Gay rights in U.S. ultimately about freedom

(PNI) Regarding "Churches split over gay rights" (Valley & State, Tuesday):

Republic reporter Michael Clancy did a good job showing there are conscientious Christians on all sides of this discussion. But we need to recognize that there are two issues here, and we must separate them.

The first is the moral legitimacy of the gay lifestyle and the second is the issue of gay rights -- the right of people to their own beliefs on morality as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others.

There are good Christians on both sides of the first issue. But if you believe in the Golden Rule, all Christians should be for gay rights in the second issue. The proposal being considered by the Boy Scouts is an example of a good solution -- allow the sponsoring organization of a troop to apply its own moral code to its own troop.

Freedom is the bottom line in this country. Sometimes, it's a balancing act.

--Doug Metzger, Phoenix

Megacity editorial weak

Regarding "Phoenix bashed in LA Times: Coast megacity a water vacuum":

The Arizona Republic editorial board, in its reply to an op-ed I wrote that was published in the Los Angeles Times on March 14, "Phoenix's too hot future," responds first by dismissing the author with a specious comparison (me to Edward Abbey) and second by pointing its finger at Los Angeles, whose habits and behavior, it says, are worse than Phoenix's.

That may be, but the diversion of attention leaves the core issue -- the exposure of Phoenix to a hotter and drier future -- completely unaddressed.

The Valley of the Sun indeed lies vulnerably in the crosshairs of climate change, which is the point of the op-ed and of the longer essay (at TomDispatch.com) from which it was drawn. If The Arizona Republic were to dig deeply into that subject, it would be a public service.

--William deBuys,

Chamisal, N.M.

No al-Qaida links in Iraq

Regarding "U.S. military did its job in Iraq" (Opinions, Sunday):

The Republic editorial board said our military "took the fight to the home of the al-Qaida terrorists and their sympathizers." I disagree.

On April 29, 2007, a former director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet, said on "60 Minutes": "We could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control complicity with al-Qaida for 9/11 or any operational act against America, period."

Iraq, in fact, neutralized any threat to us from Iran. I wouldn't be surprised if President George W. Bush, the most incompetent and pathetic president the country ever had, received a thank-you note from the Iranians for handing Iraq over to them.

--Roger Vallie, Goodyear

Universal infringements

Universal background checks. Sounds great, sounds reasonable, right? And such a noble goal.

But how would we feel if police started stopping every driver on the road to check for violations -- let's call it "universal DUI checks." Or maybe "universal tax audits." Starts to sound a little invasive.

Here's the problem: Universal background checks will require that I go through a federal firearms licensee to hand down a gun to my children or sell it to a friend. The only way to know whether that happened -- to enforce the law -- is to register and track every gun, including documenting the 100million legal guns in law-abiding owners' hands today.

It is already illegal to sell a gun to a prohibited possessor. Universal background checks would only add one more unenforceable law to the pile that we already don't enforce. The other problem is that criminals don't get guns that way, so these checks do nothing to take guns out of the hands of criminals or crazies.

--Mike Pflueger,

Scottsdale

I have job touted in letter

Just what is the secure private-sector job with health insurance that a letter writer refers to ("Caring about Americans," Friday)? Moreover, where is it? Because I want it.

Wait a minute. I already have it.

Like a growing number of Americans, by choice or necessity, I am self-employed. Have been for 28 years. I have health insurance because I pay for it. All of it. And until my wife died, it cost more than my mortgage.

My payroll taxes for Social Security are nearly double what "employed" folks pay. I have paid vacation time, as long as I pay for it. I can never apply for unemployment even if I have zero work. If I want a luxury, like a telephone line, I get to pay the business rate, which is twice the personal rate, even though I make fewer calls than a typical teenager.

But, like the rest of you, I pay all the sales taxes, utility taxes, room taxes and all the other hidden taxes the federal government never talks about.

So, where is that job again? I sure would like to have it. Except at 60, I am probably too old and experienced to get it.

--John Green,Scottsdale

Ethnic studies important

Regarding "The real loss is local control" (Editorial, March 12):

You are wrong to brand Tucson ethnic-studies instructors "zealots" and blame them for "indoctrination." The real "wreckage" is caused by Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne and others who are afraid of knowledge.

I am a Caucasian, retired teacher who has taught both ethnic studies and U.S. history. Ethnic studies is a class that all students should take because U.S. history is taught from the vantage point of the conquerors. Ethnic studies offers the opportunity to learn the other side of the story -- America's history from the viewpoint of the conquered, displaced and subjugated.

Everyone, including Mr. Horne, should learn that the expansion of America was shaped by the racist ideology of "manifest destiny" and the desire to expand slavery to "free" Mexico. The Mexican-American War was opposed by many, including Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant. Grant called it "one of the most unjust (wars) ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation." Or, the glorified Texas Rangers often resorted to ruthless, summary executions, torture and intimidation, usually against Indians and Mexicans.

Mr. Horne and others who want to deny students the right to learn all sides of our history would also benefit from this class.

--Steve Carl, Chandler

What GOP needs to do

Much has been written lately concerning the need for change in the Republican Party.

The GOP does not have to change its basic beliefs of low taxes and smaller government. It just has to change the attitude of half of the voters from: "What can the country do for me?" to "What can I do to make the country better?"

--James P. Giangobbe,

Litchfield Park

Copyright 2012 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

Legislation to replace AIMS stalls

A bill to bring state achievement tests in line with new national academic standards has stalled in the Arizona Senate as conservative activists attempt to block the legislation, calling the tougher curriculum a federal effort to usurp local control of education.

Schools statewide have been preparing for the Common Core Standards, which are scheduled to take effect this fall. To complete this transition, the state must replace its current achievement test, Arizona's Instrument to Measure Standards, with a new assessment.

But House Bill 2047, which would do just that, now appears unlikely to pass because of conservatives' opposition to Common Core.

The result, according to officials: Arizona schools will move forward with Common Core, which proponents hail as a way to better prepare students for college and careers, but with uncertainty over how students will be tested on the more rigorous standards.

Rep. Doris Goodale, R-Kingman, who's sponsor of the bill and chair of the House Education committee, said her measure would allow the state to test kids on what they would be learning under Common Core, instead of the old standards.

She praised the new standards. . "There's been a huge disconnect between what we're preparing students for and what the real world needs," Goodale said.

But a group of conservative activists says that Common Core is a federal effort to meddle in local education matters using mediocre standards. These complaints echo similar conversations around the country, including in Alabama, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas and Nebraska.

Lawmakers said members of the "tea party" and Republican Party rallied against the bill, threatening to unseat them during the next election if they voted for it. The opponents of the bill hoped to halt the progress of Common Core by holding HB 2047 hostage.

"This bill is basically coming in after the fact to legitimatize that which is already done (adoption of Common Core). That's why I'm against it," said Wesley Harris, head of a tea-party group in North Phoenix.

Harris added that he wants to see greater public input before the state invests in a new test with an unknown cost.

The bill in its current form likely won't pass. Friday is the last day for legislation to be heard in committee, but HB 2047 has only been scheduled for one of the two Senate committees to which it was assigned. It needs approval from both committees to move forward.

Failure to pass HB 2047 "would be huge, but we can recover," Goodale said. "It just really puts a monkey wrench in the plan to move forward."

Goodale said she plans to bring back elements of the bill through future amendments.

Spearheaded by the National Governors Association, the Council of Chief State School Officers and the non-profit group Achieve, Common Core was developed over a number of years by teachers, parents and other education experts across the country to beef up standards for math, reading and writing from kindergarten through 12th grade.

In Arizona, this means introducing some concepts a year earlier than they are taught now and requiring teachers to bring more creative methods to the classroom.

So far, 46 states plus the District of Columbia have adopted Common Core.

Pearl Chang Esau, chief executive of the non-profit Expect More Arizona and head of a task force of business and community leaders that promotes the standards, said the state needs a new test that will be a "meaningful assessment."

The current test "isn't doing the job," Esau said. "It sets the bar for high-school graduation at a 10th-grade level. Tenth grade is not enough."

When the legislative session began, Common Core supporters thought the bill would be an easy sell. It enjoyed support from Gov. Jan Brewer, educators and the business community.

The bill easily passed the House, 50-9, drawing no votes primarily from the most-conservative Republicans.

But the Senate has been more hostile toward the legislation.

Senate President Andy Biggs assigned it to two committees, a tactic often used to stop a bill from advancing.

Biggs, however, denied that was his intent.

"It was not a strategy to kill the bill," Biggs said. But he did say he thought the bill was unnecessary given powers afforded to the State Board of Education.

The state board has the authority to adopt new standards and assessments without the Legislature's consent.

The State Board of Education estimates the new assessment -- Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers, or PARCC -- will cost about $15 per test, not including hefty technology costs associated with taking the test completely online.

The arguments against the bill and Common Core vary, but most critics say they fear the federal government is encroaching on local control of education.

Nancy Genys, a mother of four and member of Arizonans Against Common Core, a group lobbying against HB 2047, believes the standards are the beginning of local curriculum being driven by Common Core.

"Everything that I have read and seen indicates that it will change. Not that it could. It will," Genys said.

The Maricopa County Republican Committee passed a resolution this month announcing its opposition to Common Core, saying federal seed money for PARCC assessments and national incentives for states to adopt college- and career-ready standards indicates the federal government wants to institute a national curriculum.

"It's a Washington, D.C., power grab for the state's right over education," said Laddie Shane, who wrote the resolution. "The PARCC assessment is not even completed yet. … We're going to pass this bill when nobody has even seen a sample test?"

The PARCC assessment is still in development. Only sample questions have been released.

Madison Elementary School District Superintendent Tim Ham said Common Core is not a curriculum but works more like a set of goals, listing broad math and language concepts and skills that students must master at each grade level. Curriculum is ultimately developed by individual school districts and charter groups.

"The 'how you teach' is really local control," Ham said.

Ham said a new assessment would allow schools to accurately account for student learning under Common Core, which is necessary to determine teacher-performance pay and school letter grades.

Arizona is among a handful of states struggling to win public approval of Common Core and PARCC.

Last year, Alabama pulled out of PARCC after mounting opposition against Common Core. In Indiana, a lawmaker proposed slowing the implementation of Common Core by requiring the state's board of education to hold nine public hearings and approve the standards again. That bill has not made it through the Indiana Legislature.

Although the Arizona State Board of Education doesn't need legislative approval to switch to PARCC, two legal statutes would make it difficult to transition cleanly, said Vince Yanez, executive director of the board.

State law requires that students pass AIMS to graduate high school and requires students to take the Stanford 9, a test used to draw national comparisons in student achievement, which is integrated into AIMS but not PARCC.

Failure of HB 2047 may mean testing students on AIMS and PARCC until the state board decides that students have fully been introduced to Common Core and that the PARCC test can fairly be adopted as a graduation requirement, Yanez said. He estimates that won't be until at least 2019.

Chair of the Senate Education Committee, Kimberly Yee, said she supports bringing those two changes up in an amendment, but not through HB 2047, "because it has had so much controversy surrounding it."

Although no vote will be taken, the Senate Education Committee plans to hold an informational hearing on the bill today, where both sides are expected to speak.

Brewer spokesman Matt Benson said even if HB 2047 fails, the governor is optimistic it will go through in some form.

In the Legislature, "ideas get rejected, and they come back to life in different forms," Benson said. "This session is not over yet."

Indianapolis Star reporter Scott Elliott contributed to this article.

Copyright 2012 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

Legislators, pray for a heart

(PNI) The young woman stood before our leaders and proclaimed a miracle of sorts. Where once she would have been blind, now she can see.

Chantal Duquette, 25, has an autoimmune disease that would rob her of her sight but for the miracle of modern medicine, a miracle she could never afford on the $8.50 an hour she earns while waiting tables to put herself through college.

"AHCCCS ? has been my lifeline, and it is the reason that I can see all of you right now," she recently told the House Appropriations Committee.

It seems a good week to consider the plight of Duquette and others like her. On Dec. 31, 50,000 childless Arizonans who live in poverty will lose their health-care coverage through the state's Medicaid program. The Legislature could make sure that doesn't happen.

The Appropriations Committee held its first hearing last week on Gov. Jan Brewer's proposal to continue covering the Duquettes among us and to expand Medicaid to include an additional 350,000 low-income Arizonans who can't afford insurance.

Republican Party activists across the state are mobilizing to fight Brewer's embrace of "Obamacare," saying we simply can't afford to help all those people.

"Jesus had Judas, Republicans have Governor Brewer," Maricopa County Republican Party Chairman A.J. LaFaro told the committee. He later apologized for comparing the governor to history's most reviled human being.

Brewer's plan -- providing coverage to any Arizonan living at up to 133percent of the federal poverty level ($15,000 a year for a single adult) -- would cost the state nothing. The federal government would pick up most of the tab, and a hospital-bed tax would cover the rest. And if the federal government backed away from the program, so could the state. Supporters say the proposal would reduce charity care at hospitals, which in turn should reduce pressure to boost insurance premiums on the rest of us.

Republicans are aghast, saying Brewer's Medicaid-expansion plan would not only saddle future generations with added debt but strain doctors' offices and emergency rooms across the state with a "tsunami" of new patients.

"There's a real simple rule. When people have insurance, they use it," House Appropriations Committee Chairman John Kavanagh said. "We're putting 400,000 more people into insurance and, quite frankly, they're going to use that insurance in a system that is already overburdened."

Scott Dunham has been a diabetic for 43 years. He lost his job eight months ago and soon will lose his insurance and thus his insulin. Because he has no children, he can't qualify for AHCCCS.

"I actually don't know what to do when that COBRA runs out," he said.

Kavanagh says the answer for people like Dunham isn't to give them "platinum" health-care coverage. The solution, he says, is tort reform, higher copayments to deter unnecessary doctor visits, more competition between insurance companies and other free-market ideas.

"We are in a crisis," Kavanagh said. "We can't afford this fiscal irresponsibility any longer."

Health-care providers described the people they see every day, people saved in emergency rooms yet ultimately doomed by their lack of access to care once the crisis has passed.

The 27-year-old fry cook whose mangled leg was saved after a car accident. But he can't afford antibiotics or skin grafts or much of anything to aid in the healing. A lack of money will likely lead to the lack of a leg: amputation.

The young woman who has a mass but can't afford tests to determine whether it's cancer. If it were, she couldn't afford treatment anyway.

The older woman who arrived at Yuma Regional Medical Center in a diabetic coma. ER doctors pulled Betty through the crisis, but now, her kidneys are shutting down. She needs dialysis to stay alive but simply can't afford it.

"What I would ask you to do while solving the federal problem," said Patrick Walz, the hospital's CEO, "is to think about Betty back in Arizona, who voted for you."

This is a good week to think about Betty and about the 399,999 Arizonans like her, some of whom will surely die without help.

Our Legislature is filled with good and decent Christian people who go to church on Sundays and try to live as God intended and often try to make sure the rest of us do as well. Yet some of them bristled last week whenever anyone brought up matters of faith and morality and the ultimate question: What would Jesus do?

To them, I would say this is a good week, a holy week even, to pray for an answer.

Reach Roberts at laurie.roberts @arizonarepublic.com.

Copyright 2012 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

Republicans subtly audition for 2016 election

OXON HILL, Md. — OXON HILL, Md. Only months after President Barack Obama's re-election, an annual gathering of conservatives served as an audition for Republicans looking to court conservative activists and raise their profile ahead of what could be a crowded Republican presidential field in 2016.

It may seem early, but the die-hard activists who attended the three-day Conservative Political Action Conference are already picking their favorites for 2016.

And conservative activists have given Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul a narrow win in a unscientific but symbolic presidential preference poll.

Paul won with 25 percent of the vote, just ahead of Florida Sen. Marco Rubio with 23 percent.

Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum was third with 8 percent.

The victory offers little more than bragging rights for Paul, who is popular with the younger generation of libertarian-minded conservatives who packed the conference in suburban Washington.

Nearly 3,000 people participated in the online poll, and more than half were younger than 26.

Several high-profile Republicans have injected their prescriptions for the future of the wayward Republican Party, which suffered major losses in last November's election.

After telling The Associated Press that a presidential run is "an option," first-term Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker thrilled activists Saturday by declaring: "In America, we believe in the people and not in the government."

Rubio drew thunderous applause by proclaiming that the Republican Party doesn't need any new ideas: "There is an idea. The idea is called America, and it still works," he said in a speech aimed squarely at middle-class voters.

Paul called for a new direction in Republican politics: "The GOP of old has grown stale and moss-covered."

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, perhaps the highest-profile establishment figure as the son and brother of presidents, pushed for a more tolerant party in a Friday night speech.

Copyright 2012 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

High court to weigh Arizona's voter-ID law

Jesus Gonzalez worked as a farm laborer and factory hand in Arizona. He lived in the United States for more than four decades. Earning citizenship, along with the right to vote, was a dream.

Government and political reporter Rebekah Sanders is on assignment in Washington, D.C., where she will cover Monday's oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court. Follow her updates at azcentral.com.

So he couldn't believe it when, after finally taking the citizenship oath at the Yuma federal courthouse in 2005 and filling out his election paperwork, he received two notices from the state that his voter registration had been denied.

"I was angry," he would later tell a court. "After all of my hardship and struggles to finally become a U.S. citizen, I was still treated like a second-class citizen of this country. … We should all have an equal right to elect the people who make the decisions in our country. I want to have a voice in the United States."

An Arizona law that has inflamed passions on both sides of the immigration debate heads to the U.S. Supreme Court for oral arguments Monday. It could affect not just the sanctity of elections, but the fundamental right to vote.

The measure -- approved by Arizona voters a year before Gonzalez became a citizen -- aims to keep ballots out of the hands of illegal immigrants. Anyone registering to vote must provide documentation of U.S. citizenship.

In Arizona vs. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona Inc., the Supreme Court will decide whether the state can require proof of citizenship in all cases of voter registration or just some. Courts already have allowed the state to demand proof of citizenship with state voter-registration forms. Now, the justices will consider whether the state can also impose such requirements on federal voter-registration forms.

A decision is expected this summer.

Opponents claim that under the law, thousands of eligible Arizona voters -- in particular the young, the elderly, minorities and naturalized citizens such as the now 63-year-old Gonzalez -- are prevented, or at least delayed, from registering to vote. Supporters, including those in other states that have adopted or considered similar measures, contend that enforcing the law is Arizona's right in order to protect the integrity of the electoral process.

The case is the second election-law dispute before the Supreme Court in less than four weeks. Arizona has a stake in both. Alabama's challenge on Feb. 27 to the landmark Voting Rights Act, which could free Arizona and other states from three decades of scrutiny by the Department of Justice over racial discrimination in election procedures, drew more national attention.

But experts and parties to the Arizona lawsuit say this case, too, could set precedent in how elections are conducted across the country.

Arizona argues that its constitutional election powers supersede those of Congress when it comes to verifying who is eligible to vote. The state says its law requiring proof of citizenship with voter registration should take precedence no matter what.

The case spotlights the tension between protecting election integrity -- which Arizona argues its law does -- and encouraging wider voter participation, which Congress sought to do with a simple, nationwide federal registration form that requires only a signature -- under penalty of perjury -- to confirm citizenship.

"This is about a state imposing restrictions that make voter registration more difficult. Whether it's justified or not, it puts an additional hurdle in the way of the process," said Justin Levitt, an elections-law expert at Yale and Loyola law schools. "This case is about how smooth voter registration can be."

If the Supreme Court sides with Arizona, critics say, thousands of Arizonans could be prevented unnecessarily from registering to vote. If the Supreme Court sides with opponents of the law, Arizona elections could become more complicated. Lower-court decisions caused confusion in the most recent election, when the state was forced to treat state and federal voter-registration forms differently.

Opponents of Arizona's law say Gonzalez's story exemplifies the need to overturn it.

Though Gonzalez is a citizen, mix-ups in the information the state asked for to prove his legal status hindered his registration and caused him to give up. He later sued, along with Native American, Latino, voter-registration and civil-rights groups.

Dual election process

Arizona's law, which Republican Attorney General Tom Horne will defend before the high court, was approved by voters overwhelmingly in 2004. The ballot initiative known as Proposition 200 was designed to combat illegal immigration.

Under the law, Arizona voters must show identification at the polls, and county recorders must reject any voter-registration form that lacks documentary proof of citizenship -- which can include a copy of a driver's license issued after 1996, a passport, birth certificate, naturalization number or tribal card.

As the case wound through the legal system, lower courts agreed that the state can require voters to present ID on Election Day.

But a divided 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said last year that while Arizona could demand proof of citizenship for state voter-registration forms, it could not do so for the federal voter-registration form created by Congress in 1993 as part of the National Voter Registration Act. Both forms are used to register voters in Arizona.

The ruling set up an unusual situation in the 2012 presidential election cycle.

Election officials across Arizona required proof of citizenship for some voters but not others, depending on whether they registered using the state or federal form. Election workers had to be trained in the dual system. And it forced some voters to cast provisional ballots, which are held aside and counted only after they are verified. Several races weren't decided for days as election workers counted thousands of provisional ballots.

"It caused a great confusion out there, because you could have two people coming in and if they grabbed the state form, you told them, 'You have to fill it out completely.' Yet if they picked up the national form, even if some information was missing, we had to take it," Pima County Recorder F. Ann Rodriguez, a Democrat, told The Arizona Republic. "I told Attorney General Tom Horne, 'This is what you get for having a bunch of damn lawyers arguing a point who don't understand our process. … Tell us to do all A or all B.'"

The confusion could continue. If opponents of the law win, the most extreme ramification could be that conservative state lawmakers, seeking to continue proof-of- citizenship requirements for state and local elections, set in stone a complicated dual-election system.

In that case, voters who register on the state form using citizenship documentation could be allowed to vote in all races -- for local, state and federal offices. But voters who use the federal form and don't show documentation might be restricted to only federal elections -- that is, for Congress and president.

Federal-form voters might walk into their polling place, look at their ballots and wonder why they see no boxes for the mayor's race, for example.

On the other hand, if the state prevails, Arizonans registering to vote might continue to be confused -- or hampered -- by having to show proof of citizenship.

A Native American woman born at home on the reservation and a grandmother born in 1910, before her state began issuing birth records, for instance, testified that they lacked birth certificates required to register to vote. And groups that conduct voter-registration drives said it was difficult to sign up new voters, like college students, who lacked the right documentation or didn't have it with them.

Sam Wercinski, executive director of the Arizona Advocacy Network, one of the lawsuit's plaintiffs, said far more eligible Arizona voters are rejected under Arizona's law than the number of non-citizens caught illegally registering to vote.

"Let's have the scales of justice put out here. Which way are they going to tilt? Who's being affected more?" he said.

Voter fraud among issues

Supporters of Arizona's law are hoping the Supreme Court case will finally muzzle the opposition.

"This is a big moment," said Randy Pullen, architect of the 2004 campaign for the law and a former chairman of the Arizona Republican Party. "That's why we put it on the ballot to begin with. We hoped that it would become the cornerstone … and set a precedent to allow states to do similar things."

Four states -- Georgia, Alabama, Kansas and Tennessee -- have passed similar laws requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration, and at least 12 have considered it.

"That law basically changed the entire immigration debate in the country. It did exactly what we wanted it to do," Pullen said.

He believes the court should uphold Arizona's tougher voter-registration requirements because lower courts have found the potential harm to voters did not outweigh the state's need to protect election integrity.

Horne argues that election fraud would go unchecked without the proof-of-citizenship law. The lawsuit also includes Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett and 13 of the state's 15 counties.

The federal form is "an honor system that has no real protection," said Horne. "Someone who is willing to vote fraudulently would be willing to sign falsely. … Particularly in a state that is on the (U.S.-Mexican) border … we need information to confirm (that people registering to vote) are in fact citizens."

County prosecutors have few resources to go after election fraud, Horne said. Under the law, he said, election officials can catch fraud before it occurs. And that's a precaution the state has the authority to impose, he said.

Arizona has charged or prosecuted 19 non-citizens for illegally registering to vote since the law took effect in 2005 and kicked more than 200 off the voter rolls after they marked that they were non-citizens on jury-duty forms, according to state election officials. Some violators said they didn't know they shouldn't register, and critics have questioned whether actual citizens checked the non-citizen box just to get out of jury duty.

But if Arizona fails to prevent non-citizens from voting, eligible voters could lose trust in the election system and decline to participate in elections, Horne said. And close elections could be determined by a small number of fraudulent ballots, Horne says.

"If everybody knows it's easy to cheat the system, it diminishes their view of the system," he said. In passing Proposition 200, "Arizona acted reasonably."

Court's possible ruling

The case sets up a "state's rights" challenge to Congress' election authority.

Voting-rights advocates, who have been contesting the law almost since it was passed, argue that Arizona's requirements add barriers to voter registration that Congress intended to prevent. The federal form created through the National Voter Registration Act was meant to be accepted by all states as an easy way to register.

Bob Kengle, an attorney who represents several plaintiffs through the Washington, D.C.-based Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said Congress settled the question of whether people should be required to show citizenship documents as part of the federal voter-registration process.

Members of Congress deleted that requirement in the bill, saying it would "seriously interfere" with the ease of mail voter registration.

But "the legislative history makes clear Congress was very aware of protecting against voter fraud," Kengle said. "It's like baseball and apple pie. Nobody will argue elections should lack integrity."

So Congress established federal criminal penalties for intentionally registering falsely, required the federal voter-registration form to display clear instructions not to register as a non-citizen and made voters sign under oath.

That should be sufficient, Kengle said. "The state thinks it has a better idea."

Daniel Tokaji, an Ohio State University election-law expert, believes the case against Arizona's law is nearly ironclad.

"There is precious little evidence of voter fraud," Tokaji said. "If you're not a citizen, you'd have to be crazy or ignorant of the law to go vote, because you're taking a huge risk for relatively little benefit. You could go to jail, lose any chance you have of gaining citizenship or even be risking deportation. Why would you take the chance of illegally voting?"

"In my view," Tokaji said, "this will be very hard for Arizona to win."

Levitt, the Yale elections-law expert, added that the Supreme Court is unlikely to rule Arizona's election power supersedes the federal government's, which could undermine the Constitution and threaten a host of federal election laws.

Attorneys from the Department of Justice have also weighed in against Arizona's law, arguing that Congress' power holds sway.

But Horne argues that Arizona's law does not conflict with Congress' election powers. The state's responsibility is verifying the eligibility of voters, he says.

When Arizona demands proof of citizenship with a voter-registration form, Horne says, it's like an airline requiring identification to confirm a traveler's ticket to board a plane. The airline isn't rejecting the ticket, rather it's verifying that the ticket belongs to the traveler.

Tokaji remains skeptical that Arizona's law could be duplicated around the country. These days, Republicans don't need the political fight, he said.

"This perceived immigrant bashing has had a negative effect on the Republican Party's electoral prospects," Tokaji said. "The last thing the Republican Party wants to do right now is to alienate Latino and, to a lesser extent, Asian- American, voters in the way voter- identification laws tend to do."

But Pullen, the law's campaign architect, remains confident Arizona will win.

"It's almost like if you have to lift one finger to register to vote, that somehow that's wrong," he said. "I think most Americans would reject that argument."

Gonzalez says he is hopeful would-be voters in Arizona will have an easier path to the ballot box.

"As U.S. citizens, we should all have the same rights, despite our country of origin," he told a federal judge. "I have paid taxes all my life, and have contributed to this country. I want to vote. I want to exercise this right because I feel that it is the best method to improve the lives of people in the United States, particularly Latino people.

"I hope that the law that I am challenging in Arizona will not be in effect in the future."

Copyright 2012 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

GOP split on Medicaid expansion

The next few weeks could prove critical in determining the direction of Arizona's debate over Medicaid expansion, setting the stage for months of interparty rancor or a relatively smooth transition into a critical phase of federal health-care reform.

State lawmakers have the framework of Gov. Jan Brewer's proposal to expand eligibility for the state-federal health-insurance program for low-income and disabled people, but Republican leaders still must decide how -- or whether -- to amend the legislation to get the governor's top legislative priority through the House and Senate and to her desk.

Brewer signaled this week that she wants legislators to slow their work on routine bills and shift their attention to the session's thorniest issues, including the fiscal 2014 budget, Medicaid expansion and simplifying the state sales-tax code.

With regular daily committee hearings at the Legislature winding down, attention invariably turns to the budget, and those negotiations are expected to ramp up in the coming weeks. The Medicaid debate is intertwined with budget talks because the governor's expansion plan would add money to the general fund, and failing to do so could be a net loss.

The discussions between legislative leaders, the Governor's Office and staff also will include the usual haggling over amendments and horse-trading over other unrelated bills that lawmakers want passed, or at least considered, in exchange for their votes.

While those talks will be behind closed doors, there may be opportunities for additional public testimony on the issue.

House Appropriations Committee Chairman John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, said he tentatively plans to schedule a hearing next week with presentations from state Medicaid officials, the Goldwater Institute and hospital administrators.

Kavanagh, a firm opponent of expansion, presided over the first public hearing on Medicaid last week, a sometimes-bitter debate that included testimony from dozens of patients, business leaders and health-care officials in favor of Brewer's plan and Republican Party loyalists who oppose it.

House Health Committee Chair Heather Carter, R-Cave Creek, said she wants to talk with House Speaker Andy Tobin this week about scheduling an informational hearing in her committee. Brewer's office wanted Carter to host the first hearing, but Tobin decided to put the matter before the Appropriations Committee.

At this point in the session, additional committee meetings, with the exception of appropriations committees, must get approval from Tobin, R-Paulden, or Senate President Andy Biggs, R-Gilbert.

"I'd like to dive into the health policy about why this makes sense for Arizona," Carter said. "We've talked about the economics in Appropriations. Maybe the next step is to look at the health policy in Health."

After headlining two Capitol rallies earlier this month, the governor is expected to spend the coming weeks in budget negotiations with legislators and traveling across the state selling her Medicaid plan, which provides health coverage to an additional 400,000 people by 2015 with an infusion of $1.6billion in federal funds.

Supporters include the state's heaviest hitters, from the health-care industry to top business leaders, as well as more than 100 other organizations. They've been raising money to run a pro-expansion campaign that includes radio and TV spots, and to support GOP legislators in the next election.

Opponents are led by conservative Republicans, particularly people within the GOP apparatus, who are sending e-mail blasts and passing resolutions likening expansion to socialism and, at the Appropriations hearing last week, comparing Brewer to Judas for betraying the party over federal health-care reform.

The GOP split is putting increasing pressure on more than a dozen Republican lawmakers who remain undecided and who are being heavily lobbied by their local hospitals, precinct committee members and fellow legislators on both sides of the issue.

The Republican loyalists have threatened recalcitrant legislators with their jobs, saying they will face GOP primary opposition in the next election if they support expansion.

But the coalition backing Brewer's plan has been assuring these same legislators that they'll provide the campaign funding to beat back any primary challenge.

Another player that could turn critical votes toward the plan is the AARP, which is looking to Arizona as a bellwether for other states where Republican governors have backed the plan but face opposition from their GOP-led legislatures. Lawmakers representing districts with large retiree populations, including constituents on fixed incomes but not yet old enough to qualify for Medicare, are hearing from local AARP members encouraging their support for Medicaid expansion.

Two other factors that could work in Brewer's favor are her veto pen and time. By all accounts, the governor is willing to wait as long as she has to -- long after lawmakers' daily allowances get cut in half next month -- to get Medicaid expansion through the Legislature.

"We'll just continue to beat the drum," said Jaime Molera, a lobbyist for the pro-expansion forces. "I believe that when they start seeing the ramifications of (not expanding Medicaid) … it becomes harder and harder to say with a straight face that nothing important is going to happen."

Reach the reporter at maryk .reinhart@arizonarepublic.com.

Copyright 2012 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

Medicaid growth would aid vets

Though they have served their country and are eligible for health benefits through the Department of Veterans Affairs, a new study shows that 1.3million U.S. veterans, including 11,000 in Arizona, are uninsured and an estimated 40percent of them are poor enough to qualify for Medicaid.

Another 2,000 Arizona veterans would be eligible for the state-federal health-insurance program if the state agrees to Medicaid expansion under the federal health overhaul, according to the study released this week by the Urban Institute and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

The analysis also shows Medicaid expansion would extend health coverage to an additional 61,000 veterans' spouses who are uninsured, including 1,300 in Arizona whose incomes put them between 100percent and 133percent of the federal poverty level.

Ten percent of uninsured veterans would qualify for Medicaid without expansion, according to the study, compared with an estimated 40percent if states broaden eligibility. In states that forgo expansion, a so-called doughnut hole in the Affordable Care Act would leave childless adults below the poverty line without access to Medicaid or subsidized coverage in the online insurance exchanges.

"As with the general population, uninsurance among veterans and their family members is related to greater problems accessing care," the study said.

Gov. Jan Brewer cited the report Tuesday as another reason for state lawmakers to approve Medicaid expansion. The issue has caused a Republican Party split in states across the country and Brewer is struggling to cobble together enough GOP votes to get her proposal through the Legislature.

"It is unacceptable to me that so many of our veterans who honorably served this nation would be without access to basic health care," Brewer said in a statement. "With my (Medicaid) plan, we have an opportunity to provide basic, cost-effective care to the men and women who have sacrificed for this nation. This is our chance to throw them a lifeline."

Veterans are eligible for health care through the Department of Veterans Affairs, but according to the analysis, many are uninsured because they don't have access to facilities in their area or are unaware that they qualify for health coverage.

Some also miss out because the VA gives care first to higher-priority veterans, including military retirees and those with service-related medical conditions.

Most of those eligible under Medicaid expansion would remain uninsured in states that fail to broaden eligibility.

Copyright 2012 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

Romney optimistic about GOP, rejects idea of party's decline

Mitt Romney returned to the stage where he once proclaimed himself "severely conservative" to thank thousands of activists for supporting his unsuccessful White House bid.

In remarks Friday to the Conservative Political Action Conference, the 2012 Republican presidential nominee touted the problem-solving done by GOP governors such as Nikki Haley of South Carolina and expressed his optimism for the future of the conservative movement.

"It's fashionable in some circles to be pessimistic about America, about conservative solutions, about the Republican Party," he said. "I utterly reject pessimism. We may have lost Nov. 7, but we have not lost the country we love, and we have not lost our way."

Romney told the audience, who enthusiastically stood and cheered as he came onstage, that he was "sorry" he would not be their president. "But I will be your co-worker, and I will stand shoulder to shoulder with you," he said.

The event known as CPAC often shines the spotlight on the up-and-comers of the Republican Party and is a critical proving ground for presidential hopefuls.

More than a dozen potential 2016 presidential candidates -- including Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida and Rand Paul of Kentucky, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal -- are all on this year's program and represent a new generation of Republican leaders.

The emergence of the GOP's new guard is part of what makes the speech by Romney, who turned 66 years old this week, interesting. The other is that during the former Massachusetts governor's two unsuccessful presidential campaigns, he was viewed warily by conservatives for his changing views on issues such as abortion.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, whose own presidential bid fizzled last year, got in a jab at his 2012 Republican rival during his CPAC remarks Thursday as he criticized the news media for suggesting the losing GOP presidential campaigns of 2008 and 2012 represented a defeat for conservatism.

"That might be true if Republicans had actually nominated conservative candidates," said Perry, who is considering another White House bid in 2016.

Rubio and Paul both called for a new message from their party during their CPAC speeches -- one that would attract younger and more diverse voters to the GOP fold.

Rubio, who was considered as a possible Romney running mate, even implicitly criticized Romney's dismissal of 47 percent of the electorate when he said the nation doesn't have "too many people who want too much from government."

Copyright 2012 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

Hagel: US military is a 'force for good'

WASHINGTON — WASHINGTON Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel began his first day on the job Wednesday by telling Pentagon military and civilian leaders that the military faces tremendous challenges and has made mistakes, but it remains "a force for good."

Hagel pointed to the looming budget crisis, the need to extend benefits to all military employees without discrimination and the need to work with allies. Hagel was sworn in at 8:15 a.m. to succeed Leon Panetta to lead the U.S. military.

He won Senate confirmation after weeks of debate. Members of his own Republican Party accused him of being too tepid in his support of Israel, too cozy with Iran and too willing to dismantle the U.S. nuclear arsenal. They also ripped him for opposing the 2007 surge of troops in Iraq that helped reduce violence there.

Republicans took the unprecedented move of filibustering the nomination of Hagel, a former GOP senator from Nebraska.

Copyright 2012 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

judging border Security how much authority will the watchdogs have?

WASHINGTON — WASHINGTON A bipartisan group of senators collaborating on comprehensive immigration-reform legislation has not come to terms on a proposed commission to scrutinize border security. It's a potential sticking point between Democrats inclined to limit the panel to an advisory role and Republicans who want it to have meaningful authority.

The group, which would be composed of governors, attorneys general and other "community leaders living along the Southwest border," would gauge border-security progress and make a recommendation when it was satisfied that the legislation's security provisions were in effect.

Only then, according to a framework of the bill presented Jan. 28 by the so-called Gang of Eight senators, would the millions of undocumented immigrants already in the United States be able to start down a long path to citizenship.

The commission and border-security triggers were part of a compromise aimed at winning over conservative enforcement hawks.

But activists on both sides of the debate have reacted coolly to the idea and want to see the details.

While Republicans want to make sure the panel has muscle, immigration advocates and their Democratic allies want to make sure that commissioners can't politicize the process by using subjective criteria to perpetually claim that the border improvements are not good enough. They envision a commission more advisory in nature, with the secretary of Homeland Security -- whoever that is at the time -- making the final decision.

"We have not resolved anything on that issue yet," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a key Republican in the talks, told The Arizona Republic during an interview in his Capitol Hill office last week. "One of the things that you do in these negotiations is that you try to get some of the easier issues resolved before you get into the real tough ones. Kind of a momentum thing. So, we're still working away on it."

Generally speaking, McCain said, he and his seven Senate colleagues have been making progress on the bill, which is still expected to be released this month.

The other members of the group are Democrats Charles Schumer of New York, Dick Durbin of Illinois, Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Michael Bennet of Colorado; and Republicans Jeff Flake of Arizona, Marco Rubio of Florida and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

The effort, which is supported by President Barack Obama, is the most serious push for comprehensive immigration reform since 2007, when a compromise package co-authored by the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and then-Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., failed in the Senate amid a public outcry against "amnesty" for illegal immigrants.

McCain said the border-commission provision has proved somewhat tricky because the Constitution gives Congress authority over immigration and border issues, and a new panel can't trump that.

The lawmakers want the panel, which "has to have significant border representation," to be objective and not politically motivated, McCain said, and senators are asking the Government Accountability Office for input. The GAO is Congress' investigative arm.

"You've got to be careful about that, which is why I think it's important to have some metrics as to what they could look at from a statistical standpoint that would ensure that we have effective control of the border," McCain told The Republic. "We're looking to the administration to give us some recommendations there, and we're looking to the GAO to give us some recommendations."

Flake said the border commission is one of several issues that the Senate negotiators continue to work on, and the question about exactly how much influence it will have on the final conclusion about the level of security remains unresolved.

"We're still trying to figure that part out, and what role it plays," Flake said. "Now, whether that is an actual sign-off in the end or real input into what the metrics are and how it is judged (has not been settled)."

Immigration advocates would prefer legislation that does not make a pathway to citizenship contingent on border security, which they say has greatly improved in recent years with the addition of Border Patrol personnel, technology and fencing.

The Senate group's framework calls for a "tough but fair" path for prospective permanent residents and prospective citizens that would include passing a background check, paying taxes, learning English and U.S. civics, and going to "the back of the line" of legal immigrants. However, they would be allowed to immediately secure probationary legal status, which would let them live and work in the country by registering with the government, passing a background check and paying a penalty.

Frank Sharry, executive director of the pro-reform organization America's Voice, called the proposed commission "worrisome" because of the potential for political mischief by border hard-liners who could tie up the process.

Even if the commission just makes a recommendation to the Homeland Security secretary, the final decision could hinge on who is president years from now, when the panel completes its work, he said. And it's anybody's guess who would be the governors and attorneys general in the four border states when the commission gets going.

"I'm not prepared to say it's a deal-breaker for us, but I am prepared to say it's excessive, it's expensive and it's mostly unnecessary," Sharry said. "I understand the pressures within the Republican Party, but in some respects we are talking about a condition to satisfy a perception that has been promoted in a distorted way."

McCain and Flake both acknowledged that the government has made strides in upgrading border security, but they said more is needed.

"The border piece certainly is a deal-breaker," Flake said, speaking for himself and possibly other Republicans. "We have to have some serious commitment and some serious progress there."

But some immigration-reform opponents and other observers also are not impressed with the idea of the new border commission.

Steven Camarota, director of research for the Washington-based Center for Immigration Studies, said the border commission allows Republicans to posture on the security issue by suggesting they are tougher on the border than Obama and the Democrats.

From his group's perspective, it doesn't matter much if such a commission ever declares the border is secure because the undocumented immigrants will get provisional legal status, or "amnesty," regardless.

"It's hard to imagine it could really have much teeth," said Camarota, whose organization supports more immigration enforcement and overall reductions in immigration. "I see it as a kind of meaningless gesture that allows Republicans to say they're standing up to the president and that it means something. It doesn't. I don't think it means anything as a practical matter, and I don't think it means anything as a political matter."

One political expert who follows the immigration debate closely said he views the proposed commission as a way that the Senate could shift responsibility for securing the border from itself to others.

Either Congress will completely punt on the issue or will so strictly guide what the commission can do through the legislation that the panel will turn out to be a charade, said Louis DeSipio, professor of political science and Chicano studies at the University of California-Irvine.

"It's really a face-saving measure for the Senate that is almost guaranteed not to accomplish very much in the end, except maybe delay," he said.

Copyright 2012 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

AT THE CAPITOL

(PNI) BILL TRACKER

A total of 1,145 bills were introduced in the House and Senate this session.

Today's spotlight: Resign to run.

Summary: House Bill 2157 would trigger the state's "resign to run" law only if an officeholder filed formal nomination papers for another elected office. Currently, any incumbent who is not in the last year of his or her term and who formally declares a candidacy for another office must resign to run. The bill also removes the resign-to-run requirement for any incumbent looking to return to the same office he or she currently holds.

Sponsor: Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills.

Status: Passed the House on a 40-19 vote. Moves to the Senate for consideration.

-- Mary Jo Pitzl

NEWS UPDATE

Supporters of Gov. Jan Brewer's Medicaid-expansion plan are touting it as the "fiscally conservative" plan to "protect taxpayers" and "save hospitals" in a new 30-second TV spot that began airing this week (and can also be found at restoring

arizona.com). The ad, paid for by the Arizona Business Coalition, the political arm of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce, never mentions the word "expansion" but warns viewers that they get "stuck with the bill" when people can't pay their hospital bills.

The high-stakes campaign led by business and health-care groups calls on voters to urge lawmakers to support Medicaid expansion. But local Republican Party officials are ramping up the pressure, too, warning GOP lawmakers that a vote for "Obamacare" expansion could spell the end of their political careers.

-- Mary K. Reinhart

TODAY'S TALKER

Once more, with feeling …Arizona voters could vote on another state-sovereignty issue next year, even though they rejected a similar measure four months ago.

Senate Concurrent Resolution 1016 would bar the state, county and local governments from using any manpower or financial resources to comply with federal orders that lawmakers deemed unconstitutional. It's similar to the sovereignty issue that voters decided last November, when they rejected Proposition 120 by a better than 2-1 ratio. That ballot measure declared Arizona sovereign over most of its it land, water, air and other natural resources. Sen. Ed Ableser, D-Tempe, said the measure only provokes unwarranted fear of the federal government.

SCR 1016 passed 16-12, with Republicans in favor and Democrats opposed. If the House approves the measure, it will appear on the November 2014 ballot.

-- Mary Jo Pitzl

UPCOMING DEADLINES

March 22: Last day for House consideration of Senate bills; Senate consideration of House bills.

QUOTE OF THE DAY

"We're not going to use this as a tool to advance our agenda."

-- Assistant House Minority Leader Ruben Gallego, saying Democrats have unqualified support for Gov. Jan Brewer's Medicaid expansion

Copyright 2012 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

Anti-obesity plan is 4 years in

WASHINGTON — WASHINGTON Wal-Mart is putting special labels on some store-brand products to help shoppers quickly spot healthier items.

Millions of schoolchildren are helping themselves to vegetables from salad bars in their lunchrooms, while kids' meals at Olive Garden and Red Lobster restaurants automatically come with a side of fruit or vegetables and a glass of low-fat milk.

The changes from the food industry are in response to the campaign against childhood obesity Michelle Obama began waging three years ago. More changes are in store.

About one-third of U.S. children are overweight or obese, which puts them at increased risk for any number of life-threatening illnesses, including diabetes, high blood pressure and heart disease.

While there is evidence of modest declines in childhood obesity rates in some parts of the country, the changes are largely because of steps taken before the first lady launched "Let's Move" in February 2010.

With the program entering its fourth year, Obama embarked Wednesday on a two-day promotional tour with stops in Mississippi, Illinois and Missouri. She has been talking up the program on daytime and late-night TV shows, on the radio and in public service announcements with Big Bird. She also plans discussions next week on Google and Twitter.

"We're starting to see some shifts in the trend lines and the data where we're starting to show some improvement," the first lady told SiriusXM host B. Smith in an interview broadcast Tuesday. "We've been spending a lot of time educating and re-educating families and kids on how to eat, what to eat, how much exercise to get and how to do it in a way that doesn't completely disrupt someone's life."

Conservatives accused Obama of going too far and dictating what people should -- and shouldn't -- eat after she played a major behind-the-scenes role in the passage in 2010 of a child nutrition law that required schools to make foods healthier. Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican Party's vice presidential nominee in 2008, once brought cookies to a school and called the first lady's efforts a "nanny state run amok."

Other leaders in the effort, such as New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, have felt the backlash, too. Last fall, Bloomberg helped enact the nation's first rule barring restaurants, cafeterias and concession stands from selling soda and other high-calorie drinks in containers larger than 16 ounces.

Despite the criticism, broad public support exists for some of the changes the first lady and the mayor are advocating, according to a recent Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll.

More than eight in 10 of those surveyed, 84 percent, support requiring more physical activity in schools, and 83 percent favor government providing people with nutritional guidelines about diet and exercise. Seventy percent favor having restaurants put calorie counts on menus, and 75 percent consider being overweight and obesity a serious problem, according to the Nov. 21-Dec. 14 survey by telephone of 1,011 adults.

Food industry representatives say Obama has influenced their own efforts.

Mary Sophos of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, which represents the country's largest food companies, including General Mills and Kellogg's, said an industry effort to label food packages with nutritional content gained momentum after Obama attended one of their meetings in 2010.

"She's not trying to point fingers," Sophos said. "She's trying to get people to focus on solutions."

Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

Macumber didn't confess, but was he wimpy? <nbsp/>

(PNI) Regarding The Republic's series last week on William Macumber, "Justice Delayed":

Studies suggest that people who confess to crimes that they did not commit (a) have "wimpy" personalities, (b) have an exaggerated respect for authority (perhaps due to an exaggerated need for authority to help them fight their battles), (c) cannot recall what they were doing at the time of the crime, and (d) are presented by the police with overwhelming evidence against them. So, they confess that they might have done it, which authorities take that they "did it."

Now, William Macumber did not confess. But he showed exaggerated respect for authority when he believed what the police told him about "his" palm print being on the victim's car. And he apparently could not recall what he had been doing at the time of the crime. Also, the evidence against him, as presented by law enforcement, was overwhelming.

Meanwhile, Macumber took a polygraph test. Are people with wimpy personalities, in situations such as this, more likely to fail polygraph tests? The conservative writer, editor and publisher William F. Buckley once confessed that he had lied during a polygraph test -- and passed it. He attributed his success to an unyielding belief in the rightness of his cause.

--Richard P. Sibley, Gilbert

Let's be fair on migration

Letting people stay in this country when they came here illegally is grossly unfair to people who came into this country legally.

I have some friends who came to this country legally and had to wait 12 years to get a work visa, so tell me what is fair about letting people that came to this country illegally stay here.

I agree that the immigration system is broken, but letting people stay in this country when they came here illegally is not fixing the problem.

--Gil Fidler, Gilbert

Prop. 201 indeed a start

Regarding "Phoenix's Prop. 201 is no pension fix, but it's a start" (Opinions, Friday):

I've known Republic columnist Bob Robb for 30 years now. I'm always interested in his opinion. I was glad that Bob overwhelmingly endorsed a "yes" vote on Proposition 201, the Phoenix Pension Reform Act (or at least, for Bob, it was overwhelming support).

Bob rightfully states that Proposition 201 does not solve every problem Phoenix faces nor does it solve every problem Bob would like to fix. But, as he correctly states, it is a good step in the right direction.

Fifteen business and community leaders spent thousands of hours looking at 43 possible options for pension reform and came to the conclusion that Proposition 201 is fair to employees, fair to taxpayers and saves taxpayers $596 million over the next two decades, and it raises the retirement age appropriately.

Yes, you can argue that the highly qualified actuaries who made the savings projections are off -- maybe it saves only $594 million or maybe it's even $598 million, but it's a lot of money that taxpayers save and it's the right thing to do.

I'm hopeful that someday Bob finds one program that will solve every issue the city currently faces or might face in the future, but I doubt that.

Prop. 201 is the right thing to do. It's fair, and it saves a lot of taxpayer money. I urge every taxpayer to vote yes on Prop. 201.

--Rick DeGraw, Phoenix

The writer is co-chairman of the Phoenix Pension Reform Committee.

Open up charter finances

Clint Bolick's recent "defense" of the opacity of charter schools' finances is absurd ("Charter schools a model," Opinions, Thursday).

He suggests that financial reporting is an undue burden. Let's see, we're talking about a couple of key strokes in their accounting software program and e-mailing a report. He also seems to be suggesting that the absence of reporting contributes to the schools' student performance -- no comment needed.

What is critical is that these schools are using public money, and as "shareholders," we, the public, are entitled to know how our money is being spent.

--Michael Jonas,

Scottsdale

Can't have it 2 ways, GOP

I am confused with claims made by Sen. John McCain and the Republican Party. If the government does not create jobs, then why is Sen. McCain running around saying how many jobs will be lost in Arizona if the government cuts defense spending?

These jobs that will be lost exist only because of government spending. I thought only the private sector creates jobs?

The right will argue that these jobs were created by the private sector. Yes, they were created by the private sector with the government paying for them. Without the government spending, these jobs never would have existed in the first place. Ike was right.

--Rodney Iverson, Mesa

Copyright 2012 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

Minority senators raise alarm on elections-linked bills

A trio of racially diverse state senators on Monday condemned elections-related bills that they say discriminate against minorities and called on the U.S. Department of Justice to monitor the legislation.

Of particular concern to the senators are Senate Bill 1003, which would limit who can return a voter's ballot, and SB 1261, which would drop people from the early voting list if they failed to mail in their ballots and instead voted at the polls. Both passed the Senate last week.

"It would truly throw up obstacles to the early-vote process," Senate Minority Leader Leah Landrum Taylor said of SB 1261. She is African-American.

She was joined by Sens. Jack Jackson Jr., a Navajo, and Steve Gallardo, who is Latino. All three are Democrats, and all three said the bills would have a "devastating" impact on minority voting.

Gallardo said the legislation is a great example of why Arizona still needs to be under the protection of the federal Voting Rights Act, which was passed to protect minority voting rights and just last week was the topic of a U.S. Supreme Court case.

"The potential effect of these bills is alarming, and the genesis of these bills is equally concerning," the senators wrote.

None of the groups that have worked to increase minority voting was invited to the meetings where the bill language was crafted, Gallardo said. Although the bills have the backing of the state's 15 county elections officials, Gallardo said, those officials need to look outside their offices and consider the effect on voters.

Sen. Michele Reagan, R-Scottsdale, introduced the bills and made changes in response to concerns raised at public hearings last month. SB 1003 originally said only an immediate family member or roommate could drop a person's ballot at the polls, but she changed it to allow the voter to designate someone to do so, requiring signed statements from both the voter and the person delivering the ballot.

But the bill prevents any member of a political committee, political party or group or organization -- such as those that mobilized Latino voters last fall -- from delivering people's ballots. However, it exempts candidates and their spouses, who could continue to collect ballots and deliver them to elections officials.

Anyone violating the return procedures would be guilty of a Class 6 felony.

Democratic Party officials said it's common for voters to drop off their ballots at party headquarters, because they are wary of the U.S. Postal Service. Last November, 600 to 700 voters did so, party spokesman Frank Camacho said.

The state Republican Party said it doesn't get such requests, but Maricopa County GOP Chairman A.J. LaFaro said it has happened on the county level. However, he said, party officials support SB 1003 and would adjust.

The senators also complained about another bill that would have required anyone who received an early ballot to return it a week before election day. That measure, SB 1274, was held in the Senate Elections Committee and has not advanced. The other two bills are awaiting action in the House.

Copyright 2012 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

Gun's a tool for an emergency

(PNI) There seems to be a coordinated effort among the letter-writing "anti's" in the gun debate to describe gun owners as paranoid people living in fear of a life-threatening world outside their front door.

Look at it from the other side. Most of us are not fearful or paranoid, just prepared for an emergency. Most people have emergency flashlights, spare tires in their cars, AAA cards in case we need roadside help, first-aid kits and fire extinguishers. All of which I have used over a lifetime. Having a firearm is just another tool for an emergency kit when the police cannot get there fast enough.

If the writers think this is all paranoid fantasy, just ask those who have had to defend themselves. Or better yet, read Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery's guest column in Monday's Republic about candidates for the death penalty.

There are bad people in the world, and sometimes you may meet one face to face, even at your front door. I bet a few of those victims would have fared better if they had been armed.

--Phil Scott, Phoenix

Court's take on the issue

Regarding "Young migrant not legal" (Opinions, Wednesday):

The letter writer questions the right of Daniel Rodriguez to be in the United States. Your reader may be ignoring the Supreme Court's opinion on that issue: "As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States. (See INS vs. Lopez-Mendoza.)"

--Salem Spitz, Gilbert

Liberals just can't cut it

How can anyone expect the liberal Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate to offer any serious cuts to the country's exorbitant spending? Liberals don't even know how to spell the word "cut."

--Bruce Bean, Glendale

Electric-car tax absurd

Our big-government, tax-and-spend Legislature is at it again.

Next time the Republican Party tries to claim they are against taxes and for less government, feel free to laugh out loud. This time, they are proposing a 1-cent-per-mile tax on electric vehicles. How much more intrusive can our state get than us being forced to let them track our vehicles? Sounds like big government to me!

Also, collecting this tax would require a big bureaucracy to help track the electric vehicles. Since the number of electric cars in Arizona is quite small, the cost of collecting the tax would exceed the income from it for the foreseeable future. Decades, at least.

While 1 cent per mile may seem small, it actually equates to a 50 percent tax on energy. Currently, the tax on gas, at 18 cents per gallon, with a current cost of $3.70 a gallon, works out to only a 4.9 percent tax.

Now, a Nissan Leaf averages around 3.5 miles per kilowatt-hour, depending on how it's driven. Current SRP rates are 6.8 cents per kilowatt-hour, so the Leaf uses only 2 cents of electricity per mile. Yup, it's that cheap to operate an electric car. However, if the electricity is taxed at 1 cent per mile, that is a 50 percent tax rate on the cost of energy.

That's absurd. That's our Legislature!

--George Hall, Phoenix

Term limits for Congress

The reason the ratings for federal lawmakers are so low is that many members of the House and Senate have 20 years or more in office and they forget to take care of their constituents. They act like deities and feel they can do whatever they want without recourse.

It's about time the people of this great nation take the time to look at the legislation lawmakers submit and at their voting history. Let's not just put them back into office because we recognize a name. Instead, we need to have term limits.

--Pamela Bishop, Phoenix

A way to fund Ariz. roads

Regarding "Time to hit the road issue" (Editorial, Saturday):

I have had a question on my mind since I moved here almost 23 years ago. Why is it, since we need money for road improvements, that Arizona does not require driver's licenses to be renewed every four or five years instead of letting us keep them until the age of 65?

There are almost 4million drivers in Arizona, and a renewal every four or five years would bring in a good deal of money. I'm sure the state would have to hire some more people for the renewals, but there would be a great deal of income for the state to work with.

Is $10 or $12 every four or five years going to be a hardship for drivers? I think not.

As a senior citizen, I have to renew my license every five years and so far it has not been a hardship. I will continue renewing, gladly, as long as I am able to drive.

The only thing I see wrong with this renewal plan is that our Legislature would probably use the money for one of its useless "needs."

--Pat Ford, Mesa

Close tax loopholes

The president and Congress talk about the rich using loopholes in the tax code to avoid paying all the money they owe. Why in the world don't they take immediate action to close those loopholes?

They should be ashamed of themselves, and so should we -- for letting them get away with not taking action.

--Vincent Frey, Kearny

A Seuss-like diagnosis

Happy Birthday, Dr. Seuss!

I know he would do better than this, but he might say something like:

"Those guys on the Hill are an odd sort of bunch. They make laws for a cause, then go have a big lunch.

"But I don't think that they really care about us. They just can't agree, and they make a big fuss!

"They fight, and they blame; they cannot get along. They insist that the other guys have it all wrong. Their cause is so big that they can't see the view.

"And what is the view? Well, it's me and it's you!

"While they're eating lunch, down here we all wait -- for the guys we elected to determine our fate."

--Robin Crow, Phoenix

Copyright 2012 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here