If someone in the private sector illegally took money that didn’t belong to them and then refused to return it, what do you think would happen? They could be heavily punished with fines. They could face sanctions. They could even end up in jail, depending on the offense.
But for about a year and a half, Pinal County has been allowed to drag its feet in refunding $80 million that it illegally collected from taxpayers. It’s just another example of government officials who think they are above the law.
This all started back in 2016 when Pinal County officials proposed a $640 million transit tax hike to voters in order to fund a wide array of transportation projects throughout the region. But after unveiling the plan, the county faced strong opposition from retailers, home builders, auto dealers, and multiple taxpayer watchdog groups.
This should’ve been enough for county officials to recognize that the community didn’t support their proposal. But they were too committed to their scheme. So, what did they do?
In November 2023, there will be 23 districts within Maricopa County that are asking voters to approve a new Bond Issue, Budget Override, or District Additional Assistance.
One of the constant themes from the Educational Industrial Complex is that schools are underfunded and teachers are woefully underpaid. However, in the Arizona state 2024 budget, 50% of the total budget is allocated to education which includes K-12 schools, community colleges, and universities.
According to the Arizona Joint Legislative Budget Committee, per student funding at the state, local, and federal levels in fiscal year 2024 is an estimated $14,673 per student. This is up from 2023 funding at $14,025 per student. Contrast that with 2015 which was $9,124 per student.
To put the spending issue into perspective, Mesa Unified, the state’s largest district, is asking for an approval for $500 million in new bonds as well as a 15% budget override. However, the district has $182 million in unspent funds from the 2018 Bond initiative as well as $173 million in unspent COVID relief funds. Couple this with the $863 million the district will receive from the state in fiscal year 2024 and that’s roughly $1.2 billion dollars. Why is the district asking for more?
Despite this funding, the academic achievement for Mesa schools districtwide is abysmal. In 2022, only 38% of students were proficient or highly proficient at English Language arts, and only 31% of students are proficient or highly proficient at math. In addition, the 2022 graduation rate was 76%.
Some might argue that the recent steep inflation devalues the increased education spending by the legislature. But this is a two-way street. After all, taxpayers are also subject to inflation and asking them to keep increasing funding for an obviously broken system is not sustainable.
Finally, history shows that Mesa taxpayers are not anti-education. In 2018, they passed a $300 million dollar bond to increase funding. Fast forward to 2023 and the financial picture for Mesa schools is much healthier. Why are they asking for more money despite the fact that academic scores have remained flat for the last four years? The answer is not additional funding.
Enough is enough. The people of Arizona should reject all bond and override initiatives.
Nancy Cottle is a longtime East Mesa community resident. You can follow her on X here.
Democratic politicians and the liberal media made the first day of school all about welcoming migrant children. That’s sheer propaganda. Parents deserve the truth. The migrant surge is a disaster for their kids.
The surge will worsen our education system’s twin failures: plunging math and reading scores, and the failure to ensure newly arriving kids learn English so they can succeed, too.
Kimberly Carchipulla, who came from Ecuador and has been living at the Roosevelt Hotel in Manhattan with her son, brought him to school on Thursday and said through a translator, “What I want for him is a future.”
That’s what all parents want. But when migrant children are added to the class, the rest of the kids get less of their teacher’s attention. A teacher will have to focus on the needy newcomers who speak no English and may not have been to school before. For the rest, it could be a year of lost opportunities.
Public school students’ reading and math scores have been falling for decades, hitting a new low this year, according to National Assessment of Educational Progress tests. One reason is the soaring number of non-English-speaking students, up from only 9% of public school students in 1980 to nearly 25% now.
Until the 1960s, children arriving in this country were put in public school without interpreters and bilingual teachers. Children were taught in one language — English. No confusion. The current approach is a disaster for migrants and for the rest of the kids in class with them. The data don’t lie.
Now typically, a bilingual teacher and teaching assistants try to teach — math, science, art, any subject — in two or more languages, speaking English at times but also answering questions in Spanish and other languages. It’s chaos. Everyone learns less.
Jean Skorapa, superintendent for a rural school district in Maine, says the 67 migrant children enrolling in her district “are a tremendous, tremendous benefit”: “They make our community diverse and more well-rounded.” All true. But that’s happy talk.
What about the impact on learning? Geralde Gabeau, executive director of the Immigrant Family Services Institute in Massachusetts, explains that migrant children will be placed “in a first grade class with other students who already know their ABCs, who already know how to read, so those children are going to suffer.”
New York City has disastrously low reading scores. The influx of non-English-speaking students makes the challenge greater.
European countries are also grappling with waves of migrants. IZA, a European think tank, reports that “a high share of immigrant children in schools leads to lower test scores of native children.” Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development researchers report similar findings.
It’s not about race or ethnicity. It’s about too many languages spoken in the classroom.
Politicians would rather pander than address it. Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont says, “From the bottom of my heart, I want to make sure this is the most welcoming state in the country.” Yet state education statistics show that the more “high-needs” kids in the class, including non-English-speaking students, the lower the reading and math scores for the others.
The current system is lose-lose, hurting migrant kids as well. They’re given too many opportunities not to learn English. Lamont, for example, is expanding translation services for parents and interpreters for students. That’s misguided. Families need to be prodded to learn English, not linger in a language ghetto.
Some school districts in New York state are experimenting with temporarily schooling newcomers separately, offering them months of intensive language preparation to succeed as English-speaking students. Good idea.
But the United Nations insists children have a “right” to be educated in their native language. Nonsense. It dooms them to low-paying jobs.
The vast majority of non-English-speaking students — 97% according to one report by the Federation for American Immigration Reform — lack English proficiency when they graduate from U.S. high schools. That’s the definition of failure.
Last week, mothers gathered outside Park Avenue elementary school in Port Chester, New York, to pick up their kids. Few spoke English. Some mothers had attended the same school decades earlier. Yet they can’t speak English. Tragic.
Tell the pols to stop romanticizing this lose-lose disaster and start fixing it.
Betsy McCaughey is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation and a former lieutenant governor of New York and chairman of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths. Follow her on Twitter @Betsy_McCaughey. To find out more about Betsy McCaughey and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.
A couple weeks ago, after Mayor Gallego did her interviews and headed home from the City Council meeting on September 6, she posted a photo on X of her pouring milk from a $7 half-gallon carton into an empty bowl next to a knife. (Because what normal person doesn’t enjoy eating cereal with a knife?)
While Gallego says she is not banning meat, there is no meat in the photo.
There’s been a lot of false info about my work to make PHX more sustainable.
What I’m not doing: ❌ banning meat or milk
What I am doing: ✅ increasing housing options ✅ improving walkability and transit ✅ reducing emissions and energy bills ✅ enjoying cereal pic.twitter.com/ZzViZ3bT0O
What made her post this image with these self-righteous campaign slogans under her Official X account?
The power of Public Comment.
Earlier that day, about a dozen Grassroots citizens attended the Phoenix City Council meeting and told the mayor they do not support policies banning meat.
A constant factor was brought up by multiple public speakers: Gallego is the Vice-Chair of the C40 Cities. According to the C40 Cities website, “C40 is a global network of mayors of the world’s leading cities that are united in action to confront the climate crisis.” C40 has many documents outlining the organization’s desire to reduce and abolish the consumption of meat.
And the citizens don’t want it!
The troubling fact is, on March 4, 2020, Gallego and the Council passed the 2025 Phoenix Food Action Plan. In Strategy 2, under Goal 1, the fifth “Progress on Action” creates a new policy for the Office of Environmental Programs (OEP) at the City of Phoenix to enter a contract with Arizona State University to “establish an AgriFood Tech Incubator in 2023 to accelerate ventures in sustainable food systems…”
But this is nothing new. The City of Phoenix has multiple policies for sustainable food systems in the 2020 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory report conducted by ASU. And Gallego also has many policies tied to ASU. In fact, she is funding and has teamed up with the college for multiple environmental and sustainable projects. What type of environmentally sustainable policies does ASU believe in?
Let’s check out their degrees in “Sustainable Food Systems.” The Bachelor of Science degree states, “Students become effective agents of change” and “Students are engaged in an active community collectively working to achieve the 2030 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.” The degree for Online Master of Science in Sustainable Food Systems lists Kathleen Merrigan as the leader of the degree program.
According to ASU’s biography page for Merrigan, she is the Kelly and Brian Swette Professor in the School of Sustainability and executive director of the Swette Center for Sustainable Food Systems. She was listed as one of Time magazine’s Top 100 Most Influential People in the World in 2010. And she is a partner in Astanor Ventures along with being an advisor to S2G Ventures—two firms investing in ag-tech innovation. Merrigan also holds a PhD in Public Policy and Environmental Planning from Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
In an article titled, “In Light of Climate Change Debates, ASU Continues Sustainability Efforts,” Merrigan is quoted as saying, “Get rid of the plastic water bottles, eat less meat…” to make ASU more sustainable. Furthermore, ASU has a research program that is teamed up with Merrigan and the Swette Center for Sustainable Food Systems. The program states it is ASU’s desire to find out how to implement “dietary shifts towards plant-based diets” through “interventions.” Peoples’ eating habits in reaction to COVID-19 lockdowns, a major intervention on society, are listed in this document.
Now, consider one major food intervention taken by Mayor Gallego. Just two weeks after passing the 2025 Phoenix Food Action Plan, she decided to lock Phoenix down due to COVID. After the lockdown began, the Medical Director for Disease Control with the Maricopa County Department of Public Health, Dr. Sunenshine, gave public testimony at the March 23, 2020 Phoenix City Council meeting. Dr Sunenshine stated that the Mayor shut the city down without reaching out to her office first. Dr. Sunenshine also said she would have recommended staying open.
Locking down the city implemented the most direct intervention on eating habits we have seen in our lifetime. Shutting down restaurants cut off 50% of our food supply because the government prevents restaurant food from being sold in grocery stores. The lockdown drastically constrained supply, damaged the supply chain for food, and helped lead to the astronomical food prices we see today.
While Gallego is able to say she is not literally banning meat, she is implementing policies that make meat more expensive and will lead to major reductions of meat consumption in the future. Dare I suggest by 2030?
Just to demonstrate that Gallego is implementing an ideology and that this is not isolated to only Phoenix, consider this. On April 24, 2023, Gallego posted a video with Mayor Quinton Lucas from Kansas City celebrating his “first fully-autonomous ride with Waymo.” Does Kansas City have a plan to reduce meat consumption?
Of course, they do! Under Lucas, Kansas City passed its Climate Action Plan in September 2022. Kansas City’s Climate Action Plan Food section in each division of Kansas City lists promoting plant-based diets!
Another city recently popped up in the news cycle. Chicago is possibly going to open city-owned grocery stores, so I looked up their action plans. In 2021, Chicago began reducing red meat from its schools, juvenile detention center, and Chicago Park District menus. The same document identifying Chicago reducing meat claims Chicago wants “to foster more racially and socially equitable supply chains across the region.” They are saying the quiet part out loud! They want to disrupt the supply chain to reduce meat consumption. Now, if Chicago does end up opening city-owned grocery stores, do you think they will sell meat? Absolutely not!
But let’s get back to Mayor Gallego’s post from a little over a week ago. Her claim of reducing energy costs is another bold-faced lie. Gallego teamed up with the “Climate Mayors” from across the country to release an op-ed on September 10, 2023 claiming the implementation of green energy plans have reduced the cost of energy!
But mayors cannot claim they are reducing energy costs! The cost of energy is set by Corporation Commissions with utilities providers. Mayors have nothing to do with the cost of energy.
But let’s pretend they do. The Federal Reserve states that the cost of energy for the Greater Phoenix Area is skyrocketing! It’s higher than any point over the past five years!
The policies Mayor Gallego is implementing are detrimental to our well-being and set to a radical left agenda. They should not be accepted, and they should not be tolerated.
That’s why it’s critical for the people of Phoenix to stand up, speak up, give public comments, and more. It’s the best way to stop these radical policies that price people out of being able to afford meat, interrupt the supply chain of meat, and make energy costs skyrocket.
Jeff Caldwell currently helps with operations at EZAZ.org. He is also a Precinct Captain, State Committeeman, and Precinct Committeeman in Legislative District 2. Jeff is a huge baseball fan who enjoys camping and exploring new, tasty restaurants! You can follow him on X here.
Secretary of State Adrian Fontes appears to be in a tug-of-war with Governor Katie Hobbs to determine who is worse at their job. It’s been well-documented that since she took office, Hobbs has been off to a rough start with high-profile staff exits, breaking the veto record after killing the bipartisan “Tamale Bill,” and alienating many Democrats by signing the Republican budget. But over the past eight months, Fontes has been working just as hard in the battle to see who’s more incompetent. Not only has he failed to perform the necessary voter list maintenance—leaving 14 Arizona counties in violation of Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act—but he rushed through a version of the Elections Procedures Manual (EPM) that is filled with unlawful provisions.
Now, Secretary of State Fontes has been dealt another major blow after a superior court judge ruled against him…
The immigration crisis is crushing New York City. According to ABC7 news, last week alone 2,900 new “asylum seekers” entered one of the city’s 200 new emergency shelters.
Mayor Eric Adams says the city spends $383 per day per family on food, shelter, and other expenses, which are deemed the migrants’ right to receive for no charge or obligation because well…just because.
The formerly elegant Roosevelt Hotel has been designated the nerve center for services to accommodate the 120,000 illegal immigrants now in the city. Mayor Adams estimates the city will incur a $12 billion deficit as a result of the influx, meaning that “every service in the city is going to be impacted.” Fifteen percent across-the-board budget cuts are seriously looming.
Yet the expenditures are not adequate to address the surge. Immigrants are occupying the sidewalks in front of the Roosevelt, locals are fuming over the takeover of schools, parks, and other public facilities while reports of subway crime are beginning to pop up. Maybe the sanctuary status the Mayor pressed for, when the costs were borne elsewhere, isn’t such a great idea after all.
Mayor Adams correctly points out that since border law is a federal matter, the feds should help alleviate the distress they are causing. What we’re getting instead is outrageous gaslighting. White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre insists that President Biden has actually done a great job of protecting the border “and you have seen him do that.”
We have? This is the president who unilaterally eliminated policies like Remain in Mexico and Title 42, which effectively reduced the number of illegal border crossings. The result has been a surge of approximately 2.7 million people on Biden’s watch, 260,00 this August alone. That doesn’t include the “gotaways”, who are uncountable, but estimated to number at least 1.5 million during the Biden administration.
It’s no wonder Americas are starting to feel the strains in social services, healthcare, schools, and prisons. Their advocates claim illegal immigrants are an economic boon, but if that were, why do leftist enclaves complain bitterly about receiving them instead of requesting more?
Truth check: immigrants cost taxpayers $150 billion annually and growing. Even worse is the humanitarian crisis caused by cartels victimizing women and children vulnerable to “human trafficking.”
Illegal immigrants are often erroneously referred to in the popular press as “asylum seekers.” That’s a lie. Imaginary asylum seeking is the (very successful) strategy used to circumvent lawful border enforcement. Immigrants not otherwise eligible for entry are coached to say “I feel unsafe” to border agents. That automatically entitles them to an asylum hearing, which, because of the crowding at the border, is scheduled years in the future.
It’s a farce. They pretend to be seeking asylum, and we pretend to believe them. Fewer than 10 percent are eligible for legitimate asylum. Most never show up for their hearing.
Democrats also like to pretend there is nothing they can do about the ongoing border invasion because Republicans once voted against a bill that included additional border funding. But if Republicans were willing to discuss comprehensive immigration reform, maybe we could talk…
That gives away their game. “Comprehensive” reform is a euphemism for citizenship. The Biden administration willingly pays a high price politically for their devastating border policies. The hardships caused by unlimited immigration are causing widespread resentment. An election looms.
Yet they soldier on, refusing to consider even the most reasonable measures to reduce the ongoing surge. There’s only one possible explanation: they are playing the long game, taking hits now to achieve future political domination.
They see the 20 million or so foreign nationals now living here as future Democrats, who they will relentlessly portray as victims if not eventually granted citizenship. The gambit will work again. The American political landscape will be changed forever.
There is a way out. It’s not more money. It’s not more laws. It’s not even a wall. We must simply follow the example of decent, self-respecting nations throughout history and employ the lawful force of government to maintain our sovereign borders.
Follow the Law. It’s doable, it’s moral, and it’s necessary to protect legal immigrants, American citizens, and America’s future.
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.
