This is Eli Blake's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Eli Blake's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Eli Blake
Recent Activity
Well, except that the map is out of date. Not only have most states now agreed to the Medicaid expansion, but that includes New Jersey, where Governor Christie recently reversed himself and decided to buy into it.
1 reply
If John McCain thought he'd be more popular by joining the Prohibition party, he'd join it (beer fortune notwithstanding.) Heck, if McCain thought that the way to win an election was 'gangnam style' he'd head straight for the dance studio. This really is a man who believes in nothing besides himself. Which probably explains why he fits so well in the party of Donald Trump.
Toggle Commented Jan 28, 2013 on An Exquisite Flip Flop Flip at Blog For Arizona
1 reply
Yes, she wrote something similar in an email she sent out last week about a 'state military force.' As to the 'pay for babies' thing, keep in mind that this is someone who wants to ban abortion. So not only should poor women have to pay for delivery, but they should have no choice and be forced to. Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo! I was kind of hoping that redistricting would separate me from her, but unfortunately it did not. However maybe someone from Flagstaff will run and beat her.
1 reply
I've taught at colleges and universities for a quarter of a century. What concerns me is the proposal to force colleges to allow CW on campus (no more 'gun free' zones.) I agree that if someone is planning an attack then gun regulations won't stop them. However, I've had hotheads in class (one time a guy got angry, screamed obscenties and stormed out of class) and one of my colleagues at another institution was punched in the face by an angry student. I've also had people show up to class inebriated. Not often, but it has happened. If we allow people to bring weapons on to campus (concealed or otherwise) then when some hothead loses control or some person comes to class drunk, they may also be armed, and that concerns me a LOT more than a random shooter, just based on how often (relatively) it occurs.
1 reply
Why does the media like to go about officials in the Obama administration not reading the law before they signed it but not about Jan Brewer (as AZ Republic columnist Montini pointed out) signing it without ever acknowleging that she read the law before signing it? I do live in Arizona and I have read the law. Here are my problems with it: 1. section 1, paragraph B requires the police investigate anyone who they have 'reasonable suspicion' may be in the country illegally following ANY police contact (this includes people who are themselves the victims, not the perpetrators of a crime, as well as people who could be questioned if the police claim they have committed a 'crime' like loitering or jaywalking,) and 2. section 1 paragraph G which allows any citizen of the state to sue the police if they do not believe they are enforcing the law. Combinign these two paragraphs means that you or I could sue the police if they don't question the immigration status of someone who (we claim) is guilty of loitering.
1 reply
Reigning in some of their more fanatical followers is the least of the problems the GOP has reaped from their rhetoric. Now people will be expecting Government to take over the health care system and have government bureaucrats ration their treatment, to be waking up in a Marxist police state and to be called in front of the Death Panels once they are too old to work. When none of these things happen, it will be obvious that they were lies and the Republicans will have a serious credibility problem the next time they ratchet up the rhetoric.
1 reply
And one idea I'd propose as something to include in a new Constitution is a unicameral, 60 seat legislature. The reason for the existence of two houses of Congress in Washington doesn't even apply here, and in fact the districts are identical for the house and the Senate, so I see no purpose for the Senate (remember you have two representatives in the house so if there is a vacancy or one just refuses to do his or her job then you still have a representative in the house.) A unicameral legislature works just fine in Nebraska. The state Senate is a fifth wheel, a very expensive fifth wheel that pretty much only slows things down and really serves no purpose at all. Eliminating the Senate would immediately reduce the cost of running the legislature by at least a third, and it might even appeal to conservatives as well because it would prevent the same incompetents from bouncing from the house to the senate and back again every eight years (if someone really believes in term limits, though I do not, I'd think that oft-used loophole probably drives them up the wall.)
1 reply
I can't tell you honestly which way I will vote on this (and I'm as liberal as they come.) No question the state needs the revenue and I'm already steamed about cuts they've made that have affected my kids' schooling, but if they are going to just use it to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy and then expect everyone else in the state to pick up the tab then I may vote against it precisely for that reason. One thing I will definitely vote against-- any move by the legislature to revoke spending mandates; most Arizonans voted for them precisely because we don't believe that the legislature would adequately fund things like kids health care if they weren't forced to. To be honest, Dave, we have screwed up the Arizona Constitution so badly by now that I'd almost be in favor of just holding a Constitutional Convention to write and submit a new, and as simple as possible, Constitution to voters (something that has been discussed seriously in California.) Any proposition or amendment that is really that necessary will probably be passed again anyway, but there is a lot of (often contradictory) Constitutional provisions which are outdated and by now just a hindrance to the state's ability to function properly.
1 reply
If I and my wife were to both die, I would hope that my kids would be raised by my sister and her wife. Jack Harper, a man who I've never met and who has never met my children and who has never met my sister, believes that he is more qualified to decide what is best for my own children than I do. I find that personally offensive.
1 reply
You know, I don't live in Tucson, but if I did I'd 1. point out how much money another election was costing the city, 2. point out how many city workers lost their jobs and/or services were cut that this money could have paid for, 3. collect the names of those behind the effort, publicize them and urge a boycott of their businesses. You do what you want, but that's what I'd do if this kind of tomfoolery happened in my community.
Toggle Commented Jan 7, 2010 on About that recall idea at Blog For Arizona
1 reply
Did you see what Senator Orrin Hatch said when confronted with his vote on the medicare prescription drug bill? He said that six years ago, "it was standard practice not to pay for things." THAT'S all they can come up with as an excuse?
1 reply
Let me restate one sentence in the last paragraph. As people have moved in, overall enrollment in schools has boomed, so that enrollment in all KINDS of schools is up, not necessarily every school within those categories however.
1 reply
OK, we'll rebut you point by point. Regarding unions, I said that they have little control over substantive matters (most notably curricula.) I'm originally from New Mexico, a state with much stronger unions and they are very involved there with the actual decisions made about what to teach in classrooms, much more than they are here. In any case, since you are comparing Arizona schools to other states, my point is still valid because as we know Arizona is one of the least unionized states in the country. However effective or non-effective the unions are in the classroom, try comparing Arizona to northern and eastern states (or California for that matter) where they are undeniably very strong. In general Arizona fares worse than those states in terms of test scores. Bruce and Janet still had to work out a budget with Republicans in their respective legislatures. So what we've had for forty years is mostly complete Republican control of state government interspersed with periods of mixed control in which compromises were made by both sides. But Democrats have not actually run Arizona government since before the majority of the residents of this state were born. Again, compare to other states. Very few of them have had the degree of GOP domination that Arizona has had since the mid 1960's. So if Republican education programs (which as I mentioned they've passed and implemented) were a panacea we would be near the top, and we aren't. You cite Florida. Florida was pretty much completely under the control of Democrats up until the late 1990's. And since school systems are built up and students attend them over periods of decades (in fact high school students who took tests in Florida last year actually entered the system in the late 1990's) it is just plain silly to suggest that changes made in the past few years are responsible for the performance of students most of whose basic core of knowlege was acquired before those changes were made. As far as the fact that 75% the parents of incoming students bypass the other options and enroll their kids in public schools, why is this a flaw? My kids are enrolled in public school. I like the public school here. So do a lot of people. I suppose I could drive my kids to Winslow to attend a charter school (there is one, after all) but why? I LIKE their public school, and they can walk to it. And yes, some charter schools do quite well. For one thing they have a lot more freedom to 'cherry pick,' admitting and/or retaining good students while rejecting or expelling poorly performing students. One can debate whether this is a good thing overall in regard to students or not, but there is no question that if you get to weed the garden your plants will grow healthier. Oh, and as far as Catholic schools in Arizona, ALL schools in the state have boomed in enrollment over the past decade as more people have moved in (at least until the past couple of years.) Further, while I can't prove it, I suspect anecdotally (and I will say up front that this is only a suspicion) that a lot of parents without complete documentation prefer Catholic schools for their kids because they are less likely to be asked questions that might reveal or hint at their lack of proper documentation.
1 reply
If Arizona students have terrible test scores compared to the rest of the nation then that's hardly an endorsement of the philosophy of the G.I. given that Republicans took control of the Arizona legislature in 1964 and have made Arizona a right-to-work state where unions have little say over substantive matters in education and a leader in the creation of charter schools, tuition tax credits for private schools and other great Republican initiatives. After four decades of GOP rule in Arizona, including control of the budgeting process and education in the state (when was the last time we had a Democrat as state superintendent of schools? I don't even know the answer to that) if Arizona schools are worse than the rest of the country then that stands directly as an indictment of conservatism and the state GOP, not of liberals who haven't been able to control much of anything in Arizona since the fifties.
1 reply
This guy sounds really creepy.
1 reply
Thane, THIS is one reason why we do need the Federal Government. I hope that Eric Holder's investigation of Arpaio bears fruit.
1 reply
They are going after everyone who has that power, which is why it will be up to the Feds. Only the Feds have power to do anything to them, and are also beyond their reach. Janet Napolitano fired the first shot when she revoked the agreement that Sheriff Joe was citing as justification for mass arrests of suspected undocumented aliens. More recently Eric Holder began looking into possible civil rights violations. Keep in mind too that Charlton and Iglesias are both former U.S. Attorneys (who were booted because of how they were conducting political investigations that the Bush administration was unhappy with, or in Iglesias' case unhappy with the pace of.) I hope that the Feds will move against these two thugs because with their use of preemptive investigations, arrests and indictments, there is nobody else who can realistically take action against them.
1 reply
So much for the guy who likes to work behind the scenes looking for consensus with his fellow Senators, isn't it? Now that he's no longer looking to run for President we see the mask come off and the real mean, vindictive, score-keeping S.O.B. come out.
1 reply
Keep in mind that even the original language (that which the Stupak amendment replaces) was a compromise on abortion. I think you have it right, Lieberman and Nelson both represent big insurance interests. They can't say openly that their agenda is to blow up the health care reform bill, but in fact that is what their agenda is.
1 reply
1967? I had read somewher that the GOP took over the legislature during the Goldwater election (1964, which would mean they took office in 1965.) Any idea where I can check on the composition of the 1965-1966 legislature so I know whether Democrats still had control then or not? In any case, this just shows how damaging decades of one party control can be. Some people who are grandparents today were born, grew up and raised their children during nothing but Republican control of the Arizona legislature.
1 reply
And here in Arizona, as in California, they got the voters to pass the 2/3 in both houses supermajority to raise taxes as well as term limits for the legislature. How's that working out?
1 reply
Every day someone here or elsewhere comes up with more evidence of the same thing. Strategic Vision's response has simply been to get out of the polling business. I want to know whether the Goldwater Institute will ask Terry Goddard to go after Strategic Vision as part of his anti-consumer fraud agenda. They should ask him to demand a refund on their behalf. If they don't, then I guess being duped is OK with them, and in that case perhaps I should offer my services to the G.I. (I do after all have a master's degree in math with emphasis in statistics-- NMIMT, 1986, easy to verify.) I mean, I'm sure that if I sat down in my shed on a Saturday afternoon with a notebook and a calculator, I could make up data that is at least as good as the data that Strategic Vision invented, and my price for doing that would probably be less than what they paid Strategic Vision, say $5 per fake survey ($10 if they want the 'custom version,' where I specifically make up numbers that fit their agenda.)
1 reply
Government borrowing is the same as private borrowing: on balance it's not good because you have to pay it back with interest (keep in mind too that I'd rather pay more tax, all other things being equal) but in some cases it makes sense to do so. In a situation like where we were last year and to a large degree still are this year, money is not being put into the economy from private sources, certainly not enough of it. When the economy booms then there is less need for government to replace what is flowing in from other sources. Essentially we are priming the pump. IF there were privately created jobs being created I'd agree with you that this was better than government created jobs but with us still losing hundreds of thousands of jobs per month I don't see any privately created jobs to be 'trumped.' And keep in mind too that while I'm not against tax cuts to businesses to reinvest we have to be careful about which businesses and where. The Bush tax cuts focused largely on big business and the jobs that were created were mostly in Asia (where it was cheapest for them to create jobs.) In fact we financed the construction of factories and call centers that resulted in the loss of many jobs in the United States, not the creation of them. Tax cuts for job creation should be focused on small, not large, business (for example if Tony's Pizza decides they want to stay open later, expand their building or open another store they will hire someone from their neighborhood, not someone in Mumbai.) Paradoxically, when less money is being spent in the private economy there is more demand on services and less revenue being collected and the government then has to borrow more while collecting less. In a state with a balanced budget rule (i.e. Arizona) that is difficult to achieve, ergo the states have little other option than to go to the federal government. The government in fact is not borrowing money from the pool of stored savings. We are borrowing money from the Chinese (and I agree that's a problem which has been growing for years, but that's not something we can solve just by letting the recession deepen here at home. When our economy is healthy enough we will have to focus on weaning ourselves away from what has to all intents and purposes become the "People's Bank of Beijing.")
1 reply
And of course, when it comes time for the Bush tax cuts to expire they will claim that doing so would be 'raising taxes.' Never mind that they were billed as 'temporary tax cuts' to begin with (otherwise they would never have passed the Senate to begin with, even in 2001.) Never mind that if your local grocer puts an item on sale for a week and then when the price goes back to what it normally is and you accuse him of 'raising prices' he would laugh in your face. They will say nonetheless that it is 'raising taxes.' Sort of like the controversy last year about the temporary suspension of the Arizona Equalization property tax ending on schedule, but on a far larger scale.
1 reply
Strategically though, I hope that the President waits to roll out any such proposal. Let the states make the case clear first. We know that national Republican leaders (like Jon Kyl) are more than willing to let the economy tank again for the cynical purpose of gaining power. They made a 'stand' against the original stimulus purely for political gain (though I honestly think that the President would have done much better politically to push the original plan forward, let them filibuster it and then a month later push it again with the public blaming the GOP for the first time it failed.) To push it forward now would be politically stupid, we could expect more GOP yapping. Wait until the state governors (collectively a bipartisan group) make the case that we need it, and only THEN push it forward, in fact maybe let them more or less suggest what they want and then take that and move forward with it.
1 reply