Tucson Sammy

Election day is Tuesday the sixteenth. Let’s talk some Regional Transportation Authority (RTA).

Libertarians are sometimes humored, but more often horrified, by the focus of the debate. Reporters enumerate the details, commentators debate the details, while huge violations of liberty – and the concept of representative government – are ignored. Proponents and opponents prattle on about whether or not the trolley from the University of Arizona to the downtown area is the stupidest part of the plan (it may be), or if purchasing rights-of-way in the southeast is smart (it is). Meanwhile, the single most important issue is left to me to address.

If members of the Tucson City Council are irresponsible with the tax dollars they raise, we get rid of them at the election time. If the Pima County Board of Supervisors are irresponsible with tax dollars they raise, we get rid of them at the election time. If the appointees at the RTA are irresponsible with the tax dollars they raise we….we what?

The overriding mistake, the one that trumps all other issues, is the creation of yet another level of government composed of unelected bureaucrats that will have taxing authority. Unelected appointees with taxing authority is anathema to citizens. Any government official with taxing authority must be subject to firing by the people directly. How many other ways can I put this? Is there anyone who disagrees?

I know that they promised to stick to the plan, and I know that they have procedures for deviating, as in the requirement to hold a referendum if they deviate by a certain percentage, but they are not bound by law. If anyone says that they are bound by law, ask him what remedy is in place in case it is violated. I’m not suggesting that they should be bound to all the details of the plan. That would certainly be unreasonable considering the nature and magnitude of the projects. They should, however, be accountable directly to the people – which they will not be.

It is typical for this sort of “authority” to eventually slip under the radar, accrue large amounts of money and political power, and become an entity in and of itself, instead of by and for the people.

If you like the plan, vote for it; tell them that it is a good plan. If you don’t like the plan, vote against it; tell them it stinks. Whatever you do, vote against the tax! It is not really an issue of the tax itself, but rather to whom the funds will flow.

It is too late to stop the creation of the monster, but we can keep it from getting any teeth.

Governor Janet Napolitano, whose activity in the Clarence Thomas hearings earned her a place in the Clinton administration, just vetoed Senate Bill 1425. This piece of legislation would have prevented the wholesale confiscation of privately owned weapons when they would be needed most – during “states of emergency”. Remember post-Katrina New Orleans? Remember the National Guard handcuffing citizens on the porches of their homes while those homes were searched and property (firearms) was confiscated without cause?

We all know that New Orleans was founded by the French. Do not expect Arizonans to allow themselves to be handcuffed and sit placidly by while agents of the federal government have their way.

This veto must be overridden. It’s a safety issue. It’s a civil rights issue. It is an issue of who serves whom.

If you do not believe that Governor Napolitano has contempt for the people of Arizona, click here to read her letter to Ken Bennett, President, Arizona State Senate, in which she not only proclaims her contempt, she insults our intelligence.

Have a nice day.

Yes it’s true, the usual suspects are at it again. This time they intend to add another eighty cents to, can you guess, cigarettes and other tobacco products. More flesh will be ripped from the bones of the nicotine junkies.

They considered taxing alcohol products, but this will be a referendum, and too many people drink. Smokers are few enough now, and politically incorrect, so the commies can pretty much have their way with them. You know, it might be simpler, and more honest, frankly, to just round them up and send them to labor camps – commies are “down” with the labor camp thing; besides, they’re just smokers.

Can you guess who the beneficiaries will be? Of course, the children. In this case, the smoker money will be used to prepare little children for kindergarten. No, really, I’m not making this up. According to an article in the Arizona Republic, “The money would be used for services such as dental screenings, literacy programs and transportation to quality preschool programs.” Gosh, are kids supposed to know how to read before entering kindergarten? At least all those lines, stretching over the horizon, of kids waiting to see the oral surgeon will disappear.

They say the tax will raise fifteen million dollars a year. I had no idea that there were so many parentless children in Arizona.

The scheme is called “First Things First”, and will be on the ballot in November if the Bashas have their way. Joining the Bashas in support of the scheme are Jack Jewett, Lattie Coor, and Tucson’s own RINO mayor Uncle Bob Walkup.

They need to collect 124,000 signatures by July. Pray that they don’t.

Sometimes one hears a phrase, an expression, or some sort of notion that has a piercing affect. Like a good horror movie, the memory of the phrase pesters one for days.

So it was for me when I heard Steve Leal say, while discussing crime prevention and law enforcement, “We have to leave the 19th Century model.” This was the last sentence in a monologue he delivered at the City Council meeting of December 10, 2005. During the monologue he asserted that we needed new approaches to crime prevention – the usual “root cause” stuff, and that we would end up “chasing our tail” if we continue as we are.

I must take a moment to digress. I like Steve Leal. He is a friendly, personable man – even toward people such as yours truly. He’s the type of councilman to whom you can walk up in the grocery store and engage in conversation. In short, to the best of my knowledge he’s a regular guy. How he developed his screwed up politics is beyond me.

Of course, the 19th century model to which he refers is neither the ironclad ship Monitor, nor the Merrimac. He refers back to a day, on the frontier at least, when people took care of themselves and each other. Townsfolk would hire a professional lawman to organize posses when necessary, and run the jailhouse. “Public safety” was an individual thing to which the lawman would provide occasional assistance.

Sounds pretty good, doesn’t it?

This is what Steve would abandon. Apparently, he thinks that it’s silly to wait for someone to commit a crime when you can manipulate people before the fact, and avoid the crime altogether! This is the core of leftist thought. Individuals running around doing whatever the hell they want with their time and money makes the job of creating a utopia really hard. If government officials were allowed to recreate the masses as good people, crime would disappear. Anyone with a bad attitude would be sent to sensitivity training, or be used as an example.

Take a look at their policies, and you will see that those policies are totally consistent with this line of thought: increased taxation; government education; government charity; government babysitting; excessive regulation; “hate” crimes – the list goes on.

If Steve were the only leftist on the council, he would be mildly entertaining. Unfortunately, he is joined by at least three others, creating a leftist majority on the Tucson City Council. To make matters worse, we have a new City Manager who is very good (much better than his predecessor), and we’ve recently been relieved of state imposed municipal spending limits.

“Let’s pray for Tucson.”

I was listening to a radio program the other day during which topic of “charitable giving” was discussed. A caller, who claimed to be an immigrant from the Soviet Union, stated that the Soviet government always told the people that charitable giving was bad because it was demeaning to the recipient. That reminded me of an October 13, 2005 article in the Tucson Weekly by Jim Nintzel entitled “Numbers Racket,” in which he reported the following:

“Uhlich argues that establishing a sliding scale is a bad idea because ‘people don’t want charity.’ She bristles at the notion that a day-care program that’s free for all citizens could be characterized as charity.”

Karin Uhlich is the newly elected Councilman for Ward III. It is not known if she ever served in the government of the Soviet Union.

With all this fresh in my mind, I read an email from my friend Charles Heller. He was giving me a “heads-up” about a speaker luncheon sponsored by the Goldwater Institute. The speaker was Clint Bolick, and his topic was “the growth of local government and the erosion of liberty,” or “grassroots tyrrany” as he calls it. I repeatedly fumbled the telephone as I furiously dialed Phoenix to make my reservation.

The event was held here in Tucson at the Loew’s Ventana Canyon Resort. I showed up a little early, and was treated with warmth and deference by the greeters. I don’t know why, but I’m often treated as a person of consequence by people who don’t know me. Maybe it’s the way I tie my tie – a tight Windsor knot, complete with dimple; or more likely, just being a new face.

The hall was a typical boring affair with a podium and lectern at one end, and round tables filling the room. There were about a dozen tables-for-eight with twelve place settings each. I sat at a table in the back near the door. On my way there, I saw Charles and thanked him for informing me of the event. He was in the middle of telling a seated couple of his unfortunate experience with some federal “law enforcement” officers who confiscated a number of firearms that he was legally transporting – in addition to other “weapons” such as his Leatherman Multitool.

As I sat alone, I began to get the sinking feeling that I would endure this luncheon with a table full people who I did not know, and who did not care to know me. A young woman who ran a Christian school joined me, and was quite nice. We were chatting when who should walk by but my old friend Ed Kahn! When he agreed to sit next to me and join our table, I knew I was saved.

For those of you who do not know Ed Kahn, he is a semi-retired Tucson lawyer who approaches life with a warmth and lightness only found in men of faith (he is a devout Catholic) – with, of course, a libertarian heart. He has run for a number of elected offices, including Mayor of Tucson, and has had more fun as a candidate than any of his opponents. Sitting at our table, he was animated in his conversation – a sort of cross between P.J. O’Rourke and Rodney Dangerfield.

We were joined by a man and woman, a young man from the Goldwater Institute, and Dave Mason – a local computer expert who also hosts Computer Talk, a local radio talk show on KVOI 690 AM.

You can imagine the synergy between the free-market computer guy, libertarian lawyer, and libertarian blogger! Dave related an anecdote involving a state college that received a bunch of computers from Apple at no charge, and then proceeded to sell them through their bookstore at prices well below retail. They were putting the local Apple dealers out of business, and Apple had to sue them to try and get them to stop. We all noted some local examples of government competing with the free market – the U of A Health Club, and the Udall Center to name a couple. Ed said that, in his business, he charges a premium to retirees because, as he said, “Why should I charge a young couple, who are just starting out with little money, the same as some retired millionaire?” Then he added the icing to the cake, “So I called up the City Equal Opportunity Department and left a message saying, ‘Hey, I’m engaging in age discrimination, come shut me down.’” They never called him back. I love this guy!

After the desert and coffee came – a delicious raspberry/chocolate torte (not the legal kind) – the master of ceremonies took to the lectern. She was a fetching young woman named Darcy Olsen. After describing the history and mission of the Goldwater Institute, Darcy discussed some of the areas in which Clint Bolick has been engaging the enemy. She asked if everyone has heard that Arizona is ranked 49th or 50th in education spending, and of course, we all had. Then she went on to explain that, in addition to Arizona, there were at least twelve other states ranked 49th or 50th in education spending. She went on to describe that the roughly $5,000.00 per pupil expenditures claimed for Arizona government schools was actually closer to $8,500.00, which is enough to send two children to the average private school in Arizona. It just got better from there!

Eventually, the fetching Miss Darcy introduced Clint Bolick. To my disappointment, Mr. Bolick did not provide a list of tactics that would confound local tyrants – this is important for Tucsonans who find themselves with a new City Council comprised of four leftists, two moderates, and a RINO mayor.

In any event, he told a couple of inspirational stories involving clients whom he represented in legal fights with cities. One case involved a very successful business in which the owners braided hair in corn rows. The city of Washington D.C. sent a cop to their door with an order to either close their business, or go to cosmetology school where the would become proficient in doing nails, and experts in hairstyles from the fifties! Another involved a Mr. Leroy Jones who drove a cab for the Yellow Cab company in the city of Denver. He realized that certain poor neighborhoods were not being well served by existing cab companies; so, as any good American would do, he quit Yellow to start his own company which would serve this niche market. He and his partners ran the numbers, got the capital, and arranged for the vehicles. Unfortunately, he was denied a business license because he could not prove that existing companies were incapable of serving his target market – a ridiculous standard, impossible to meet. He ended up selling soda during games at Mile High Stadium. He lost his case; but the story does not end there. He attracted some media attention. He was filmed at his new job at the stadium. When the Star Spangled Banner was played, he stopped, took his hat off, and shed a tear.

If you are not choked up yourself at this point, you really need to move to France or Sweden.

Bowing to public outrage, the city issued his license. He named his new company “Freedom Cabs.”

With all the talk of impact fees and trash taxes in this campaign for City Council, no one has mentioned the issue of civil rights; specifically, the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Now, I understand that some might feel uncomfortable in defining the umbrella of “Civil Rights” as to include anything other than oppression based on race. Fine. Gun control laws are rooted in racism. That’s right, most of the “gun control” laws on the books today are remnant “Jim Crow” laws. They were enacted to keep black people defenseless, in their place, and available for lynching. After the Civil War, Tennessee and Arkansas banned inexpensive handguns (sound familiar?) figuring that they were the only type poor black people could afford. The very term “Saturday Night Special” is a sanitized adaptation of the phrase “N—–town Saturday Night”.

The Civil Rights movement of the fifties and sixties led to the repeal of most of those despicable laws that targeted black people – most, but not the gun laws, which are now expanded to apply to everyone except politicians, rich lawyers, Hollywood celebrities, and criminals.

Not to be left out, the Federal Government passed into law the Gun Control Act of 1968. United States Senator Thomas Dodd (Chris Dodd’s father) participated in post World War II tribunals in Germany. He developed quite a collection of Nazi law. In fact, it was the Nazi Gun Control Act of 1938 that he sent to the Library of Congress for translation, and then introduced on the floor of the Senate as the U.S. Gun Control Law of 1968. A law that he felt was necessary after witnessing widespread rioting in mostly black neighborhoods after the assassination of Dr. King. This has been well documented by the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.

Feel comfortable now?

There is an irresistible, though dishonest, template with which the anti-rights crowd attacks gun shows. Irresistible because attacking gun shows gives them a shot at gun ownership, freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly all in one action – a threefer!

Our local example involves the McMann/Roadrunner Gun Show that for years has been held at the Civic Center downtown. The local anti-rights crowd, using the template, tried to shut it down. The National Rifle Association sued the City on behalf of McMann/Roadrunner and lost. The fight went from the courts to the council. Republicans Dunbar, Ronstadt, and Democrat Shirley Scott sided with preserving the right. The Democrats generally voted to infringe upon the right. The Democrats were joined by Republican Mayor Uncle Bob Walkup, who went to heroic lengths to kill the show – but that is a story for another election cycle.

Dunbar and Ronstadt have a pro-rights record. Records speak louder than words. We really need to hear from the Democrat challengers, Uhlich and Trasoff. In the unlikely event that they are pro-rights, I would like to hear it from them. Now, I know that not all Democrats are against gun rights, but last time I checked, Zell Miller was not running for Tucson City Council.

The question needs to be asked because it goes way beyond gun ownership. It goes to the heart of the relationship between the government and the citizenry, in our community and our country. A politician’s position on this issue reveals how he or she sees his or her constituents – as latent criminals waiting to happen or fellow citizens, as rabble in need of control or fellow Tucsonans proud to be responsible for themselves and their families.

If you get a chance between now to November eighth, ask the Democrat challengers where they stand on “gun control”. Their simple answer will tell us so much.