I am more than a bit surprised to find how long it has been since I last posted anything to this blog -- nearly four years, or a generation in dog years and two in Internet time....
Since then, one son has graduated college, established himself in his field, and become a homeowner, while our other son graduated high school and is now ensconced in university life. The business my husband and I established more than two decades ago has gone into hyper drive since the recession -- probably one of the reasons my writing has been on other pages and not here.
In reviewing some of my previous posts, however, I didn't actually feel stuck in the past. Discussions of what was -- or, more accurately, was not happening -- in the Arizona legislature felt like they could have been written nearly any time during the past four years, with only names and time references requiring updates.
Until the end of last session, that is, when a number of concerned elected officials disregarded political party and coalesced around ideas to expand health care coverage and add at least some funds to areas that have been cut for years, such as education. In other words, govern for the people as opposed to ideology.
The new session begins this coming Monday. Much ink has been spilled about the bad blood that remains from the end of last session and how that will play out with bills buried and rhetoric ratcheted up once legislators take their seats as well as hopes and expectations for the new session in this election year. I hope to be more conscientious in adding to those discussions on this page as we see how some of the predictions play out....
Friday, January 10, 2014
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Not All Cuts Are Created Equal
In Arizona, the legislature is currently in its seventh special session of the 2009-10 cycle. More than eight months after the current fiscal year began, legislators are finally trying to balance the budget for the year, something they were constitutionally required to do eight months ago. And, for good measure, they are tackling the FY11 budget as well.
And when I say they, I mean the majority party, because once again, the minority party was locked out of all discussions. Even after some "renegade" (i.e., moderate) members of both parties apparently sat down and worked out a budget proposal that balanced the budget without drastic cuts to services. That budget is nowhere to be seen in the bills being considered as I write.
What is in the budget, however, is a lot of wordplay that still adds up to disaster for the state. When the budget first was circulated, for example, one of the big-ticket items was "Elimination of full-day kindergarten" to the tune of $218 million. In the bill presented today, that became "Restoration of half-day kindergarten."
Emotions aside, that is fallacious, as half-day kindergarten was not eliminated. First of all, kindergarten itself is not mandatory in Arizona. But for thousands of parents who choose to send their children to kindergarten, the half-day option still exists and districts are required to offer it.
Nothing is being restored and quite a bit is being taken away. Full-day kindergarten is not babysitting, as many have declared: it is a full day of age-appropriate schooling for children who throughout their school years are going to have to tackle increasingly difficult curricula in order to be college or career ready when they graduate high school. Many children who have attended preschool are more than ready for academics in kindergarten. And for many others, who did not have the benefit of learning their socialization skills and ABCs in preschool, full-day kindergarten helps them catch up.
This is just one instance where balancing the budget is shortchanging Arizonans -- in this case, our children. There are other cuts to education as well, cuts to health care, cuts to state employee pay, and more and more cuts. Many of these cuts will result in loss of federal dollars, so that we lose more by cutting than keeping certain programs.
There also was a separate bill in the regular session that offered cuts of a different sort: tax cuts to corporations and individuals as a way to lure business. So while we don't have the money to support proven programs that earn more than their weight in federal and other funding, we do have the mindset to continue to cut revenues via tax cuts.
But when so many services and systems are cut, when cuts to education make companies wonder why they would bring employees to a state that will not adequately educate their children, when cuts run so deep that state parks are closed and tourists go elsewhere -- businesses won't care about tax cuts. They won't come -- and that will be an unkind cut that more tax cuts won't heal.
And when I say they, I mean the majority party, because once again, the minority party was locked out of all discussions. Even after some "renegade" (i.e., moderate) members of both parties apparently sat down and worked out a budget proposal that balanced the budget without drastic cuts to services. That budget is nowhere to be seen in the bills being considered as I write.
What is in the budget, however, is a lot of wordplay that still adds up to disaster for the state. When the budget first was circulated, for example, one of the big-ticket items was "Elimination of full-day kindergarten" to the tune of $218 million. In the bill presented today, that became "Restoration of half-day kindergarten."
Emotions aside, that is fallacious, as half-day kindergarten was not eliminated. First of all, kindergarten itself is not mandatory in Arizona. But for thousands of parents who choose to send their children to kindergarten, the half-day option still exists and districts are required to offer it.
Nothing is being restored and quite a bit is being taken away. Full-day kindergarten is not babysitting, as many have declared: it is a full day of age-appropriate schooling for children who throughout their school years are going to have to tackle increasingly difficult curricula in order to be college or career ready when they graduate high school. Many children who have attended preschool are more than ready for academics in kindergarten. And for many others, who did not have the benefit of learning their socialization skills and ABCs in preschool, full-day kindergarten helps them catch up.
This is just one instance where balancing the budget is shortchanging Arizonans -- in this case, our children. There are other cuts to education as well, cuts to health care, cuts to state employee pay, and more and more cuts. Many of these cuts will result in loss of federal dollars, so that we lose more by cutting than keeping certain programs.
There also was a separate bill in the regular session that offered cuts of a different sort: tax cuts to corporations and individuals as a way to lure business. So while we don't have the money to support proven programs that earn more than their weight in federal and other funding, we do have the mindset to continue to cut revenues via tax cuts.
But when so many services and systems are cut, when cuts to education make companies wonder why they would bring employees to a state that will not adequately educate their children, when cuts run so deep that state parks are closed and tourists go elsewhere -- businesses won't care about tax cuts. They won't come -- and that will be an unkind cut that more tax cuts won't heal.
Friday, October 9, 2009
To Life
My siblings and I had the honor of having our parents in our lives for a very, very long time. They truly were always there for us, and in particular, for my two sons, who always knew a life with their grandparents around. My parents revered education, vowing that we all would go to college, which neither of them ever did but we all were privileged to complete. They were loving, supportive, and completely family oriented. The memories of family trips and gatherings and celebrations burn quite vividly, infused with laughter and smiles and love.
But now they are both gone. My dad died in 2005, less than two months before his 93rd birthday, and thankfully, his time in the hospital was brief and his passing peaceful. I wish my mom had had the same. But her recent time in the hospital, following complications of surgery, stretched for weeks, accompanied by a bevy of procedures to help with infections and more. In the end, the infections and age proved too much even for a fighter like my mom. She passed away September 20, three weeks before her 93rd birthday.
They did not go too soon, for which I am thankful, but their being gone leaves a hole that echoes with sadness. Parents are "supposed" to go first, and so we prepare ourselves for that, but none of us can really be prepared for the finality of their leaving. Since my mom was alive when my dad died, the circle was not closed, the generation above was still here. But now that my mom has passed, there is a layer to our lives that is gone as well.
I am grateful that the love always stays.
But now they are both gone. My dad died in 2005, less than two months before his 93rd birthday, and thankfully, his time in the hospital was brief and his passing peaceful. I wish my mom had had the same. But her recent time in the hospital, following complications of surgery, stretched for weeks, accompanied by a bevy of procedures to help with infections and more. In the end, the infections and age proved too much even for a fighter like my mom. She passed away September 20, three weeks before her 93rd birthday.
They did not go too soon, for which I am thankful, but their being gone leaves a hole that echoes with sadness. Parents are "supposed" to go first, and so we prepare ourselves for that, but none of us can really be prepared for the finality of their leaving. Since my mom was alive when my dad died, the circle was not closed, the generation above was still here. But now that my mom has passed, there is a layer to our lives that is gone as well.
I am grateful that the love always stays.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Still Waiting
When last we left the Arizona legislature, negotiations were in full bloom. The majority party wanted numerous tax cuts -- a measure supported by the Governor but one that would cause a shrinking pool of revenue to shrivel further -- and the Governor wanted a temporary sales tax hike sent to the ballot. However, too few Senate Republicans were willing to forgo their "no tax increase" pledge to give voters the option to vote it in or not. The Democrats were treated as superfluous since the goal stated by the majority leadership was that this would be a "Republican-only budget." In the end, the Republicans could not muster the votes to present the Governor with everything on her wish list.
What she got was the same lump of coal of a set of bills she had vetoed July 1. At that time she called them "fatally flawed" and "devastating" to education and more. Lately, her rhetoric has been more toned down as she attempts to get a budget she will approve.
So what's different this time (since it's not the budget)? In the past few days, the negotiating table grew with the addition of the leaders of the minority party. Minority leaders managed to get invites to this dance and presented ideas that they have been talking about for months via web sites and public forums statewide. Furthermore, the Governor is more actively participating in the talks. At this point, the parties know what each wants to bring the votes of their caucus members into the yes column.
But what about those budget bills that were finally transmitted to the Governor? She signed one last week (to ensure that federal stimulus funds going to the Department of Environmental Quality would not be lost) and did nothing with the rest. Had she continued to do nothing through Wednesday, August 26, they would have become law without her signature. However, both chambers ended the latest special session on Tuesday, August 25 -- giving her 10 more days to deal with the bills.
What this maneuver really did was acknowledge the possibility that the current bipartisan talks may produce a balanced budget that a majority of House and Senate members -- irregardless of political persuasion -- will support along with Governor. And then, perhaps, the rest of the state can stop waiting to exhale and know how much money will be expended to educate students, support seniors, pay state personnel, and more. Even when we have to do it all with less.
What she got was the same lump of coal of a set of bills she had vetoed July 1. At that time she called them "fatally flawed" and "devastating" to education and more. Lately, her rhetoric has been more toned down as she attempts to get a budget she will approve.
So what's different this time (since it's not the budget)? In the past few days, the negotiating table grew with the addition of the leaders of the minority party. Minority leaders managed to get invites to this dance and presented ideas that they have been talking about for months via web sites and public forums statewide. Furthermore, the Governor is more actively participating in the talks. At this point, the parties know what each wants to bring the votes of their caucus members into the yes column.
But what about those budget bills that were finally transmitted to the Governor? She signed one last week (to ensure that federal stimulus funds going to the Department of Environmental Quality would not be lost) and did nothing with the rest. Had she continued to do nothing through Wednesday, August 26, they would have become law without her signature. However, both chambers ended the latest special session on Tuesday, August 25 -- giving her 10 more days to deal with the bills.
What this maneuver really did was acknowledge the possibility that the current bipartisan talks may produce a balanced budget that a majority of House and Senate members -- irregardless of political persuasion -- will support along with Governor. And then, perhaps, the rest of the state can stop waiting to exhale and know how much money will be expended to educate students, support seniors, pay state personnel, and more. Even when we have to do it all with less.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Life -- and Death -- Matters
Lost among the lies about government "death panels" -- beyond the fact no bills contained any such thing and no one advocated any such thing -- seems to be the point that many people truly want to be able to openly discuss their thoughts about what they want to happen when their quality of life wanes or the quality of their thought processes grows suspect. They want to remain in control of the decision-making process, providing directives to those they entrust with their care when the time comes.
So the thought was to include the possibility of payment to have that discussion with one's doctor. Some people -- including those who formerly showed support for such an idea with their votes -- resorted to demagoguery against such a provision. And it appears others are now backing off from including such a provision in reform bills.
Why is it suddenly a bad thing to have more information? That seems to be the argument most often used when politicians want to tighten restrictions on abortion and add waiting periods and parental consent and the such. But when it comes to end-of-life issues when people do need to know what "heroic efforts" might mean -- and cost -- or what the consequences of having a "do not resuscitate" order are, apparently that is a meeting of far less importance and undeserving of underwriting according to these folks.
Doctors take an oath to "do no harm" and that includes not subjecting an individual to mounting medical care when the hope for survival is slim and a person has indicated he or she wants no part of it. But first they have to know what the patient wants. It's too bad that payment for such a discussion has become one more victim of politics and appears to have a DNR attached to it. Here's hoping someone puts this provision on life support so that more people can have the ability to have that discussion. Sometimes it is a matter of life and death.
So the thought was to include the possibility of payment to have that discussion with one's doctor. Some people -- including those who formerly showed support for such an idea with their votes -- resorted to demagoguery against such a provision. And it appears others are now backing off from including such a provision in reform bills.
Why is it suddenly a bad thing to have more information? That seems to be the argument most often used when politicians want to tighten restrictions on abortion and add waiting periods and parental consent and the such. But when it comes to end-of-life issues when people do need to know what "heroic efforts" might mean -- and cost -- or what the consequences of having a "do not resuscitate" order are, apparently that is a meeting of far less importance and undeserving of underwriting according to these folks.
Doctors take an oath to "do no harm" and that includes not subjecting an individual to mounting medical care when the hope for survival is slim and a person has indicated he or she wants no part of it. But first they have to know what the patient wants. It's too bad that payment for such a discussion has become one more victim of politics and appears to have a DNR attached to it. Here's hoping someone puts this provision on life support so that more people can have the ability to have that discussion. Sometimes it is a matter of life and death.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Resetting the Clock
My previous post outlined Arizona's budget situation, where more than a month into a new fiscal year we stand with no final budget and no actual idea when we will have one. The Senate was set to meet August 4, which it did, when it would hopefully vote on the budget, which it did not.
Instead, the Senate met for a few minutes, after which members of each party went into caucus. The Republicans found themselves with unexpected business on their hands, as the majority whip had resigned her post that morning. Being one of the holdouts on the budget, she felt she was not serving leadership well because it would be difficult for her to round up votes for a budget she did not support. While she is not a legislator with whom I share much common ground, I appreciate her honesty and clarity in this decision.
When the resignation became public, it was accompanied by reports that another senator wanted the job. However, this senator also was a non-wavering "no" vote on the budget. He felt he could round up votes. Given his opposition to the package, one wonders what votes he was expecting to corral.
So did a new majority whip emerge? A freshman senator from northern Arizona temporarily holds the position. His ability to round up votes remains to be tested -- with senators out of town, there will be no votes taken this week.
Come Monday, August 10, the Senate faces more than an increasingly angry state populace -- they are up against what appears to be the final deadline to get a sales tax increase referred to the ballot for the November 3 election. The Secretary of State has moved this deadline a few times but this appears to be the actual drop-dead date for printing and distribution of informational pamphlets and ballots. It's also been reported to be the final deadline to get pro/con statements into the informational pamphlet, but perhaps the deadline gods could smile a little on those who would like to argue for or against the temporary tax hike and give them the same kind of grace period as the Senate.
This evening -- August 6 -- an agenda item for my school board meeting was to approve our district budget. This is not the first time we have done that this year -- by statute, we must approve it before July 15 -- and the legislature has guaranteed it won't be the last. In the past, this has been a multi-step process, but not the dance marathon we are currently caught in.
In the five years I have served on this board and voted to approve budgets, we have never missed meeting the deadlines set by the Legislature. Wish we could say the same for them.
Instead, the Senate met for a few minutes, after which members of each party went into caucus. The Republicans found themselves with unexpected business on their hands, as the majority whip had resigned her post that morning. Being one of the holdouts on the budget, she felt she was not serving leadership well because it would be difficult for her to round up votes for a budget she did not support. While she is not a legislator with whom I share much common ground, I appreciate her honesty and clarity in this decision.
When the resignation became public, it was accompanied by reports that another senator wanted the job. However, this senator also was a non-wavering "no" vote on the budget. He felt he could round up votes. Given his opposition to the package, one wonders what votes he was expecting to corral.
So did a new majority whip emerge? A freshman senator from northern Arizona temporarily holds the position. His ability to round up votes remains to be tested -- with senators out of town, there will be no votes taken this week.
Come Monday, August 10, the Senate faces more than an increasingly angry state populace -- they are up against what appears to be the final deadline to get a sales tax increase referred to the ballot for the November 3 election. The Secretary of State has moved this deadline a few times but this appears to be the actual drop-dead date for printing and distribution of informational pamphlets and ballots. It's also been reported to be the final deadline to get pro/con statements into the informational pamphlet, but perhaps the deadline gods could smile a little on those who would like to argue for or against the temporary tax hike and give them the same kind of grace period as the Senate.
This evening -- August 6 -- an agenda item for my school board meeting was to approve our district budget. This is not the first time we have done that this year -- by statute, we must approve it before July 15 -- and the legislature has guaranteed it won't be the last. In the past, this has been a multi-step process, but not the dance marathon we are currently caught in.
In the five years I have served on this board and voted to approve budgets, we have never missed meeting the deadlines set by the Legislature. Wish we could say the same for them.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Tick, Tick, Tick....
My favorite page in my high school yearbook is a comic book "cover" with some of us from the yearbook staff working while the storyline for the "issue" reads"25 People in a Battle to the Death with 'THE DEADLINE'" next to a picture of the Grim Reaper.
I actually thrive on deadlines. As a writer, a ticking clock keeps me focused and helps me hone my words. Even after all these years, I find the tighter the deadline, the better the copy.
Not everyone works that way. Take the Arizona Legislature. After convening in mid-January, legislators had a deadline to have a budget in place by June 30. In the Senate, bills were filed but not heard as President Bob Burns kept the budget front and center.
So what happened? Did we have a budget early, say April (as has often happened)? No. May? No. Early June? Try a budget that appealed to the most conservative members of the Legislature that passed in both chambers in the wee hours of June 30. It really was July 1, but Sen. Burns literally turned the clocks off and locked the doors, so time stopped for the Senate.
Did Arizona get a budget? No, because most of the bills were promptly vetoed by Governor Jan Brewer. They contained cuts she did not want and did not refer a sales tax increase to the ballot, which she had requested. So despite the fact that the majority party in both chambers plus the executive branch are all Republicans, the unity of party registration did not produce a budget for Arizona.
A few days later, the Republicans let the Democrats join the talks and some progress was made, with the Governor signing bills to keep some critical areas running. However, holes remained and a full budget was still needed. Leaders from both parties worked together and close to the end of July, they were about $500 million apart but still talking.
Then the talks stopped and the Dems were frozen out when the Republican legislators decided to work out a deal with the Governor. She would get her sales tax referral, but in exchange she agreed to tax cuts for corporations and higher income earners and much reduced funding for education, children, health services, seniors, and more -- funding she had pledged to protect in far larger amounts. And even though the sales tax referral would go through, the revenues realized from it would no longer be dedicated to education.
According to the longest-serving legislator in Arizona, this was the worst deal he had ever seen. So is this the deal Arizona got? Well, not yet. While it eked out of the House, it has not been voted upon in the Senate. They wanted to do this with just Republican votes, and the simple majority of 16 votes weren't there. Out of 18 Republican Senators, two balked at referring the sales tax and a third will only vote to refer the sales tax and nothing else. A fourth appears to be a possible holdout on some bills as well. That's where the situation stood when the Senate adjourned last week.
They reconvene on August 4 and the word is there may not be enough Republican votes present to pass this budget. If so, where does that leave Arizona? No budget, a deeper and deeper hole of decreasing revenues, and a citizenry tired of what feels like a really bad version of Groundhog Day playing over and over again.
We elect public officials to serve the public. We expect them to do so in a professional manner, and that means hitting their deadlines, especially in this, the most important task they have. If the votes aren't there, this budget wasn't meant to be. There has to be one that is. Work together to create it, pass it, and sign it. The clock is ticking.
I actually thrive on deadlines. As a writer, a ticking clock keeps me focused and helps me hone my words. Even after all these years, I find the tighter the deadline, the better the copy.
Not everyone works that way. Take the Arizona Legislature. After convening in mid-January, legislators had a deadline to have a budget in place by June 30. In the Senate, bills were filed but not heard as President Bob Burns kept the budget front and center.
So what happened? Did we have a budget early, say April (as has often happened)? No. May? No. Early June? Try a budget that appealed to the most conservative members of the Legislature that passed in both chambers in the wee hours of June 30. It really was July 1, but Sen. Burns literally turned the clocks off and locked the doors, so time stopped for the Senate.
Did Arizona get a budget? No, because most of the bills were promptly vetoed by Governor Jan Brewer. They contained cuts she did not want and did not refer a sales tax increase to the ballot, which she had requested. So despite the fact that the majority party in both chambers plus the executive branch are all Republicans, the unity of party registration did not produce a budget for Arizona.
A few days later, the Republicans let the Democrats join the talks and some progress was made, with the Governor signing bills to keep some critical areas running. However, holes remained and a full budget was still needed. Leaders from both parties worked together and close to the end of July, they were about $500 million apart but still talking.
Then the talks stopped and the Dems were frozen out when the Republican legislators decided to work out a deal with the Governor. She would get her sales tax referral, but in exchange she agreed to tax cuts for corporations and higher income earners and much reduced funding for education, children, health services, seniors, and more -- funding she had pledged to protect in far larger amounts. And even though the sales tax referral would go through, the revenues realized from it would no longer be dedicated to education.
According to the longest-serving legislator in Arizona, this was the worst deal he had ever seen. So is this the deal Arizona got? Well, not yet. While it eked out of the House, it has not been voted upon in the Senate. They wanted to do this with just Republican votes, and the simple majority of 16 votes weren't there. Out of 18 Republican Senators, two balked at referring the sales tax and a third will only vote to refer the sales tax and nothing else. A fourth appears to be a possible holdout on some bills as well. That's where the situation stood when the Senate adjourned last week.
They reconvene on August 4 and the word is there may not be enough Republican votes present to pass this budget. If so, where does that leave Arizona? No budget, a deeper and deeper hole of decreasing revenues, and a citizenry tired of what feels like a really bad version of Groundhog Day playing over and over again.
We elect public officials to serve the public. We expect them to do so in a professional manner, and that means hitting their deadlines, especially in this, the most important task they have. If the votes aren't there, this budget wasn't meant to be. There has to be one that is. Work together to create it, pass it, and sign it. The clock is ticking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
