Art of compromise returns

(PNI) The intensely polar, partisan nature of modern American politics has produced a lot of side effects, few of them positive.

Hostility toward Congress -- now "enjoying" an 80 percent disapproval rate, according to the Real Clear Politics average of top polls -- has reached near-historic levels. It has gotten so bad that many frustrated voters now include their own member of Congress in their "throw the bums out" appraisals. Once upon a time, the local guy got a pass. No more.

The partisan rancor has become so strong, in fact, that even in the face of a very lopsided House vote to pass the first federal budget in four years, the predominant post-vote storyline out of Washington is about conflict -- in this case, between House Republican leaders and their conservative "tea party" wing.

"They're misleading their followers," said House Speaker John Boehner. "I just think they've lost all credibility."

Tea-party conservatives have been a strong influence in the Republican Party since galvanizing against President Barack Obama's health-care reforms in 2010. They had successes in those early days -- including the near-historic turnover in the House in 2010.

But lately, tea-party-backed candidates more often have been snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Democratic senators from Indiana, Delaware and Missouri occupy seats that at one time seemed ripe for Republican taking.

So, yes. There is tumult in Republican politics.

But the lopsided, amazingly bipartisan nature of Thursday's House vote suggests something else important may be going on, too. Perhaps leaders of both parties simply have failed to do a decent job of appealing to the "better angels" of their caucuses -- which is to nudge them into accepting certain compromises based on their own political self-interest.

The numbers of Thursday's vote tell a fascinating story about those self-interests.

The overall vote itself, 332-94, is a stunner. But the deeper numbers are more so. As Politico reported, Republicans had promised Democrats 120 votes in favor of the package. They got 171 GOP votes. The same from the other direction: Dem leaders promised 100 and produced 163.

Those numbers strongly suggest that while congressional Republicans may be conservative and even tea-party-oriented, those ideological influences affect members on a sliding scale. Their leaders did not need the surfeit of compromise votes they collected. But they got them, largely from members whose districts are at least marginally competitive.

The Arizona tally reflects that. All four of Arizona's Republican members -- nearly all from strongly conservative GOP districts -- opposed the deal. So did Democrat Raúl Grijalva, one of the most liberal House members, who (not surprisingly) hails from a safely liberal district.

Among the 32 Democrats opposing the deal were liberal stalwarts like John Conyers of Michigan, Louise Slaughter of New York and Peter DeFazio of Oregon.

But the most stunning "no" vote came from a Democratic House leader: Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the second-ranking Democrat. His explanation was even more notable, in that it could have been uttered by any one of the nay-saying Arizona Republicans:

"This agreement is better than the alternative, but it misses a huge opportunity to do what the American people expect us to do, and that is to put this country on a fiscally sustainable path."

All of those harder-line Republicans and Democrats were afforded the luxury of their "conscience" votes by virtue of the willingness of others to compromise.

That willingness to accept something less than ideological purity is in the nature of American politics. It is nice to welcome it back. We could do with more of it.

Copyright 2013 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

Mailbag

(PNI) Child Protective Services was the most popular topic for letters this week, with 12.

Other popular topics were higher education and the Yarnell Hill Fire, eight each; school tax credits, gun violence, President Barack Obama and "Obamacare," seven each; the border series, Steve Benson and the Republican Party, six each.

The holiday is clearly upon us. For the week, we received 233 letters.

Copyright 2013 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

Justice catches up to ex-Ariz. lawyer

In 1984, a small-town Arizona lawyer vanished in a blue Corvette with $100,000 of his clients' money. He resurfaced nearly 30 years later as "Mr. X," the mastermind behind a $100million veterans charity fraud that bilked donors across the country.

The bizarre case of John Donald Cody ended in an Ohio courtroom last week when a judge ordered the 66-year-old, Harvard-educated former lawyer to 28 years in prison, effectively giving him a life sentence.

Cody was prosecuted under the name Bobby Thompson, an alias he adopted in Florida as director of a bogus charity called the United States Veterans Association. A jury last month found him guilty of racketeering, money laundering and identity theft.

As Thompson, Cody built a fake, 80-year history for the charity, fabricated an 84-member board of directors and used his financial support of Republican campaigns to circulate among top U.S. lawmakers. He was photographed in different settings with U.S. Sen. John McCain of Arizona, U.S. House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio and former President George W. Bush.

Authorities said Cody used his credentials as a former military officer to solicit contributions that rarely went to help veterans and more often went for his personal use. He went on the run in 2010 after an investigation by the Tampa Bay Times, which raised questions about $22million in unaccounted-for annual revenue, among other things.

He led authorities on a nearly two-year chase from Ohio to Arizona, West Virginia, New Mexico, Rhode Island and Oregon. He was featured on the "America's Most Wanted" television show, profiled on a white-collar crime website, and the U.S. Marshals Service posted his face on billboards.

The Ohio attorney general was the first to go after him in 2010. Eight other states subsequently issued warrants for the arrest of Thompson on fraud-related charges.

When U.S. marshals found him in a Portland boardinghouse, he was using another assumed name, carrying six fake identities and had $1 million in cash stashed in a rented storage shed.

Authorities said Thompson was clearly an alias, but he refused to cooperate about his true identity. A state and federal fingerprint search yielded no hits, so they dubbed him Mr. X.

Military fingerprint records ultimately gave authorities Mr. X's name and helped them piece together a 30-year time line of fraud and flight beginning in Sierra Vista, where he had a law practice in the 1980s.

Cody, who was born in Hoboken, N.J., in 1947, served in the Army as a captain in military intelligence. He graduated from the University of Virginia in 1969 and earned a law degree from Harvard Law School in 1972. In 1980, Cody moved to Sierra Vista, where he opened a law office and quickly earned a reputation as an aggressive defense attorney willing to take on cases for indigents.

According to records and interviews filed with the Arizona Supreme Court, on the morning of his disappearance, Cody was scheduled to appear before a judge on contempt charges. Instead, he instructed employees to destroy his receipt book, withdrew about $100,000 from a client's trust account and bought traveler's checks from local banks.

He drove to Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, ditched his Corvette with the keys still in the ignition and headed to Mexico, where authorities said he tried to withdraw $48,000 from a bank in Juarez. There the trail went cold.

In 1985, a panel of the Arizona Supreme Court justices found Cody guilty of 11 conduct violations, including "embezzled funds and abandoned clients."

In 1987, three years after Cody disappeared, a federal warrant was issued for his arrest out of Virginia on fraud charges. He was accused of making false statements to a Virginia bank to obtain a $25,000 loan and of illegally attempting to obtain other loans under various aliases. The arrest warrant also said Cody was wanted by the FBI for questioning in an espionage case. Authorities have refused to discuss the espionage case, which last year they described as "ongoing."

During his trial last month, Cody appeared disheveled and erratic. Although Cody was expected to take the stand in his defense, he never testified. According to media reports, Cody claimed the charity was a CIA front to promote America's military interests and that it was backed by the Republican Party and the White House.

The judge fined Cody $6.3million and ordered him to pay about $330,000 for court costs.

The judge also ordered Cody to spend every Veterans Day during his prison stint in solitary confinement.

Robert Anglen and Veronica Sanchez lead the Call 12 for Action team. Reach the reporter at robert.anglen@arizonarepublic.com, Facebook and Twitter: @robertanglen.

Copyright 2013 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 need to finally step up, protect vulnerable Arizona children

(PNI) Regarding "CPS crisis deepens" (Republic, Friday):

I have lived in Phoenix since 1974, and nothing for the better has changed at Child Protective Services. While this angers me, it doesn't surprise me.

There is plenty of blame to go around, but, ultimately, it is time for the legislators of our state to get their stuff together and do something to fix this ongoing problem. The children in our state are depending on them to protect them.

So far, they have not done the job.

--Bruce J. Parkhouse, Phoenix

Where is CPS oversight group?

A photo with the article "CPS crisis deepens" on Friday shows at least nine members of an overstaffed oversight committee on Child Protective Services.

Oversight? Where have you been?

--J.B. Shevlin, Payson

New approach to CPS required

The children of Arizona deserve better. We must improve Child Protective Services.

That requires an independent agency, led by an exceptional, dedicated professional who will attend to the morale and resilience of the staff. This is the most emotionally demanding work imaginable: faced daily with life-and-death decisions, caught up in intense and sometimes frightening disputes, and double-bound by the state mandate for family preservation and the humane goal of child protection.

While working closely with police, it should not be a part of an already overstretched public-safety agency.

We need to recognize that there are not enough alternatives available, as foster services are insufficient to compensate for the number of family failures. Poverty is frequently a factor in family breakdown, and as income disparity increases, more and more families live with fewer resources.

We should look for leadership out of state.

--H.G. Whittington, Sun City West

Senate rule change is ill-advised

Regarding "Senate Dems limit GOP use of filibusters" (Republic, Friday):

Changing the Senate rules, which have existed nearly since the beginning of our nation, to remove the option of some filibusters is a radical step that shows the lengths President Barack Obama and the left will go to achieve their revolutionary agenda.

The rules protected the rights of minorities, a very central theme implicit in much of what our founders created. They wanted to ensure that elections could not create a tyranny of the majority, especially after what they experienced as British subjects. The Senate and its rules were a salient aspect of those protections.

President Obama and the Democrats used deceit on "Obamacare" and Benghazi, Libya, to pass the law and to steal an election. The electorate was fooled into believing, so the Democrats in power pushed their agenda. Now that the public sees through the lies and the administration has lost public support, it is abusing its power to change the rules, so it can continue to force upon Americans a revolution they do not want.

The radical left doesn't care that its policies don't work for America. The left, specifically in the persons of President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, will go to any lengths to win, to force their ideology and will upon all of us, no matter what we want.

--Dennis Santillo, Cornville

Rule for in-flight cellphone calls

Any change allowing cellphone calls in flight should be accompanied by isolated grouped seating, so that callers could be limited to annoying each other.

--Dale Woods, Prescott

Filibuster change is far overdue

The filibuster was part of the Senate rules back in the days of the new republic, when transportation was slow, to allow senators to delay a bill and let other senators of their party to arrive to vote. The filibuster has been used and abused by partisan politics by both parties to the detriment to the American people.

President George W. Bush and his Republican Senate were given the mandate by the electorate to govern. President Barack Obama and the Democratic Senate are given the mandate by the electorate to govern. The abuse of the filibuster has reduced and often stopped both administrations from their ability to govern this country.

We are the only democracy in the world that requires 60percent of a body to vote to pass appointments or legislation. All other democracies only need 51percent to do the same. This is not the will of the people. I, as well as many others, I'm sure, am sick and tired of the stagnation in Congress, and in their partisan refusal to do their job.

Thank God there is the courage to put the filibuster to rest, and when the Republican Party is in control of the presidency and the Senate, they need to keep it at rest so they may govern as the electorate intended.

--Richard Ward, Phoenix

Ariz. pension fund has no shame

Arizona's Public Safety Personnel Retirement System's board approved last week retroactive pay raises and an inflation adjustment for some investment-staff members.

Government entities are making large contributions, and retirees had their cost-of-living raises suspended. The fund has done very poorly for several years. On the other hand, even the Arizona State Retirement System, which pays its staff less, has done a much better job. How does this kind of thing keep going on? Have they no shame?

--Barb Montgomery, Phoenix

Copyright 2013 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

Health law's troubles give Republicans boost

WASHINGTON — WASHINGTON The health care law's problems are giving congressional Republicans a much-needed boost of energy, helping them to move past the government-shutdown debacle and focus on a theme for next year's congressional elections.

Republicans are back on offense, and more quickly than many had expected, after seeing their approval ratings plunge during last month's partial federal government shutdown and worrisome talk of a possible U.S. debt default.

They pillory administration officials at Capitol Hill hearings. They cite the millions of people getting dropped by insurers despite President Barack Obama's promise that it wouldn't happen. They harp on the program's flawed website enrollment process.

Now they're relishing Obama's apology to those who are losing health insurance plans he had repeatedly said they could keep.

"If the president is truly sorry for breaking his promises to the American people, he'll do more than just issue a halfhearted apology on TV," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said in a statement.

'This is going to be a big issue'

Republicans once pinned their health care criticisms largely on computer glitches in the application and enrollment process. Today, they're accusing Obama and congressional Democrats of much worse, including deceit and incompetence.

Conservative groups are pouring money into ad campaigns reminding voters that many Democrats had promised Americans they could keep their current insurance policies if they wanted. In particular, Republicans hope these efforts will help them with women, who tend to vote Democratic and often make health care decisions for their families.

In the 2014 elections, "this is going to be a big issue, and it's not going away," said Daniel Scarpinato of the National Republican Congressional Committee. "Democrats who voted for Obamacare," he said, "are pretty desperately running around with their hair on fire, trying to distance themselves, which they're not going to be able to do."

The White House says canceled policies can be replaced with better coverage, sometimes at lower prices. What the administration doesn't emphasize is that better coverage often costs more, and those looking for new policies may not qualify for the tax subsidies available under the new law.

Activists feel 'spring in step'

Brad Dayspring, a spokesman for the Republican Party's top Senate campaign group, acknowledged that the party took a hit last month when an angry public blamed them for the 16-day partial government shutdown.

But now, he said, "there's a spring in the step" of party activists.

Potential congressional candidates "who might have been 50-50 about running for office might be a little more inclined" to plunge in, he said.

Best of all, Dayspring said, the most vulnerable Democratic lawmakers have echoed Obama's now-disproven promises about insurance cancellations and "most of them are on film doing it."

Republicans must pick up six Senate seats next year to gain control for the first time in eight years. If they prevent Democrats from gaining 17 net House seats, they will sustain the Republican House majority they won in 2010.

Dayspring said the law's problems will help his party combat Democrats' claim that Republicans are engaged in a "war on women" on matters such as access to contraceptives.

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

It's clear immigration laws aren't working

If you've ever discussed immigration reform with a friend, neighbor, relative or co-worker, you've probably heard someone say we should just enforce the laws we already have on the books. It's the same line we hear about preventing gun violence, cleaning up our environment, keeping workers safe on the job and preventing workplace discrimination.

The thing is, it's not true.

Our current laws created the mess we have now.

Our problem isn't that we're not enforcing our laws; it's that our laws are out of date and often impractical or unenforceable. It's comforting to believe we could solve everything by hiring more law-enforcement agents, but that would barely scratch the surface.

If you believe immigration reform boils down to an enforcement question, consider the likely results of a nationwide crackdown. If we deported every one of the estimated 11million undocumented immigrants in this country, it would wreak havoc on the legal economy -- the loss of customers and the families suddenly without breadwinners would be just the start. No increase in Border Patrol spending will change that.

Besides, we've thrown money at the problem before and it hasn't made a difference. Border Patrol enforcement costs keep going up, but the agency's reported number of annual apprehensions has been decreasing steadily for years. The cost to taxpayers per apprehension has skyrocketed from $238 in 1990 to $10,431 in 2011, according to Business Insider. Are we happier with the results?

Undocumented immigration to the United States has slowed more or less to zero. The major policy question we're facing today isn't how to stop more immigration; it's how best to respond to the presence of the millions of people already here.

The solution is to create a reasonable earned-pathway system for undocumented workers to come into compliance and start to work legally in this country. Spending billions of dollars on get-tough fantasies is not going to happen, and it would be a disaster if it ever did.

Just as importantly, the "enforce the laws we have" rallying cry ignores huge opportunities that we as a country should be taking advantage of. The Senate reform bill passed earlier this year increases the number of U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers by 3,500 over the next four years, which the University of Southern California found would create more than 115,000 new jobs and add $7billion to the U.S. economy annually. That's a big improvement that needs to be made today.

Unfortunately, prominent figures such as House Speaker John Boehner and Texas Gov. Rick Perry have decided that running out the clock on immigration reform is better for the Republican Party than addressing our country's needs.

As Perry said at the Republican Governors Association meeting in Arizona last month, "I think immigration reform is going to be very passé." Boehner said Nov.13 that on his watch, the House won't negotiate at all with the Senate on the issue.

That's not a political gamble. It's a total failure of leadership.

No one thinks our system works well right now. Even if you disagree with the efforts of comprehensive-reform advocates, you probably don't think we're living in the best of all possible worlds today. The status quo has no serious defenders, but it's exactly what Boehner, Perry and their friends are keeping in place.

Everyone should be able to agree that they want a better immigration system than the one we have now.

We can disagree about what that would look like, but it's important to move past the "enforce the laws we have" talking point.

It keeps us from having the serious conversation we need to have about what to change and how.

U.S. Rep. Raúl Grijalva, a Democrat, represents Arizona's 3rd Congressional District.

Copyright 2013 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

<nbsp/> Cooperation can help get things done

On the morning of Dec. 8, 1984, Arizona native John R. Norton III entered the West Wing of the White House and was greeted by Robert "Bob" Tuttle, President Ronald Reagan's director of personnel. Reagan had asked the Arizona agribusiness titan to serve as deputy secretary of Agriculture.

Norton III, a Republican, accepted the president's offer, and his name was placed before the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry. The Senate, at the time, was controlled by

the Democrats, and Norton III expressed trepidation about his potential "grilling."

Significantly, Arizona's entire congressional delegation rallied around its native son. Junior Sen. Dennis DeConcini, a Democrat, hosted a reception at his McLean, Va., home, where he introduced Norton III and his wife, Doris, to Democratic senators on the committee. DeConcini's wife's family, the Hurleys, were long acquainted with the Nortons through their family enterprises and their political affiliation with Arizona's growing and increasingly influential Republican Party. Of course, senior Sen. Barry Goldwater supported Norton III's confirmation.

From the House of Representatives, Arizona's delegation -- Morris Udall, a Democrat, and Republicans John McCain, Eldon Rudd and Jim Kolbe -- prepared statements in Norton III's behalf.

Udall, in characteristic fashion, offered an amusing comment but left no doubt about his support for his fellow Arizonan: "John is an unusually well-qualified person, and he is superior to everyone I know. I do not know why anyone in his right mind would want to take on this job, but the country is lucky that he is, and you will make no mistake if you confirm his nomination."

That snapshot in my new book, "The Norton Trilogy," represents another Arizona and another time, when the public's interest and civility were part and parcel of the political process.

Though contrasting ideologies and partisanship existed in the 1980s, the political atmosphere was less toxic. Differences were noted, respected, and after 5 p.m., ideological fealty remained at work. Congressmen and senators from differing parties socialized and dined together. The bipartisanship exemplified in Norton III's successful nomination in 1985 has receded into history.

Two political giants who respected each other and their respective pioneer families, Democrat Carl Hayden and Goldwater, set the tone for the bipartisan support reflected in Norton III's confirmation hearings. Shortly before his retirement from the Senate, Goldwater spoke of Hayden.

"Let me put it this simple way," he stated flatly, "whenever my service in the Senate is terminated, I hope that my service to the country and my state equals a small fraction of what Carl Hayden has provided in both areas," adding, "Carl Hayden outgrew party personality early in his political career."

Though bipartisanship is one of several themes that runs through "The Norton Trilogy," the book is also a study of the roles that federal reclamation, law, politics and individual initiative played in the settlement and growth of this often unforgiving region of the country. In short, this volume is a rumination on the history of water and agribusiness in the American Southwest through the lives

of three generations of John R. Nortons.

The work details the earliest efforts at irrigated agriculture in the 19th century through the monumental Arizona vs. California Supreme Court case that helped determine where the life-giving waters of the Colorado River would be divided and into the critical events that have shaped the late 20th century and early 21st. The Nortons were at the center of these and other developments that made Arizona into a vital population and agricultural center.

Pioneers such as John R. Norton (1854-1923), who was one of three members of the legendary Breakenridge Survey of 1889 that located the site of what became Roosevelt Dam, and John R. Norton Jr. (1901-87), who, by the 1930s emerged as one of Arizona's leading agriculture producers and livestock growers, shaped the very landscape of the western United States.

And John R. Norton III built upon the accomplishments of his father and grandfather to become one of the region's major agribusiness entrepreneurs, deputy secretary of the Department of Agriculture in the Reagan administration, and one of the West's leading philanthropists in education, health care and the arts.

The Nortons, moreover, reflected the region's evolution in politics from the late 19th century to the early 21st. Norton Sr., a Kentucky native who moved West, was a southern Democrat who won election to the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and sought to rival Hayden in turn-of-the-century Democratic Party caucuses.

Norton Jr., not as politically active as father or son, nevertheless expressed his "Pinto Democrat" leanings when he chaired the "Democrats for Wilkie" effort in the 1940 presidential election. He was well on his way to Republican registration.

And Norton III, perhaps the most active and astute of the three in political affairs, continues to champion conservative causes.

As former Sen. DeConcini stated recently, "The Norton family reaches back in the history of Arizona as far as the Udalls, Goldwaters, Babbitts and DeConcinis, and this family and its accomplishments serve as an historical metaphor for the growth and development of Arizona and the Greater Southwest for the past 150 years."

Bruce Babbitt, former Arizona governor and secretary of the Interior Department, added a more personal observation: "During my years as governor, John R. Norton III was my go-to Republican. Working together, we discovered a lot of common ground for making water policy and promoting agriculture. The remarkable history of three Norton generations should help us understand and renew bipartisan cooperation."

Beyond the Nortons serving as exemplars of a more civil and dignified political culture, former Republican Sen. Jon Kyl, who penned a robust foreword to "The Norton Trilogy," correctly asserts that "the Nortons have made Arizona and the nation a better place," and their intergenerational legacy "is as much an American story as it is an Arizona one."

In contrast to current political vitriol and divisiveness, Arizona residents can look back upon a long history of political evolution and change, vigorous and productive political debate, and, in several significant instances, bipartisan cooperation and support from its political leaders.

Reaching across the aisle to find common ground has been a part of Arizona's political history, and, in the best of all worlds, its future.

Jack August Jr. is a visiting scholar in legal history at Snell & Wilmer. His new book, "The Norton Trilogy," is the latest of several books he has written about the American West.

Copyright 2013 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