Maricopa County’s Proposal to Comply with the EPA Threatens to Turn Arizona into California

Maricopa County’s Proposal to Comply with the EPA Threatens to Turn Arizona into California

By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |

If you enjoy losing your freedom for a goal that is impossible to achieve, the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) has you covered.

MAG recently released its proposed measures to bring Maricopa County into compliance with ozone standards set by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and it’s a total disaster. Along with a whole host of regulations on various business activities, the proposed restrictions include banning the internal combustion engine and gas appliances. That’s right, just like in California, they are coming for your cars and your gas stoves. But that’s not all. This proposal would also put limits on things like lawn and garden equipment, motorized boating, and water heaters…

>>> CONTINUE READING >>>

Armed Cops in Schools Are Unaffordable and Unnecessary

Armed Cops in Schools Are Unaffordable and Unnecessary

By Dr. Thomas Patterson |

Americans were outraged to learn of the Nashville school shooting, where a transgender female shot and killed three children and three adults at a Christian school.

As always, a fierce political debate broke out after the murders. Gun control advocates, mostly Democrats, again made impassioned and often vitriolic pleas for more stringent gun laws.

It would be a wonderful world if there were some laws we could pass, some clever strategy to keep criminals from having guns. The big problem is that gun control laws don’t work, much as we might wish otherwise. If they did, Chicago, Baltimore, and other big cities, with their strict gun laws on the books, wouldn’t be the murderous hell-holes that they are.

It’s been pointed out many times, but it’s still true: violent criminals don’t follow the law. The victims are the law-abiding citizens who bring knives to a gun fight.

Conservative commentator Matt Vespa recently wrote a thoughtful column advocating instead for posting “resource officers” in every school. He notes that it took 14 minutes for police to arrive at the Nashville shooting, and that other killers have had even more time before facing significant deterrence.

On the other hand, there are many accounts of officers in schools who were able to prevent potential murders just by being present.

But there’s a problem. There are approximately 115,000 K-12 schools in the U.S., according to Dun and Bradstreet. If we lowball an estimate of $50,000 yearly to support an FTE, that means placing an officer in every school would, according to my back-of-the-napkin calculator, cost at least $5 and $6 billion annually.

That would be a justifiable cost if we were facing an epidemic of school killings, but the numbers tell a different story. Although the especially traumatic nature of school killings and extensive media coverage make the shootings seem commonplace, for the last 35 years, school shooting deaths have hovered around 20–30 per year, less than one for every two states.

From 2010 to 2019, there were 305 incidents involving guns and 207 deaths—or about 20 per year. Arizona, with about 2,700 schools, has had one shooting death ever, in 1987, in addition to four suicides and one accidental death.

For American schools, this computes to an annual average of one shooting death for every 4,000 schools. Full-time school resource officers would, over the course of a career, have an infinitesimal chance of preventing even one shooting.

Throwing money at a problem without a sober cost-benefit analysis, however passionately we may feel about it, seldom works out. A more practical solution would be to authorize one or more teachers per school to carry concealed weapons.

These teachers would be volunteers who are licensed carriers and would undergo additional training in the very focused area (confronting an armed criminal in a school setting) that their duty might entail. They would receive a modest stipend.

Would recruiting be a problem? I like to think there are enough teacher-heroes with a heart for their students who would be willing and up to the task if called upon. Remember, it has often been teachers who answered the call when peace officers cowered in emergency situations, as in Uvalde and Parkland.

Moreover, the deterrent effect of armed teachers would be inarguable. Schools would be changed from soft targets with idiotic “Gun Free Zone” signs into places where criminals with bad intentions would know they were risking their lives by entering.

Unfortunately, the teachers’ unions have pitched a fit. Their purported worries include the safety of their members, the qualifications of the volunteers, and the image of teachers involved with violence.

Their arguments are easily rebuffed, remembering that no solution is perfect, and the point is to pick the best available. But the unions are powerful, tough competitors in public debate, even when the facts and arguments are against them, as when the schools were shut down during COVID on their demand.

Wasting a few more billion in a nation over $30 trillion in debt may not seem like much, but we have to start somewhere. Let’s believe in our educators and look to American resilience and resourcefulness to protect our children.

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.

It’s Time to Hold Republicans’ Feet to the Fire on the Budget

It’s Time to Hold Republicans’ Feet to the Fire on the Budget

By Pat Nolan |

Governor Hobbs has proposed a budget that is a radical’s dream. It increases funding for a laundry list of pet programs of the radical left, while at the same time cutting programs that are supported by the vast majority of Arizonans. The Hobbs budget expands funding for illegal immigrants and increases taxpayer funding of abortions. At the same time, Hobbs would kill the expansion of our popular parental school choice program and defund the Border Strike Force.

House Majority Leader Leo Biasiucci describes the Hobbs budget: “Attacking school choice, peddling state-funded abortions, and incentivizing illegal immigration in Arizona are all non-starters and, frankly, something you’d expect to see proposed by a politician in California, not Arizona.”

In response to Hobbs’ radical budget, Republicans passed a responsible, “baseline budget” which would continue state spending at last year’s budget levels, with adjustments to education and health care programs to account for inflation. When asked if Hobbs would reject the baseline budget Rep. Biasiucci responded, “If she does that, it’s party politics. This is everything we need to make sure that schools don’t shut down, make sure government stays open, make sure all our essential services stay open while we figure out what we need to do with the rest of the money.” Unfortunately, Hobbs vetoed the legislature’s reasonable budget. She is playing a game of chicken, threatening a government shutdown.

If Republicans stay united, the taxpayers will be protected from the free-spending Democrats. Given the one-vote margin in each house, we can’t afford to lose a single Republican vote. To protect us from Hobbs’ costly budget, it is essential that Republicans stick together.

I have heard disturbing reports that some Republicans are quietly signaling they are willing to cut a deal with the Democrats behind the backs of their leadership. That would severely weaken the bargaining position of Republicans as they negotiate for smaller government. More important, it would betray their constituents who voted for them based on their promises to limit the growth of state government.

Why on earth would Republicans be willing to cave to the Hobbs budget? There are a couple of possibilities. They could trade their votes for a pet project. Or they could be self-promoters with a messianic complex seeking acclaim from the liberal press as “rising above the partisan bickering.”

Believe it or not, it could happen here in Arizona. Around the country and in Congress, turncoat Republicans have made side deals to expand government spending. And though it seems odd, these quislings frequently represent “safe” Republican districts. Senator Romney comes to mind, and he is not alone.

In California, back when Jerry Brown was governor, a Republican representing the most Republican district in the state voted for the bloated budget after she had promised to oppose it. When asked why she flipped, she blithely replied that she got a new library for UC Irvine. Another Republican sold out for even less—Willie Brown promised him an office with a wet bar in it. Judas at least got thirty pieces of silver. As sure as night follows day, the press heaped praise on both of them for their “courage” in avoiding a budget impasse. But in truth, they voted against the interests of their constituents.

To avoid such a betrayal from happening here in Arizona, conservatives must press their representatives for a firm commitment that they won’t cut a side deal on the budget. We must lock in those commitments now and shut down any side deals before negotiations start in earnest.

My State Senator is Ken Bennett, and my representatives are Quang Nguyen and Selena Bliss. LD 1 is the most Republican district in the state. Conservatives shouldn’t have to worry about them keeping faith with their promises to the voters, but as President Reagan told us, “Trust but verify.”

Therefore, I am asking all three for a firm commitment that they will only vote for a budget that is supported by the rest of their Republican colleagues. The great conservative Senator Everett Dirksen famously said, “When I fell the heat, I see the light.” And I hope conservatives in all Republican districts will turn up the heat, so Republicans stay united to protect the wallets of the taxpayers.

Otherwise, it will be every legislator for themselves, and they’ll cut the hog fat. And we the taxpayers will be the hog.

Pat Nolan is the Director Emeritus of the Nolan Center for Justice at the American Conservative Union, and lives in Prescott.

Lawmakers Must Put a Stop to Any Bans on Gas Stoves

Lawmakers Must Put a Stop to Any Bans on Gas Stoves

By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |

We’re just over two years into President Biden’s presidency, and it appears the push for the Green New Deal is in full swing. They’re coming for your money. They’re coming for your cars. And now, yes, they are indeed coming for your gas stoves.

Of course, these Green New Deal activists don’t want you to know that. That’s why the mere mention of a potential gas stove ban draws eye-rolling responses from the left—like this piece from The New York Times that wants to assure you that the Biden administration is not planning a ban on gas stoves. Or the White House putting out a statement that the president does not support such a ban.

But it’s all lies.

Under the guise of public health and safety concerns, the Department of Energy issued a new rule in January that could ban up to 96% of existing gas stoves

>>> CONTINUE READING >>>

It’s Important to Let the Banks Fail

It’s Important to Let the Banks Fail

By Dr. Thomas Patterson |

Joseph Schumpeter was an Austrian born economist who last century coined the term “creative destruction” to describe the method by which capitalism continually reinvigorates itself. Unlike the static monarchical guild-based economies or the now-pervasive socialist states, capitalism is in constant turmoil. Ceaseless competition produces winners, losers – and progress.

Schumpeter’s key insight was that failure is essential to capitalism’s success. The outmoded and inefficient must give way to more successful models for capitalism to work its magic as the most beneficial-for-all economic engine of all time.

But that doesn’t mean the short-term consequences of failure aren’t painful to those who bear them. Buggy manufacturers, candlemakers, and others overtaken by progress were convinced that the demise of their industries would inflict lasting damage not only on themselves, but on the economy.

But the harm was mostly short term. American lore is full of stories of honest strivers who learned from their disappointments and went on to great success. Reasonably flexible workers found employment in new fields where they were often more productive.

Schumpeter was right that capitalism is fundamentally a “no pain – no gain” deal. But that can be a hard sale in a culture that has come to believe nothing bad should happen to anyone, that pain and failure are indicators of injustice.

We ditch merit-based exams because some students may feel bad. We award participation medals. We mandate facemasks just in case.

Thus, the Obama administration, after the banking collapse of 2008–09, soothed the wounds of the too-big-to-fail lending banks by bailing them out with billions of taxpayer provided funds. But the banks were engaged in exactly the behaviors that Schumpeter believed free markets were designed to punish.

The banks (at the insistence of the feds) made thousands of “sub-prime” loans, using underwriting criteria which would previously have been considered unthinkable. Worse, when the loans began to go sour, instead of cutting their losses, Wall Street repackaged them as “mortgage-backed securities.” These were sold off as far more valuable than the mortgages of which they were composed.

We all know how that ended. Yet because of the bailout, no banks failed. The perps walked away from the train wreck they had caused.

The mortgage lenders 15 years ago clearly did not fear the discipline of the market. Neither did the decision makers at Silicon Valley Bank (SVB), which has also failed due to unwise risk-taking.

SVB occupied a desirable niche, serving the local venture capitalists and tech startups. The fed pumped trillions of dollars into the economy while interest rates were held near zero, making us all feel rich. The stock market, especially tech investments, soared.

Times were good. Deposits in SVB tripled in the three years after 2019. SVB could offer generous loan terms to favored borrowers and above market returns on deposits.

But the music had to stop eventually and so it did. The feds finally raised interest rates in response to roaring inflation. SVB was forced to raise capital and sell some assets at a loss, sparking a run by depositors, which SVB was unable to withstand. The bank collapsed.

SVB had been warned. It lacked the liquidity to respond to stress because the present market value of its held-to-maturity bonds was $15.9 billion less than face value at maturity, which was the number on the balance sheets. The cash wasn’t there when needed.

Most commentators deemed this a regulatory failure. But does a banker really need a regulator to tell him not to count on zero-interest rates indefinitely? That loans to shaky borrowers might default? That bond values fall when interest rates rise?

Of course they knew. They just didn’t care – enough. If they believed their losses would be borne by others, then charging ahead through all the yellow lights to maximize gain actually made sense.

SVB, its depositors, and associated banks have all been bailed out to “stop the contagion.” That’s politically astute, even though the demise of Lehman Brothers 15 years ago hardly fazed financial markets.

But relying on government regulation, rather than market forces, to discipline bank behavior has produced a chronically unstable financial sector which lurches from crisis to crisis.

Let them fail.

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.

Government-Sponsored Mental Health Apps for Teens Are Dangerous

Government-Sponsored Mental Health Apps for Teens Are Dangerous

By Peggy McClain |

“Even if just one life is saved.”

Who does not agree with a statement like this? It certainly tugs at the heartstrings, but what we often don’t hear is how many lives are lost or compromised due to what was deemed as a solution.

Last year the Teen Mental Health House Ad Hoc Committee was formed at the Arizona Legislature with this stated purpose:

The Ad Hoc Committee on Teen Mental Health, which will consist of members of the House of Representatives and of the community, is intended to research and review information regarding how substance abuse, depression and mental illness, bullying and social media, and other factors may affect mental health in youth and potential teen suicide. The committee shall work to identify potential solutions and make recommendations to public and private agencies with the goal of addressing teen mental health issues and improving access to mental health care.

Most of the time when governments choose committee members, it is so a pre-determined goal will be achieved. What the public sector continually lacks is the diligence to take a deep dive into issues and critically think about ramifications. Officeholders prefer politically expedient solutions, while education contractors benefit financially via lobbyists who peddle their wares.

The issues surrounding Arizona HB2635 are real and scary, whether one supports the bill or not. Representative Travis Grantham (R-LD14) was the Vice Chair of the Teen Mental Health Committee, and the personal stories he heard clearly moved him. He sponsored HB2635 which would allow local governing boards to provide a mental health app for teens to have on their phones simply for access to a suicide prevention line.

But high schools and colleges are already required by Arizona law to print a suicide hotline number on student IDs. While an app for quick access to a suicide hotline sounds lifesaving, there are long-term risks involved for a product like this that lacks proven results. According to a study conducted by Internet Safety Labs and published December 13, 2022, even apps customized for school districts are less safe compared to generic apps—as 96% of the apps recommended by school districts share personal information with third parties.

We know our phones are tracking and listening to us. Apps can be developed to pick up on keywords which may relate to a stressful situation or even just an argument a teen has with his or her parents. Apps are also programmed to pick up certain emojis. Schools could then be notified and intervene based on a narrative which has nothing to do with suicide. Meanwhile, the information the app gathered never goes away. Mental health information gleaned from an app may be a problem later in life when the child is applying for jobs or certain academic programs.

In addition, according to study by Internet Safety Labs, 61% of custom apps send information to Google, while 81% access location information. These apps synchronize with the student’s Chromebooks and other devices. This is especially unnerving in Arizona, which is a leading state for sex trafficking. On top of that, several Arizona school districts recognize that social media is contributing to youth mental health problems, and one is even suing Facebook, YouTube, and TikTok. Why would our legislature support an app which leads students to these platforms?

Representative Grantham has been looking at a similar mental health app used in Utah. The idea started as a pilot program, collected data, and through the data it was deemed necessary to expand the program. Now that the data is documented, the proponents call it “evidence-based.”

Due to pushback, Representative Grantham proposed adding an amendment to provide “guardrails” for the mental health app. Will guardrails tell us who is on the other end of a suicide hotline? Like former Superintendent Kathy Hoffman’s QChat, parents are circumvented while minors are talking with strangers their parents know nothing about.

One of the mental health apps used in Utah is Bark, which has an LGBTQIA+ page. Bark also links students to the Trevor Project, which steers children to gender ideology. At the same time, the child’s data is recorded forever. That is concerning, especially since Bark advertises the CDC as one of its partners. Exactly what is the government doing with the information collected while the minor is tracked?

Children are suffering from a lack of personal interactions with parents, teachers, and friends. Sending them to an app—especially sinister ones like this—only exacerbates the problem. The Arizona Legislature should vote no on HB2635. Gathering data on children is an outright assault on them.

Peggy McClain is a concerned citizen who advocates for accountability in Arizona’s schools. You can follower her on Twitter here.