arizona Congressmen — Trent Franks, Paul Gosar, Matt Salmon and David Schweikert — agree, and have sent a letter to Speaker Tobin urging him to allow debate and a vote on these bills. Obviously leadership takes a back seat to union allegiance with Speaker Tobin. His brother is Deputy Chief Brian Tobin, president of the Professional Firefighters of AZ union and the founding president of Phoenix Fire’s “Command Officers Association” Union. He is currently chairman of the board of trustees of Arizona Public Safety Personnel Retirement System.

Don’t  be fooled by the fact that Brian’s brother Andy holds a Republican leadership position in the state legislature. In his official capacity, committed unionist Brian Tobin was a member of the steering committee for John Kerry for President.

Speaker Andy Tobin’s disappointing lack of responsible leadership earned him and his colleague Steve Pierce votes of censure from the Executive Guidance Committee (EGC) of the Maricopa County Republican Committee last November. His taint resonates. Lisa Gray’s strong ties to Tobin caused her campaign for Maricopa County Chair to falter — as she and her entire team –  lost the election due to her allegiance to Tobin, resulting in an overwhelming victory for conservative Team LaFaro.

These bills are extremely important. Call House Speaker Tobin’s office and ask that they get a fair hearing.

HB 2026 Rep. Michelle Ugenti (R-LD23)

HB 2330 Rep. Steve Montenegro (R-LD13)

HB 2438 Rep. Justin Olson (R-LD25)

Give Speaker Andy Tobin a call. His office number is (602) 926-5172. He knows this is how Democracy is intended to work.  Since we pay his salary, he’d no doubt be happy to hear from us.