Yes, yes, we are supposed to respect political differences and respect people that have other policy ideas because that’s what makes our democracy so strong and great.
But sometimes I really gotta question that, especially after reading about Frank Antenori’s new proposal to make recipients of state aid sign pledges that they won’t drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, subscribe to premium cable or drive a decent car. His bill sets up a 1-800 number so that people can rat out their neighbors, friends and customers when they take a drag or pop open a Budweiser.
Just like his friend Ray Barnes, who ranted about “bisexual vice-principals” when discussing school bureaucracy, Antenori turns to poorly sourced, angry anecdotes instead of actual evidence. I hear arguments made like that, I gotta wonder if Antenori’s motivation is really policy, or if it just is about the fact that there are people he just plain doesn’t like. He doesn’t like folks that need government assistance, so thus it’s easy to assume that they are all lazy drunks who spend too much money on their cars and Showtime and need to be punished.
With so much of this guy’s politics being motivated for his dislike for his fellow human beings, it is amazing that there are people on the Board of Supervisors actually entertaining the idea of promoting him to the State Senate.
23 Comments
Yeah, god forbid they should have a nice car before they lose their job… and have a beer after a hard day’s work at that part-time, underpaying job. or pay ~$12 a month on a premium channel instead of going out to a movie every once in a while at ~$10 a ticket!
I think state legislators should sign a pledge saying that they will abide by the Constitution when dealing with budget issues.
Is Rep. Antenori requiring persons who receive aid to break contracts and thus incur substantial penalties when they can least afford to pay them?
I saw in the original piece in the Star that Antenori’s bill would require applicants for aid to sign an affidavit so it would be primarily ‘self-policed’. Shouldn’t this bill be called the “Travis Bickle Satisfaction Act”?
Given Antenouris’ lifelong career as either a government employee (Army) or government contractor (Raytheon) I’d say his hypocrisy knows no bounds.
The taxpayers have been paying his salary all his adult life, providing him with food on the table, and presumably better-than-basic cable.
I wonder how long it is before he utters the words “Welfare queen in a cadillac”.
I seriously doubt this legislation would stand up to scrutiny in court. On it’s face, it seems to violate a number of consititutional protections and punish people for taking advantage of a service that they themselves have paid taxdollars into.
I don’t understand why the republican majority spends so much time introducing and passing legislation that they know will not hold up in court, that they know is therefore a waste of time, instead of balancing the budget, which they ALL promised to do.
Now granted, they broke that promise months ago by failing to resolve our budget crisis last summer, but every additional day we waste on nonsensical and unconstitutional legislation is another day spent in violation of our state constitution (which requires a balanced budget) and another day spent as the laughing stock of the lower 48.
Lets spend less time screwing around with bullsh*t like this, and focus a little more on the budget, and the future solvency of our great state.
This is a poor piece of legislation. It is not enforceable, violates civil rights, violates elementary principals of capitalism serves as a backdoor cast system of people. Really Frank?
While I don’t think this bill will achieve its objectivce, I understand the intent. Getting people off of welfare and back into the workforce is a tough problem. Simply giving money away with no strings attached doesn’t work. Take the War on Poverty as an example. Poverty had been going down for years BEFORE the War on Poverty started. Poverty continued to go down for a few years and increased after that.
DersertRat,
So you’re saying that if one works for the gov, he can’t be for reducing gov spending/welfare?
First, national defense is necessarily a gov function, while welfare must only be “promoted”. Second, he wasn’t given that money; he earned it by providing a service.
Third, by your logic society would collapse because only large government people could work for the government.
I agree folks, there are problems with the bill. But how would you get people back into the private sector workforce?
“George,” I think getting people back into the private sector work force might have something to do with promoting a diverse and sustainable economy. No amount of radical conservative do-gooder social engineering can force them to work if the jobs do not exist. Punishing the poor for being poor does, however, allow some people to feel smug, which seems to be what this is really all about.
There are many reliable studies that show that the sort of poverty that forces people onto govenment assistance is generally temporary. While there is a perennial (and growing) problem of a permanent underclass, this is an exception, and for the most part, we are talking about folks who are simply in a rut and are actively looking to improve their lot by finding better employment. The punitive measures in this bill will not have the effect of helping to encourage these folks to find jobs, since they are already looking for work.
More abject, pretentious, self-righteous cluelessness from the Arizona Legislature.
The War on Poverty (TM) dropped the poverty levels by 10% and kept them down for the next 40, never going above about 15% (which was under Reagan.)
Appleblossom,
You can’t say the War on Poverty caused poverty to go down when poverty had been going down before the War on Poverty. Your 10% figure ignores this fact. The truth is that poverty went up and down under Reagan; up and down under Clinton; and up and down under nearly every President in history. Transferring wealth helps in the short run, but hurts in the long run if people begin to rely on it instead of themselves.
I’m with all of you on the effectiveness of Frank’s policy. There are better ways to reduce dependency, but we could argue all day about those.
Tom,
I am glad that you’re concerned with social-engineering. It has always been counterproductive, and you would be well-received by fiscal conservatives like me.
As to your point about a permanent underclass: There is a common economic fallacy that conflates “class” with “individual.” Individuals can transition income classes while their well-being stays the same…
For example,
If my income is $1 million this year, but $0 next year, then under “income class,” I was very rich and now I’m very poor. But if I spend $500k each year, then I am rich in both years. Under the income metric, you see utter disaster. Under the spending metric, you see a thriving economy.
I digress…my point is that Frank is genuinely concerned about the well-being of the state, even though this particular policy is misplaced.
There was dramatic drop though after the War on Poverty (TM) programs were enacted though. So the difference is that poverty may have been going down, it was doing so so slowly that it certainly could use the help.
Also, the rise under Reagan was high enough to show that when you have no caring about stopping poverty and actively work against reductions, it will go up and stay up.
George, I think your were provided with some bad information.
When Reagan took office in 1981 the Poverty rate for all people was 10.2% crept to 12.1% by 1983 and finished at 10% in1989. Clinton took office with the rate at 12.2% in 1993 before it declined all the way to 9.5% at the close of his term. Clinton was infact the ultimate fiscal conservative who finished the last 6 budget years of his presidency in surplus, AND asked for the money to stay and be dedicated to debt reduction. Under Reagan the cumulative debt just about tripled, going from 909 Billion, to 3.2 Trillon from 1980 to 1990,(300% increase) when Clinton took over, that number was 4.5 Trillion, at the of his presidency it was 5.6 Trllion. (25%) increase, the debt experienced 200% increase under W. the genius.
This brings me to Frank the not so much genius:
There are several social programs availabe to people:
TANF
Subsidized Childcare
Free School Lunch
Section 8 housing
Food Stamps/Agricard
AHCCCS
Social Security Disability
Veteran’s Disability entitlement
Unemployment
social Security retirement entitlement
All of these programs exist where people receive money or benefits to help them survive. If we are going to report them for buying certain items, what is next? …break for sarcasm…..Hey! you are not allowed in the park because you already use enough tax funded resources? Maybe we can make welfare recipients where some type of badge identifying them and if they abuse it put them in “internment camps”? I know Frank is trying, but this idea proves the Peter Principle theory is true for this guy. What a horrible horrible horrible policy for any person calling himself an American Patriot to even advocate for. However, idiocy should bring consequences. If you come up with a completely moronic idea, be prepared to be called a moron.
Paul quit defending that guy. Your post saying the guy is trying and then giving a lame civic lesson truly wussified. Moron maybe true, but really, this guy should be recalled; he should go join the KKK or some other NEO NAZI organization. I can’t believe this dude was allegedly special forces. I thought they only took smart guys. Someone should review his service record. Maybe he isn’t some American Hero, just another false patriot republican who has erotic dreams about Sean Vanity. What a full on loser. This is the crap that Republicans do: say stupid ass things that will ultimatly lead to the end of the United States. One more Republican presidency and the United States will cease to exist. I am embarrassed to be from Southern Arizona today…I have to admit that I know people who voted for a false patriot terrorist sympathizer like Frank Antenori. Please leave Southern Arizona and go some place else. You are a substandard individual. Republiclowns are ruining are country.
George, why do you assume that everyone getting public assistance doesn’t work? Food stamps, Medicaid, and free/reduced lunches go to a lot of people working low wage jobs. I’m not about to begrudge someone a beer who busts her ass all day for near minimum wage.
Paul C:
Your poverty numbers are wrong. See http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html.
I stand corrected about Clinton: poverty went down every year under his admin. However, as you rightly admit, he was a fiscal conservative unlike most people on this site. Policies, not party, determine success. Having said that, the primary reason poverty went down was because of the Internet-driven tech boom. So the “Dem v. Republican” argument is pointless, especially when the Pres and Congress are from different parties.
Your point about Reagan’s debt is true, but incomplete. Taxes went way down, GDP went way up, and revenues went way up. He would have had a huge surplus to spend on your welfare programs, but he chose to deter the Soviets. The private sector created that wealth – not a federal program. Poverty peaked in ’83 because Volker’s monetary policy was used to break inflation. After that, poverty went down every year until ’90. See http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy05/hist.html, for the budget numbers.
I’m glad you are concerned about the debt, by the way, because the Obama Admin is going to have to do what Volker did in ’82. Look for another recession in 2012 or 2013.
To everyone,
The problem is that we see the man who benefits from the program, because he’s right in front of us. But we DON’T see the man who can’t get a job because his employer has to pay for the government program. Fiscal conservatives “care” more about the second guy; you “care” more about the first. In fact, if we cared more about the second guy, we would have more wealth for the first. Get over yourselves.
I know you hate “trickle down” economics. So why do you assume that your tax dollars will trickle down through the gov bureaucracy to help those in poverty? Give your money to the Red Cross like I do.
Appleblossom, you’re killing me…
Here’s more for you: poverty had been going down since the end of the Korean War due to private demand. In fact, Black poverty went from about 85% in the ’30s to about 40% by 1965. No programs. Just people. Your beloved War on Poverty accompanied an ALREADY-EXISTING decline. Your argument is a tautology.
Some good reading for you all: Fredrich Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom”, and Henry Hazlitt’s “Economics in One Lesson.”
I can’t believe that Antenori’s shallow tactic is working. People are discussing it like it is a worthy topic for discussion or like it really matters.
It’s straight our of Karl Rove’s playbook:
Distract the voters with an emotional issue and they won’t think about weighty matters, like your incompetence. George got reelected because voters showed up to vote down gay marriage laws. People were distracted and didn’t even think about unfunded tax cuts that exploded our deficit.
Now, people aren’t even talking about 20 years of republican rule, 20 years of tax cuts to big corporations and to wealthy individuals and where are the promised benefits!? Our budget is hemorrhaging badly, our schools are being defunded, parks closed, no infrastructure investment, no new jobs, all the services and social programs that support the middle and working classes are being destroyed in front of our eyes due to republican policies. But the well-off get taken care of by the republicans. Private school tuition tax credits cost us $52 million a year straight out of the general fund — can I call Antenori’s hotline when I see a rich parent buying a plasma big screen with state money I pay in taxes that went to pay for her kid’s $20,000private school tuition ? Can I complain when I see a corporate CEO having a drink when I know Antenori and his pals gave him a special tax exemption or a special single sales tax deal?
The republicans have been giving our state money away to corporations and people who don’t need it, making our state go broke in the process, and thus defunding what we need. This is what we need to be talking about and trying to change.
Antenori has come up with a good distraction.
George,
“Fiscal conservatives “care” more about the second guy; you “care” more about the first. In fact, if we cared more about the second guy, we would have more wealth for the first. Get over yourselves.”
That is an incredibly specious and spurious argument.
Middle class has been shrinking since about 1973. Democrats always supported policies that supported both man #1 and man #2– UNIONS. Union wages enabled middle class to grow, enabled people to buy houses, shop at markets and support neighborhood business and keep neighborhood employment up. All good. The American Dream.
The other side supported lower wages and lower prices and business profit margin. No union wages, no middle class, even ship jobs south of the border or overseas to lower production costs. Ford builds truck engines in Mexico now, hires high school dropouts and trains the workers. The Bottom Line, The Republican Way.
“I know you hate “trickle down” economics. So why do you assume that your tax dollars will trickle down through the gov bureaucracy to help those in poverty? Give your money to the Red Cross like I do.”
Nonsense. There is no “trickledown economics.” Your own David Stockman, Reagan’s budget director, let us know in his book that was all just a scam, a marketing gimmick to sell tax cuts. They felt like too much national wealth had been distributed the wrong way in the 60′s and wanted to reverse the tide. They did so. And Dems don’t believe gov’t jobs reduce poverty. Good education and union wages reduce poverty. Giving to Red Cross doesn’t reduce poverty either. Good jobs reduce poverty , but jobs never show up unless there is adequate investment in the public square. Good roads, water, transportation, living spaces, good schools — public investment.
Heck, even Eisenhower knew that. You think all he wanted to do was move tanks around when he built the interstate highway system? No, he knew business would explode in this country and he knew it needed to because all his soldiers home from the war needed work. (The GI Bill helped them too, another public investment). And guess what, all that infrastructure investment lead to new businesses: Holiday Inns, McDonalds, you name it, it started in the 50′s and came to fruit in the 60′s.
We’ve been trying your way for too many years now. (And you’re right, Clinton was the best Republican democrats could elect — Ross Perot was right about that giant sucking sound of jobs rushing south of the border).
We need public investment in infrastructure right now to help foster new jobs. Private companies haven’t created any new jobs in ten years. Go to Bureau of Labor Stats and click “non-farm” jobs and you’ll see. German and Chinese gov’ts are right now providing tax incentives and state help to foster and grow solar and wind energy technology companies. We need that kind of public investment and public commitment. Since we know that everything else can be manufactured cheaper somewhere else, that means no new $20 jobs are going to show up magically (that’s the cut-off: 20 bucks means 40 thousand a year, means middle class), unless we have public investment.
Private investment isn’t doing it. It hasn’t created any new jobs in a decade, even though the population has grown and even tough capital gains and every other type of tax has been cut. (Those promised benefits to tax cuts just never seem to show up).
A real “Fiscal Conservative” wouldn’t be pushing policies that Hoover followed in 1930 that aggravated the Depression. A true fiscal conservative would be looking to the future and knowing that we can’t bring down the deficit unless we control or reverse projected health care costs, and we can’t employ a growing population (23 million increase under Bush) without public investment.
Cutting budgets, cutting education, cutting public spending is not “conservative” because it does not look to the economic security of the future.
George –please I stand, I was looking at the table about two pages down, STILL Clinton starts at 15.1 and it finishes out at 11.3.
Reagan comes in at 14.0 it goes up to as high 15.2 in 1983 and it ends at 13.0. By comparison, I think an argument can be made for Clinton’ success. That aside…borrowing money to give to government contractors to build nuclear weapons is not necessarily good economic policy. Job creation in the 80′s happens due to technological innovation and the cyclical nature of our economy…but if you insist on comparing statistics
in January of 1993, when Clinton took office was at 8% in October of 2000 that number was 3.7%. (56% decrease)Furthermore the DOW in was 3300 and in November of 2000 was 10,000 a 300% increase. W.’s Numbers? don’t waste your time. His legacy is the most putred modern Presidency in the history of the United States. Reagan’s numbers are competitive but also don’t hold up to Clinton’s. In Janurary of 1981 the Unemployment rate was 7.5% and in November 1988 it was 5.3% a decrease of 28%–half that of Clintons, Jan 81′ the Dow was at 935 and in November of ’88 it was 2067. (102% increase) 1/3rd of the advances made in the Clinton years. If you want, I can also compare crime rates, homeowner ships, Human Develop Indexes, average pay of military soldiers, combat casualities, budget deficits, and literacy rates and 30 day teenage illicit drug use statistics, abortion rates and teenage pregnancy rates. We can compare them all. While Reagan is competitive in a few areas, statistically speaking Clinton’s Presidency is superior to every Presidency since Eisenhowers. I appreciate you allowing data to form an opinion, admirable. I would urge you to read “Nickle and Dimed”
can I call Antenori’s hotline when I see a rich parent buying a plasma big screen with state money I pay in taxes that went to pay for her kid’s $20,000private school tuition ?
Why stop there? I want those parents drug tested too.
I was going to respond but since Paul did such a good job demolishing George’s comments…I have only a little more to say:
President Clinton’s Veep was a main mover behind the creation of these here interwebz. There would not have been a interwebz for us to be arguing on if not for government investment from the military developing the original to the conversion to the non-military use. Some computer related things were created by the private sector (thinking of Xerox’s campus in Palo Alto) but a great deal of it was funded by government money because unlike the private sector, our government has the resources to keep researching for decades when a private company HAS to make a profit at some point. Government’s goals are very different-there is little to no profit in having a park but we have them to use one example. Or a rest stop, or a scenic view.
Paul, congrats on proving that the 90s were a little better than the 80s. I wasn’t insisting on comparing stats (see #4 below). I’m not sure what your point is.
Phillip, public investment is fine when it’s for things that individuals can’t provide on their own. Look up “non-rivalrous” or “non-exclusionary,” and you’ll see what kinds of goods/services are appropriate for government. Just remember that every dollar the gov spends is one less dollar the private sector can spend. I don’t understand why you trust the political process more than the business process. Politicians are greedy for votes and power; businessmen are greedy for money. The difference is that a business can’t physically force me to do anything, and businesses make decisions based on good economics; politics are irrelevant.
It’s hard to know where to start on the other stuff, but here goes…
1. Government is necessary to an economy like a referee is necessary to the NFL. If the referee sticks to his job, the NFL thrives. If you allow the referee to play the game at the same time, the NFL collapses. The government and the private sector should have a symbiotic relationship where each depends on the other. But if you allow each side to perform the function of the other, then both sides suffer.
2. “Politics” and “policy” are different. There have been big-gov Republicans who allow the referee to become a player (GW Bush and Hoover) and small-gov Dems who attempted to keep the referee in his appropriate job (Clinton and Kennedy). The reverse is also true, so let’s stop with the political anecdotes.
3. There are areas where big gov is necessary; but only in areas where the market is unable. Infrastructure is one of those areas. Fiscal conservatives are for these things because they ENABLE the market; they DON’T REPLACE it.
4. Stats are best used to disprove things, not prove them. I was citing the poverty stats to disprove the idea that the War on Poverty reduced poverty. I was not citing poverty stats to show that one president was better than another. Anyone can use a stat to show correlation, but causation is difficult. I can site a stat showing that communism is supposedly a good economic system. For example, the Soviets had higher “employment” than the US. The problem was that the employment was directed toward things that people didn’t actually need.
5. Take a look at http://jim.com/econ/, and you’ll see what I’m talking about.
Its not that I dont trust business process, I question the ethics of the people in big business. Since when does a pure capitalist have anyone else’s health, wealth and quality of life other than his OWN in mind? Furthermore, the agricultural model of free Market by Adam Smtih was brilliant….in 1810. But news flash…that was 200 years ago. Comparing the economy to a football game is ignorant, considering that Football is metaphor for the battlefield, that is why to take ground and surrender ground. There are certain sectors the government should be charged with….How is defense a for profit industry? How is Education a for profit industry? How would public safety be a for profit industry? By the way, what issue are we talking about here? Antenori’s bill advocates more government interference in the market. George–I really think you need to study these issues more.
More stuff…calling politicians greedy? Really? I admire a number of our public servants, they a much more honorable than the banking CEO’s, and realtors, and commission based loan officers who lent people money they couldn’t pay it back and stole 15,000 of equity convincing people to refinance.
Childcare? is that a for-profit industry? What if we did not regulate it? Any reformed sex-offender could open a shop? Is that your plan? As far as the welfare programs—I just want you to remember: a single parent with two kids making even ten dollars hour and working full time (1400/mo take home)…could not earn enough to cover standard market child care and for two bedroom two bath. (1200/mo) take home. What do we tell that parent? Tough shit? The free market doesn’t work for you. You really need to meet some people. Go ask the Circle K clerk, or Waitress at Denny’s or Dishwasher an Hooters how they survive. PC