When Donald Trump assumed the presidency, two allies of the U.S., Israel and Ukraine, were mired in bloody wars with ancient enemies. Both desperately needed more military aid in the effort to defeat their heavily armed foes.
Biden had granted both only enough military aid to enable them to not lose, but not enough to win. Moreover, the arms they received came with the condition that they not be used to inflict serious damage to their enemy. Trump could have helped turn the tide, but instead he snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
The Oct. 7 surprise attack by jihadists on innocent Israelis was just the latest in a centuries long string of atrocities inflicted by Muslim terrorists who devote their lives to killing Jews. Bitter experience had taught Israelis that agreements with terrorists were essentially useless so, for the safety of his people, President Netanyahu resolved to destroy Hamas.
Soon after hostilities began, the Biden government and other erstwhile friends began demanding a cease-fire, thwarting the original war aims. Grief-stricken Israelis understandably became restive over their families and friends being held hostage and demanded negotiations to secure their release.
Yet for terrorists, hostages are a key tactic in waging successful warfare. Because of the sharp contrast in how the two sides value human life, jihadists are able to command one-sided hostage swaps of up to 100 terrorists returned to duty for each civilian exchanged, plus other concessions.
But help was on the way. Our new president posted that none of this would have happened had he been in office and that he would now personally end the conflict. Ignoring the established wisdom of not negotiating with hostage takers, he vowed to apply his famed dealmaking skills to the problem, earning short term praise while simultaneously ensuring that there would be more hostages in the future.
So far, the promises aren’t working out. The war hasn’t ended. Hamas shamefully cheated on the hostage swap, retaining live hostages to maintain pressure on Israel. Worse, the Israelis will almost certainly not be free from the threat of attacks by Hamas and other Iranian proxies.
Meanwhile, Ukraine had suffered an unprovoked attack three years earlier by Russian strongman Vladimir Putin, who correctly surmised that the fearful and weak Biden administration would not provide robust aid and that without U.S. support, “Ukraine could not win a prolonged war against Russia”.
When Trump was elected, victory was at least thinkable with some additional aid because Ukraine’s troops had fought so courageously to defend their nation and their freedom.
Trump, however, saw it differently. This was another dealmaking opportunity. In January, he had told Putin, “We can do it the easy way or the hard way.” Yet a month later he was putting greater pressure on Kyiv to make concessions than on Moscow
When Zelenskyy balked at prospectively agreeing to ultimatums produced by the Trump-Putin negotiations, from which he was excluded, his relationship with Trump cratered. Suddenly, according to Trump, Zelensky was a badly dressed “modestly successful comedian” who had talked Biden out of $350 billion in military aid (a huge exaggeration).
Zelensky was charged with showing insufficient “respect” and “gratefulness” to his new masters. More preposterously, Trump wrote that Zelensky shouldn’t have started the war in the first place, which of course he didn’t do.
Luckily, Trump wrote, “We are successfully negotiating an end to the war with Russia, something all admit only ‘TRUMP’ and the Trump administration can do.” To teach Zelensky a lesson, Trump temporarily shut off all munitions and intelligence aid to Ukrainian troops.
Zelensky is being forced into the defeat option, which had been available to him all along. He stands to lose a big chunk of his country and the goals for which his people sacrificed so much.
Netanyahu was also put in a difficult position by Trump’s “rescue” and the relentless pressure to settle with his oppressors. He can now look forward to a future of more jihadist attacks and more hostage-taking. Tehran and Moscow are reportedly happy with the results.
We may come to regret insisting on domination rather than support of our allies. In a changing world, you can’t have too many friends.
Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.
Democratic Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed a commonsense bill that would have allowed our state to provide voters with same-day election results, moving us further away from the disastrous reporting system that is found when California voters go to their polls. Rather than our current operation of keeping Arizona voters in the dark about certain results of critical election races every two years, this legislation closely mirrored policies and procedures found in the state of Florida, which has largely perfected its vote counting over recent election cycles.
Additionally, my colleagues and I worked closely with a broad coalition of Arizona stakeholders, including most of the state’s county recorders and the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors – one of the largest jurisdictions in the entire nation.
This bill was sorely needed in our state. Yet, instead of working with Republicans in good-faith to provide much-needed reforms to our elections processes, Hobbs impeded all efforts to ensure Arizona can report the vast majority of votes on election night. Her veto was a huge mistake – not just politically, but for the future of our state’s elections.
Over the past decade, Arizona has seen a seemingly increasing share of razor-thin election results, which have proved the urgent need for this kind of legislation. In 2016, my good friend Andy Biggs won his primary election for the U.S. House of Representatives by just 27 votes. Outstanding votes were not counted until days after election night concluded, leaving supporters of the top two contenders in suspense. In 2022, current Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes defeated her Republican challenger, Abraham Hamadeh, by fewer than 300 votes. Again, the votes were being processed and tabulated long after election night had come and gone.
In 2024, President Donald Trump was not officially declared the winner of Arizona until days after the election thanks to the myriad of un-tabulated votes after election night. There are many more examples of these kind of delayed calls on critical election races, where voters were left in the dark about the eventual outcomes.
Arizona’s delayed results have embodied more of the nature of California’s failed system in the past decade. Many around the nation shake their heads in disgust at California’s persistent inability to count most votes by the end of election night. Oftentimes, the results for several critical races for different levels of government remain outstanding for weeks, let alone days, following the election. Compare California’s delays with Florida’s successful system, which allows it to report the results of most of its races within hours of all polls closing. There’s no question which system I want my state to emulate.
These delays in our election results lead to massive distrust in our system and officials. Voters deserve and expect maximum transparency when it comes to the elections systems that select the men and women who govern us. However, by making voters wait days after the election has finished, government officials contribute to the rising fear about the integrity of our system. There is a better way.
As a long-time public servant, I was unwilling to stand by and allow the people of Arizona to live in perpetual anxiety every two years when elections rolled around. These voters deserve certainty and transparency in one of the fundamental pillars of our constitutional republic: our sacred votes. That’s why I introduced this bill – SB 1011 / HB 2703 – to speed up vote counting in our state, improve voter confidence and end the frustration felt by many waiting way too long for results on Election Day.
This bill should not have been politicized. I am baffled why, even after a broad coalition around Arizona endorsed these policies, legislative Democrats and Hobbs dug their heels into the ground and opposed our efforts to make reasonable and necessary fixes to the state’s elections system. The Democrats’ partisanship on this bill is not what Arizonans want from their state’s leaders. Republicans and Democrats should be able to work together to solve these issues in a bipartisan manner without resorting to political talking points. Sadly, that is not what happened in this case.
I promised the people of Arizona that this Legislature would be committed to making commonsense and proven changes to our state’s election processes, and my colleagues and I remain wholly resolved to achieve that goal. The status quo for our elections is not an option. Voters deserve more respect than to see their government officials content to leave their state as the laughingstock of the nation for its woefully slow election reporting.
To that end, Republicans in the Arizona Legislature will soon be pursuing a bill to send the question of same-day election results to voters in the next General Election. If Hobbs and Arizona Democrats do not want to be a part of the solution, we will let the voters decide. One way or another, it’s time to bring same-day election results to our great state.
If the Hobbs administration has proven itself to be uniquely skilled at anything over the past two years, it’s incompetence and negligence. But now, Arizona’s governor has taken the next step toward outright fraud.
As a part of her recent budget proposal, Hobbs has asked for a supplemental appropriation to the Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES) to cover a shortfall in the Division of Developmental Disabilities (DDD). Without the additional funding, the DDD could run out of money by May, affecting many people under a program that provides services to Arizonans with disabilities.
The problem stems from a COVID-era program funded entirely by the federal government that would pay parents who operate as caregivers for their children with disabilities—the Parents as Paid Caregivers program. The program was intended to be temporary, but Hobbs received approval from the federal government in February 2024 to make it permanent.
That approval came with a catch. Beginning on April 1, the State of Arizona would have to cover 32% of the costs, which Hobbs attempted to get funding for in last year’s budget. Her proposal was not approved by the legislature, which she mutually agreed to as part of the budget process. But she continued funding the program anyway—likely believing that she would be able to flip the legislature in November’s election or bully lawmakers into giving her the money. She failed on both counts and now has created a shortfall in the DDD program that has exceeded $100 million…
Republicans are searching for ways to “pay for” their tax cuts. Democrats want the rich to pay more tax. Here’s a solution that should make everyone happy.
House Ways and Means Committee chairman Jason Smith is suggesting a tax on the $840 billion college endowments. These endowments will soon eclipse $1 trillion in size – which is more money than the entire GDP of many countries.
It’s high time that bloated and entitled universities pay “their fair share” for the government services they use.
Why not? Their professors forever lecture us about tax “fairness,” but the schools where they teach a few hours a week for their munificent salaries are the very embodiment of mostly-white “privilege.” They are are the richest institutions in the world that go untaxed.
The cost of this leakage to the tax base is going to grow exponentially as this generation of billionaires (Bezos, Gates, Zuckerberg and others) pass on trillions of dollars – much of it will enter into the vaults of the universities. These are capital gains that have NEVER been taxed – and never will be.
Why is this a problem?
A good and just tax system has a broad base – so everyone pays – but a low rate so the tax system doesn’t discourage, work, saving and investment. This means no loopholes and carve outs that allow the rich to keep their fortunes out of reach of the tax man.
What makes the college endowment scam even worse is that the preponderance of the dollars don’t go to small colleges or community colleges, but rather the Harvards, Yales, Stanfords and Princetons that are already layered with gold and service the elite of society.
It makes no sense that millionaires and billionaires can make seven, eight and even nine- figure donations to their Alma mater and these funds escape the taxes that all the rest of us pay.
It’s even worse than that. Colleges pay almost no income taxes and generally avoid paying property taxes even though their vast tracts of valuable land are in or near struggling inner cities.
The universities openly boast to their donor base: contribute to us and you can avoid paying the estate tax and capital gains tax on your billions. Why aren’t liberals offended by this tax escape hatch?
I have no problem with a deduction for legitimate charities like soup kitchens and homeless shelters and orphanages. But Northwestern and Stanford need tax breaks? Has anyone been to their glitzy campuses.
There are at least a dozen schools bulging with $10 billion endowments and scores more with more than $1 billion. We should call these schools Loophole U.
What public purpose is advanced by these storehouses of wealth?
Harvard’s near $50 billion endowment is so large that the school could charge free tuition to every student from now until kingdom come – and still not run out of money. Yet Harvard still charges $100,000 a year for tuition and room and board.
But this is the real sin of this unworthy tax loophole. Even with these giant endowments, college tuitions have been rising at two to three times the rate of inflation. The argument that tax-free donations make colleges more affordable has proven to be patently false. The bigger the endowment the more the schools charge students and their parents – and taxpayers.
One of the best ways to help inner cities would be to require all universities (and hospitals) to pay property taxes. This would broaden the tax base in poor cities where nonprofits have grabbed the most valuable real estate. Instead of chasing people out of the cities like Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia and New York with exorbitant taxes, dinging the big U down the street would allow cities to CUT their taxes for everyone else.
By the way, colleges and hospitals make use of city services even more than homeowners and mom and pop businesses do. Why should they not pay for these services?
Richard Vedder a famous economist at the University of Ohio has noted that “one of the most regressive policies in the tax code is the subsidies to the billion-dollar universities. This only Makes the Rich, richer.”
In a famous scene in the movie Animal House, Dean Wormer lectures to one of the students who is facing expulsion: “Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.”
Ironically, that could describe more than 100 overly-endowed universities today that are more like investment houses that happen to have classrooms and students roaming around. Colleges need to pay their fair share, and the revenues should be used to help pay for the Trump tax cuts – which benefit everyone. That sounds fair to me.
Stephen Moore is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation, and a co-founder of Unleash Prosperity.
At the Scottsdale Parent Council (SPC) meeting in February, Dr. Cindy Bochna, Director of Assessments and Accountability, and Ms. Lea Mitchell, Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services from Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) gave a presentation of the K-12 Statewide Assessments. You can view the video of the meeting here, SPC 2-19-25 Meeting.
A couple of interesting and somewhat disturbing points came out during the presentation and discussion.
One being how SUSD and most of the schools are “A” rated by the Arizona Department of Education.
For those of you not familiar with the AZ report card process, according to the Arizona Department of Education website, the
“Arizona Revised Statutes § 15-241 requires the Arizona Department of Education, subject to final adoption by the State Board of Education, to develop an annual achievement profile for every public school in the state based on an A through F scale.
The system measures year to year student academic growth, proficiency on English language arts, math and science. It also includes the proficiency and academic growth of English language learners, indicators that an elementary student is ready for success in high school and that high school students are ready to succeed in a career or higher education and high school graduation rates.”
To find out what grade your child’s school has been awarded, and how many points the school earned in each category, go to AZ Report Cards and search by the name of the school.
I understand that the Arizona Department of Education assigns the grades and SUSD didn’t establish the criteria, nor the weighted values assigned for the grading, but I think it is important that parents understand exactly what goes into the grades assigned and how to interpret them.
So, when you are looking at your child’s school to determine the assessment grade and detailed scoring, I encourage you to scroll down and look at the other information available, specifically the student achievement in state academic assessment reports.
These reports provide details on student proficiency rates for ELA, math, and science. By looking at previous years, you can see how the data is trending.
During the discussion at the SPC meeting, using Chaparral High School as an example, I asked Dr. Bochna and Ms. Mitchell how Chaparral is given an A grade when across all three academic subjects, an average of only 53% of the students are proficient. I asked how a 53% could be an A, isn’t that more like an F?
What I found disturbing was the response I got from Ms. Mitchell. She explained that Stephen Curry and Steve Kerr, both NBA players, only made 45% of the shots they took yet they were rated as world champion basketball players.
So, Ms. Mitchell, are you saying 53% makes you a world champion in academics? Really?!?
Statements like this are silly and make me wonder just how serious they are about education. SUSD students and parents deserve better.
At one point during the meeting, I asked how Arizona compared to the rest of the country. I said that I thought we were somewhere around 48th or 49th. Both Dr. Bochna and Ms. Mitchell said I was wrong, and that Arizona was somewhere around 30th or so in terms of ACT scores across the nation.
In a follow-up email, Dr. Bochna provided me with the following information:
When you look at the data and sort it from highest to lowest, Arizona is right where I said we are, tied with Mississippi and Hawaii for 47, 48, and 49th positions. Arizona is nowhere near the top 30 or whatever position Ms. Mitchell thought. If they were analyzing the data, they should know that. Being a top performer in a state that ranks at the bottom is nothing to brag about.
When you put this performance in some context, the 21.5 ACT score for SUSD is less than impressive. The average ACT score for incoming students at ASU is 26. While a score of 20-23 is considered competitive at many mid-tier colleges, a score of 24-28 is needed for more selective colleges. To get into a top engineering school, a student needs something like a 30 in math and 36 for a composite score. I’m sure there are a handful of students out of the 20,000 in SUSD who score that high, but to get an average of 21.5, many students do not.
While I certainly encourage you to listen to the entire meeting (Dr. Menzel responds to questions at the beginning of the meeting) the points I discussed here are found in the 44:00 to 1:00:00 portion and the 1:13:00 to 1:24:00 segment in the video. Listen for yourself.
For anyone that has been paying attention to what has been happening in SUSD over the past few years, it comes as no surprise that academic performance under Dr. Menzel has been terrible. Thousands of SUSD students each year are not proficient in ELA, math or science, yet over 92% graduate high school in four years. Remember, Dr. Menzel has never met any of his academic performance goals throughout his tenure at SUSD.
This academic record has contributed, in large part, to the steady decline in enrollment, leading to major financial issues the Governing Board is now struggling with. As has been his practice for the past few years, Dr. Menzel proposes cutting teachers and instructional staff positions and hiring more unlicensed social workers to solve the budget crisis, a crisis that his poor management has caused. Actions, if taken, will ensure the Governing Board will be dealing with the same problem again next year.
At the last Governing Board meeting, Member Pittinsky told Dr. Menzel he wanted to see a deep dive into causes of the declining enrollment. He wants to understand what parents are saying during exit surveys as they pull their children out of SUSD and see the data by site and grade level. All of us involved with SUSD would like to see that information.
I wish Dr. Pittinsky the best of luck as he tries to get this information from Dr. Menzel.
As I have said on multiple occasions, identifying the root cause of the problem and fixing it is the only way anything will change. Unfortunately, change takes time; time that thousands of SUSD students don’t have.
Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.
We always knew it would be costly, and experience has proven that true. But now, in a newly released report published by the Arizona Free Enterprise Club and the AZ Liberty Network, the cost for Arizona’s largest utility to go “Net Zero” was found to be even more expensive than expected coming with a massive price tag of at least $42.7 billion by 2038.
History of the Green New Deal in Arizona
The “green” agenda is not new to Arizona. In 2006, then Chairman of the Corporation Commission Kris Mayes pushed through the first mandates in Arizona, requiring our utilities to get 15% of their energy generation from “renewables” by 2025. Those rules alone have already cost ratepayers $2.3 billion. In 2018, an out-of-state billionaire funded a proposition on the ballot that would have required utilities to obtain 50% renewable generation by 2035. That measure went down in flames, being rejected by a 2-1 vote.
And these aren’t just public statements. The utilities have committed to going “Net Zero” in SEC filings to their shareholders, and they even compensate their top executives (page 68) based on how much “clean” energy they build in our state. Unsurprisingly, these commitments completely shape their resource plans…
