by Dr. Thomas Patterson | Aug 29, 2024 | Opinion
By Dr. Thomas Patterson |
Kamala Harris in her nomination acceptance at the Democratic National Convention assured the roaring crowd that she would “never stop fighting” for the American people and that she would “blaze a new way forward.” The speech disclosed no details, but she appeared to have in mind merely adding to the benefits that the welfare state bestows on grateful voters.
Subsidies for home mortgages, forgiveness of student loans, and free universal preschool have been dangled as possibilities. However, Harris and the other purveyors of free stuff have a big problem. They are running out of other peoples’ money to give away.
It’s not just America but the world’s advanced economies who are seeing the bill come due for decades of social spending exceeding revenue. American leftists like to chide fiscal conservatives for fretting about high tax rates, but economists now note that some high-tax European states are approaching the peak of the Laffer curve, the point at which raising tax rates fails to raise additional revenues. That means hitting the wall.
Western politicians over the last century developed a different style of campaigning for office. Rather than emphasizing the common good and overall strength of the nation, they competed on the basis of what government services they could provide to individuals and groups.
The responses to the Great Depression and the COVID crisis were especially harmful. The New Deal failed to end the depression. We have WWII to thank for that. But the traumatic experience convinced many Americans to think of government as their benevolent caretaker.
The economic deprivations caused by the COVID crisis were due to mostly self-inflicted wounds like the economic and educational shutdowns. Worse, long after the crisis had passed, the checks kept coming to Americans who were not impoverished. The “emergency” expenditures morphed into entitlements.
America has developed a culture of spending which caused the national debt in 2023 to exceed 120% of GDP while 100% has long been considered the outer limit of acceptable indebtedness. We also have hundreds of trillions more in future obligations to beneficiaries with no funding source available.
Time and demographics are not on our side. In just the next 12 years, aging baby boomers will reduce the ratio of workers (25 to 64) to retirees (65 and older) from 3:1 to 2:1. The fastest growing demographic group is those 85 and older, who require extra funding. Moreover, increased security risks like war and terrorism will create additional budgetary stresses.
There are fewer alternatives to reduced spending than ever available. Tax increases are politically unpopular and often don’t produce the hoped for outcomes because they reduce productivity. European countries have about 50% higher tax revenues than America, yet their real GDP per capita is lower, even factoring in the government services and subsidies they receive.
The era of low interest rates and the accompanying “sugar high” is over. The higher cost of debt financing will inevitably impair the ability of succeeding generations, already tapped out, to shoulder the burden of our selfish spending.
By now, we’ve breezed past all the easy fixes. We are facing severe warning signals, and all the red lights are blinking. Yet in spite of the urgent need to change our ways, both political parties studiously look the other way. Getting elected is still the imperative that trumps all others.
The general accounting office (GAO) recently made recommendations for minor adjustments to federal government procedures that would save $208 billion over the next decade. The major one was equalizing payment rates for offices determining Medicare benefits. The proposals are non-controversial and politicians supporting them could take cover by pointing out that they are endorsed by a non-partisan agency. The response has been…crickets.
Scores of scholarly papers have been written on how to reduce government waste, how to expedite permitting, and how to recover COVID over-payments, all to no avail. The politicians just aren’t that interested and, sadly, neither is the public.
We’re hearing a lot about democracy lately. Both parties claim the other one is an existential threat. Advice to would-be political leaders who are courageous enough to go beyond pontificating and do something that might actually preserve our democracy is simply this: cut the spending.
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.
by Mike Bengert | Aug 27, 2024 | Opinion
By Mike Bengert |
We are in the middle of an election season, having just completed a primary election with the general election coming in November. With many important and highly contested races, emotions run high on both sides of the political aisle, sometimes leading people to do dumb things.
Most people want an honest, fair election process with all candidates given the same opportunity to get their name out in front of the voters and make their case as to why people should vote for them.
The Scottsdale city elections, including the mayor and city council, are non-partisan. The election for the Scottsdale Unified School District Governing Board is also non-partisan. Name recognition becomes more critical in those races. Candidates for those offices rely on signs to create name recognition with the voters. The idea is that when people cast their votes, they will see a familiar name on the ballot.
Removing political signs not only interferes with the election process, but it is also illegal.
Those who continue to remove political signs in Scottsdale need to be aware that under Arizona Revised Statute 16-1019, it is a class 2 misdemeanor for any person to knowingly remove, alter, deface, or cover any political sign of any candidate for public office. This includes school board candidates.
In Arizona, a class 2 misdemeanor is a serious charge resulting in up to four months in jail and a $750 fine for a first-time offense. The second conviction could result in six months in jail, a $2,500 fine, and up to three years’ probation.
Think you won’t get caught? Remember there are cameras everywhere, and a sign could very well come with a tracking device that could lead right back to you.
During this political season, there has been a lot of talk about protecting our democracy. No matter which side you are on, removing political signs is a bad idea. Let the candidates get their names and policies in front of the voters, without interference, and may the best candidates and ideas win.
If you think the only way your candidate can win is to silence the other candidates, then maybe you are supporting the wrong candidate.
Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.
by Katarina White | Aug 26, 2024 | Opinion
By Katarina White |
The Screwtape Letters is a satirical novel written by C.S. Lewis in which a senior demon advises his nephew on how to lead humans astray. It exposes moral issues by presenting them from evil’s perspective, and it made me think. I wonder how Uncle Screwtape would reveal the distorted reasoning behind actions like supporting abortion through Proposition 139.
My Dear Wormwood,
I am thrilled to see our schemes in Arizona advancing so well. This November, the humans will vote on Proposition 139, the Arizona Abortion Access Amendment—a constitutional amendment that would enshrine the slaughter of infants up until the point of birth. What a splendid victory this could be for our cause!
For years, we’ve worked to twist their concept of “freedom” into a license for destruction, and what better vehicle than “choice”? The language of this amendment is, dare I say, masterful—dressed up in words like “rights” and “autonomy” that tickle the human mind and make them believe true freedom lies in rejecting any duty toward the most vulnerable. How easily they are led to view abortion not as ending a life, but as an empowering act of independence. Wrap it all in euphemisms, and they’ll never notice the blood on their hands.
But do not underestimate our opposition. Those meddlesome pro-lifers, especially Arizona Right to Life, remain a thorn in our side. They are determined to educate the public on what this amendment truly means and why it must be stopped. They speak of “defending life” and “protecting the innocent,” and they’re working hard to reach as many people as possible with their message. If they manage to expose the truth behind our cleverly disguised rhetoric, they could sway enough voters against us.
We must counter this by portraying them as extremists—out of touch with today’s values and opposed to women’s rights and personal liberty. Our allies in the Arizona Abortion Access Campaign have been skillful in steering attention away from uncomfortable topics like late-term abortions or the erosion of parental consent. Instead, they’ve focused on narratives of compassion and healthcare.
However, we must stay vigilant. Arizona Right to Life is relentless in its efforts to inform voters of the amendment’s dangers. They are spreading the word through educational campaigns, determined to expose the amendment’s potential for unfettered abortion access. We must work tirelessly to drown out their message, keeping the focus on appealing catchphrases and steering the conversation away from the harsh reality of what’s at stake.
In the end, the humans will think they are securing a “right,” when in truth, they will be codifying a monstrous wrong. Our task is to keep them in the dark until it’s too late.
Your affectionate uncle,
Screwtape
Katarina White serves as Board Member for Arizona Right to Life. To get involved and stay informed, visit the Arizona Right to Life website.
by Mike Bengert | Aug 23, 2024 | Opinion
By Mike Bengert |
As Scottsdale parents, grandparents, community members, and taxpayers evaluate their choices for school board, it’s important to remember that your vote reflects not just your choice of a candidate, but also the values and policies they represent.
One group of candidates—Michael Sharkey, Donna Lewis, and Matt Pittinsky—are endorsed by the Scottsdale Education Association (SEA), which is affiliated with the Arizona Education Association (AEA) and the National Education Association (NEA) teachers’ unions. Their campaign suggests they aim to “protect SUSD,” implying they will defend and uphold current policies. This includes supporting Superintendent Dr. Menzel’s agenda, which focuses on “dismantling and disrupting” SUSD to promote social justice and equity.
While Dr. Menzel emphasizes social emotional learning (SEL), diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), and gender identity, academic performance in SUSD has declined. Teacher and principal turnover are at an all-time high, and Dr. Menzel’s performance evaluation shows he has failed to meet any of the district’s academic achievement goals. For instance, only 60% of 3rd graders are proficient in English Language Arts (ELA), 46% of 8th graders in math, and just 34% of 9th graders in science.
Michael Sharkey, one of the SEA-endorsed candidates, claims one of his priorities is “Represent With Integrity,” pledging respect, honesty, and transparency. However, his LinkedIn statements suggest a dismissive attitude toward parental input on educational decisions, which raises concerns about his commitment to academic integrity. He says:
“So why am I running? Over the last few years, there’s been an uptick in the ‘parent’s rights’ movement. This is the notion that parents are best situated to make educational and healthcare decisions for their kids. While I am 100% in support of parents working WITH teachers and doctors, I reject the premise that parents know better than experienced/trained professionals.”
Once Sharkey received significant pushback on his post, he quickly rewrote it.
Remember the saying, when someone tells you who they are, believe them.
Dr. Donna Lewis, another SEA-endorsed candidate, highlights her being selected as the 2020-2021 Arizona National Superintendent of the Year while serving as Creighton Superintendent. That year, only 13% of the students enrolled at Creighton were proficient in ELA and only 8% in math. Not exactly superintendent of year numbers.
Her tenure at Creighton School District saw her implement so-called innovative approaches like dual-language, multi-age, and constructivist learning. However, even two years after the COVID-19, union-driven school shutdown, academic proficiency rates at Creighton remained dismally low, raising questions about the effectiveness of these innovations. In 2023, ELA proficiency was 17% and math 12%. So much for the innovative approaches.
Why would SUSD parents and Scottsdale community members vote to elect someone to the school board with this less-than-impressive past performance as a superintendent and no past or present ties to SUSD? How long has she even lived in Scottsdale or the SUSD?
Matt Pittinsky, the third SEA-endorsed candidate, says he supports neighborhood schools yet chose to send one of his kids to Brophy, which could indicate a lack of commitment to improving SUSD from within.
The SEA-backed candidates often promise to engage with parents respectfully and transparently but simultaneously criticize those who express concerns or exercise their legal rights in education. This disconnect between their promises and actions reflects a broader trend of undermining parental involvement and accountability. The Scottsdale community has resisted SEA-endorsed candidates, with two other candidates winning the last election.
At the last SUSD Board meeting, a Board member read a Let’s Talk message from a Scottsdale Unified employee revealing the employee’s fears about speaking out against current administration policies:
“… in light of the current climate where many of us feel apprehensive about speaking out. It’s become increasing evident that dissent with the current administration may result in severe consequences.”
So much for the SUSD value of inclusion, where “we create an equitable environment where everyone is respected, is treated with dignity, and has a sense of belonging.”
We cannot afford to elect a slate of SEA-backed progressive candidates who will only continue to “protect” Dr. Menzel and his failed policies.
We need a Governing Board dedicated to academic excellence, parental rights, fiscal responsibility, and school safety.
Gretchen Jacobs, Jeanne Beasley, and Drew Hassler, the Just Be Honest team, would provide that for the SUSD Governing Board.
Their campaign website is SUSD Strong. They don’t want to “protect” the status quo. They want to change it.
They care about the district and have a plan to focus on academics over activism, be honest with parents, respect their right to have a primary role in their child’s education, be good stewards of taxpayer money, bring fiscal responsibility to the district, and improve safety and security for all students and staff, not only on campus but whenever they are involved with a district event or service.
If you want to see a Strong SUSD, Gretchen Jacobs, Jeanne Beasley, and Drew Hassler will make this a reality.
Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.
by Tamra Farah | Aug 22, 2024 | Opinion
By Tamra Farah |
The author of this opinion piece would like to clarify that the title refers to individuals like Aaron Dunton and does not apply to any other individuals named in this article. In addition, the reference to sexually grooming kids concerns encouraging LGBTQIA gender identity considerations. Further, the mention of sexualizing kids refers specifically to encouraging kids to access the specific library books indicated and not to anything else.
Concerns over sexual grooming in Arizona schools and inappropriate educational agendas have intensified. The use of grooming materials and activities by teachers, the Arizona Education Association (AEA) agenda, and the damning Department of Education’s Enforcement Action report on sexual misconduct in schools are telling.
Not in Our Schools recently outlined concerns over reported misconduct and the promotion of LGBTQ and social justice agendas in Arizona schools. There are also concerns about the growing influence of LGBTQ and social justice agendas in Mesa Public Schools (MPS) through the actions of teachers and organizations like GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network).
Some Mesa teachers reportedly use their roles to promote LGBTQ-related content and activities in the face of new district policies restricting teacher involvement in non-academic clubs. Activities cited by Not in Our Schools also reveal that Mrs. Tami Staas engages in “grooming” students for sexual behaviors and gender transitioning without parental knowledge, using platforms like Synergy to hide information from parents. Mrs. Staas is said to introduce pronouns and LGBTQ+ symbols in her classroom, causing concern among parents.
Not in Our Schools also reports that the AEA prioritizes social agendas over academic achievement and influences school board elections to further these goals. Allegations are made about the AEA’s involvement in supporting abortion access and pushing for laws that promote gender transitioning in schools. Parents must be cautious about the school system and the influence of organizations like the AEA, and should thoroughly research candidates before voting in the upcoming school board elections.
Another concern involves the social-emotional learning (SEL) framework, which is used to push LGBTQ agendas. Programs like “Everybody Matters” indoctrinate students into LGBTQ lifestyles, further eroding parents’ influence in the education system. Additionally, the involvement of organizations like GLSEN and the Arizona School Board Association (ASBA) promotes LGBTQ content and obscures it from parents. Finally, the Mesa Public Schools Governing Board has been called out for supporting programs that weaken family structures and increase LGBTQ influence in schools.
Not only are teachers identified as using sexualizing materials in school, but just a few years ago a flurry of news called out Aaron Dunton, a former teacher at Higley High School in Gilbert, Arizona, who was arrested after a months-long investigation revealed his alleged inappropriate relationship with a 14-year-old student. Dunton resigned after the allegations surfaced, having taught at the school since July 2021. During the investigation, another victim accused Dunton of inappropriate incidents in 2019 when he was a teacher at Power Ranch Elementary. The second victim was 11 years old at the time. Dunton was facing multiple charges, including aggravated assault, witness tampering, and contributing to delinquency and dependency, until the Maricopa County District Attorney dropped the charges. Speculation is that there was no law to convict Dunton at the time. Now, there is hope that the anti-grooming law will be implemented soon.
Dunton is just one teacher among many seeking to mistreat students sexually. The Arizona Department of Education 2023 Enforcement Action Report indicates an 184% increase in sexual teacher discipline-related cases from 2012 to 2023. Those are cases that were recognized and resulted in the discipline of perpetrators. Imagine how many more teachers, coaches, and other school officials may go unrecognized as sexual predators of students.
Some consider HB2310, referred to as the Child Enticement Bill or the anti-grooming bill introduced by Representative Travis Grantham, as a tool to prosecute sexual predators like Dunton. HB2310, which will go into effect next month, strengthens protections for children against enticement and grooming. Going into effect next month, the bill makes it a fourth or fifth-degree felony to intentionally lure, solicit, or entice a minor into committing illegal sexual acts or actions that could lead to sexual exploitation or abuse. It also includes provisions for offenses committed through electronic communications. The legislation increases penalties for these crimes, providing better legal protection for children in Arizona.
Beyond respect for this prosecutorial law, the governing boards in Arizona school districts and the Arizona Department of Education are responsible for ensuring guardrails and accountability in schools to protect children. But it doesn’t stop there. Parents are vital in guiding their children to make safe and responsible decisions at school and online. Parents can encourage their children to protect themselves and others, understand harmful behaviors, and report incidents to parents and school officials immediately.
Here are suggested steps parents can advise their kids to take at school:
1. Understand Consent and Boundaries: Encourage your child to be aware of the power they have not to consent and the legal consequences of inappropriate sexual conduct by an adult. Ensure your kids understand that boundaries matter in physical and digital communication. Reinforce this by having regular conversations about consent and why respecting their personal space and boundaries is essential.
2. Be Mindful of Online Behavior: Advise your child to think critically about how they interact online, particularly with social media or text messaging. Teach them never to share personal or explicit content with others and to be cautious when interacting with people they do not know well. They should also understand that even consensual acts, such as sharing inappropriate images, can have severe legal consequences. Parents can support this by discussing the real risks of digital communication and the importance of privacy.
3. Report Suspicious Behavior: Make sure your child knows that if they encounter inappropriate behavior, such as an adult or peer asking them to send inappropriate images or engage in risky sexual acts, they should report it immediately to a trusted adult at school, such as a counselor or teacher, or use an anonymous reporting tool if available. Reinforce that reporting these incidents is crucial for their safety and protecting others from potential harm.
4. Stay Informed About Friendships and Relationships: Parents should encourage their children to surround themselves with friends who respect boundaries and engage in safe, responsible behavior. Advise them to avoid risky situations or peer pressure and to feel confident in saying “no” to uncomfortable requests, whether in person or online. By fostering open communication with your child, you can help them navigate complex social situations and ensure they understand their rights and responsibilities in relationships.
5. Learn About the Law: Encourage your child to become familiar with the legal consequences outlined in the amended Arizona statutes, particularly regarding age differences in relationships and digital safety. Understanding the law can empower them to make responsible choices. Parents can help by discussing the specific legal consequences of child enticement, age proximity laws, and what qualifies as inappropriate behavior.
6. Practice Digital Safety: Advise your child never to share personal passwords, account details, or private information online. Reinforce that they should never engage with unknown people online, especially if the conversation turns inappropriate or uncomfortable.
By teaching children about consent, online safety, reporting suspicious behavior, and advocating for themselves, parents can help them align their actions with appropriate behavior and relationships and create a secure school environment that is in accordance with Arizona’s laws to protect minors.
Tamra Farah has twenty years of experience in public policy and politics, focusing on protecting individual liberty and promoting limited government. She has worked at the senior director and advisor level for Americans for Prosperity, FreedomWorks, Moms for America, and pregnancy centers. Tamra currently directs SMART Families Network at Arizona Women of Action.
by AZ Free Enterprise Club | Aug 20, 2024 | Opinion
By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |
Every election cycle, out-of-state special interest groups spend millions of dollars in Arizona to buy their initiatives onto our ballot. It often takes just a couple million dollars—pocket change to California billionaires—to pay a few hundred circulators to collect signatures. And they usually flood the streets with paid circulators in just Phoenix and Tucson, stripping all other Arizonans from having a voice in the process.
Not every state has a citizen initiative process. In fact, less than half (20) allow for citizen initiative amendments to state law. Arizona is even more unique because in 1998, the Arizona voters amended the constitution with the “Voter Protection Act,” preventing the legislature from amending any measure passed on the ballot unless they obtain a ¾ majority and the amendment “furthers the purpose” of the initiative. In effect, this means that anything passed on the ballot must go back to the ballot for future changes, much like a constitutional amendment.
Of those 20 states with a citizen initiative process, 11 have a signature distribution requirement. This means that in those states, the signatures cannot all be collected in just one city or major county, like they currently can here in Arizona. Instead, initiative proponents need to gain support from diverse regions of the state.
It’s time for Arizona to join them, and we can by adopting a Geographic Distribution requirement for signatures…
>>> CONTINUE READING >>>
