Cage hasn't given reason to vote for her
Cheryl Cage is not giving us a reason to vote for her. She lives in some sort of economic fantasy world.
Everything she has written is a vitriolic, hand-wringing, emotional tantrum disconnected from fiscal reality. These types of rants work on Democrats, but not on Republicans nor thinking independents.
Cheryl needs to put forth a cogent, thoughtful and well-defined plan, rather than the self-aggrandizing, immature and childish screeds. They may fire up Democrats but nobody else. She needs to define herself for us, rather than just weep and gnash her teeth. Let's help Cheryl better define herself by asking her to answer a few simple questions re: K-12:
1) Is K-12 so sacred that it is to be exempted from any sort of reductions in support, irrespective of the problems faced by folks?
2) Should K-12 be given a blank check?
3) Should more local money be used, rather than insisting on state level other people's money?
4) Why should any state money be used, rather than just local funds? It's ultimately all local anyway.
5) Is any sort of fiscal accountability to be imposed upon K-12?
6) Given that slightly over 50 percent of K-12 employees in Arizona are teachers, should there be reductions in non-teaching staff, such as administration?
7) Given that the vast majority of educational problems are caused by the teachers unions, should there be any effort to rein in the unions, impose accountability, or otherwise demand adherence to standards?
8) Who should have their taxes increased to further fund K-12?
9) What type of taxes should be increased: sales, property, income, individual, corporate, transaction, etc?
10) Will increasing corporate taxes result in employers leaving the state or expanding elsewhere, thereby causing job losses and reducing money to the state?
One last comment, Cheryl. A budget is not a moral contract. A budget isn't any sort of contract. And as with the law, there is no place for morality in politics, particularly yours.
Rick Cunnington, Oro Valley
Yes, let's keep Marana clean, and 'fill-free
People everywhere are entitled to environmental justice, no matter what their color or socioeconomic status. Most children cannot speak for themselves, so we must speak for them. As a child, I could not speak for myself and even if I could, at the time, we did not know we were being poisoned by the ground water on Tucson's south side.
Today, we have an opportunity to speak for the children. We have a commitment to serve and to protect those who cannot speak for themselves. We cannot allow anyone to establish a landfill in an area that is environmentally sensitive where one day, the children and others may suffer. Protecting the water aquifer must have top priority.
Those of us who oppose the landfill have used honesty, facts, and respect when we shared our message with thousands of people. We have not tried to deceive anyone. We do not have to do that. We want what is right. We do not believe a landfill in that area of southwest Marana on Vice Mayor Herb Kai's property is safe or healthy.
Why would anyone allow a landfill in a floodplain, on a rising water aquifer, near drinking water wells, and near a neighborhood of 100 families? It must be the money. Sometimes money tempts good people to make bad decisions.
We like the new slogan being used by those who want the landfill, however. Keep Marana Clean. We agree, let's keep Marana clean. Let's not allow them to build their dirty, filthy, toxic, garbage dump in our community. Let's keep Marana clean by not allowing the disease infested rats a place to eat and proliferate. Let's keep Marana clean by not allowing them to bring in waste from other counties and other states and maybe even other countries.
Let's keep Marana clean. Let's buy them a one-way ticket out of our state where they can try to deceive someone else.
Let's keep Marana clean. No Marana Dump. Not now. Not ever.
Steve Storzer, Silverbell West
Those who are the real source of financial Woe
I would like to say that I agree with Dave Safier's opinion piece on evaluating education.
He starts off by identifying the people who are "teaching to the test" as being the same people who brought us the housing bubble and the financial meltdown. He ends the column by naming the people as the Obama administration. While it was not the Obama administration, per se, that brought us the housing bubble and the financial meltdown, it certainly was people of the same ideological ilk.
Dave's point is that just producing a score and reaching it does not in itself indicate that learning has occurred. The housing bubble was the result of reaching a score. "Progressives" thought that many more people should have access to owning houses, and so they put pressures on lenders to make loans that the lenders would not otherwise have made. Along with this came the many lending companies that took advantage of the opportunity to make a buck. Everybody was getting rich for a while, until reality set in.
Recently we had more wisdom from the "progressives" on how to make money: put the country on unemployment pay. It seems some of the "progressives" actually believe that the unemployment pay is stimulating the economy. A critic of that idea pointed out that if the idea is true, then the more people who get unemployment pay, the better we can all live.
And how about the amount of the paycheck? Why not double the amount of the benefit? The supporter of more unemployment had no response.
I thank Dave for finally recognizing who the people are who are the source of our financial woes, although I doubt he knows what he has found.
Andy Woodward, Tucson
A much lower opinion of D.C. pols, attorneys
I used to think that Washington, D.C., politicians, the Department of Justice and their U.S. Attorneys were a pain in the neck. Today, I have a much lower opinion of them.
Hopefully, the next President will fire many of them in 2013, and replace them with attorneys willing and able to do the people's work.
The federal lawsuit against Arizona over SB1070 is an insult to every law-abiding citizen of this country. Basically, the feds claim that Arizona has no compelling interest to keep criminals out of our state, to keep them from moving through our state, or to live and work in our state.
Who are they working for? Perhaps the DOJ needs to register as foreign agents, since they seem to be more concerned with diplomatic relations than protecting us.
The feds believe their "priorities" should trump our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which are being taken away by the hundreds of thousands of illegals / criminals who are sucking the life out of our taxes and budgets, e.g., medical care, education, prisons, welfare, etc.
The problem with the DOJ gene pool is that there is no lifeguard. Hopefully, the judges hearing the cases will have more common sense and rule in our (Arizona's) favor, and punish the DOJ for ignoring the immigration laws and wasting scarce tax dollars.
Tom Sander, Tucson
It remains public money to Giffords' campaign, he insists
Giffords' campaign chair responded to a letter to the editor that no funds were received directly from the U of A. Stop the spin.
In a recent letter to the editor the source used, opensecrets.org listed the U of A as contributor to Giffords campaign. Their methodology is: "The organizations listed as 'Top Contributors' reached this list for one of two reasons: either they gave through a political action committee sponsored by the organization, or individuals connected with the organization contributed directly to the candidate." Either way, any portion of tax-supported income redistributed to Giffords, or any other campaign in like manner, is a cause for campaign reform.
Furthermore, of the 1257 individual contributors to Giffords campaign to date, more than 570 are not listed as residents of Tucson. And of the 382 "Other Committee Contributions" that to date have contributed almost $600.000, less than 10 are listed with an Arizona address. The source of this information is the Federal Election Commission.
As a constituent of any congressional district, how do you feel about the considerable influence of non-constituents' contributions on your representative's votes?
I repeat, we need campaign reform.
Ken Kinared, Oro Valley
June 12 was a beautiful day in her life
Barbara Russek's "cool" day in June article jogged my memory back to June 12, 1952, our wedding day.
It was perfect weather that day, also, when my recently returned Korean War veteran fiancée and I exchanged vows and later cut our wedding cake with his gleaming Marine Corps sword.
Before reading Barbara's article, I had just finished polishing that very same sword for my grandson and his fiancée to cut their wedding cake next month.
Beautiful days, beautiful memories. Barbara always makes the commonplace memorable.
Joan Gold, Tucson
P.S. Also jogged about our June 12 wedding day were two avoided near-disasters:
1. Our backyard reception was not hampered by the septic tank overflow the previous week and all was taken care of and set up in fine time.
2. My Dad was OK for the wedding after passing a kidney stone two days before.
Majority is against what she supports
Mr. Krueger, like many persons supporting Congresswoman Giffords votes on the triad bills of health care, stimulus and cap and trade, is long on rhetoric but never fact. Saying something does not make it so.
I suggest that Mr. Krueger review any nationally recognized poll of his choosing. He will discover that the public not only rejects but in some cases strongly rejects the three bills mentioned above that Giffords voted to approve.
To go along with his contention that she voted for the majority of her constituents, one would have to assume, and he must believe, that the voters of Arizona District 8 are not normal people.
Dr. Joseph L. Holden, Catalina