Recently I was in line at the grocery store behind a very obese woman who was using her welfare card for only two items: 2-24 packs of Pepsi Cola. The sad thing about this is that so many of you reading this have had a similar experience.
Freedom Schools: What’s Up with that $5 Million Earmark?
Why are the so-called “Freedom Schools” at the University of Arizona (Center for the Philosophy Freedom-CPF) and Arizona State University (Center for Political Thought and Leadership-CPTL; Center for the Study of Economic Liberty-CSEL) getting a $5 million earmark in the Arizona State budget? Most folks involved in promoting liberty know that government money means government control. I have been involved with several organizations that promote free markets and nearly all of them are proud of the fact that they neither ask for nor accept any government funding. (I admit that, since all three of these “centers” are located at public universities, they will naturally enjoy some indirect government benefits but I would expect that all three of them should derive their primary funding from non-government sources.)
So, what is happening? It seems that one of the centers, the CPTL at ASU, has decided to solicit government money and was successful in gaining an appropriation that creates a new “school” at ASU called the “School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership.” The two centers at ASU would presumably be subsumed within the new school. (Notice how the names of the centers were combined to create the new name.) In academic parlance a “school” is one step above a “center” and is more “officially” associated with the university. One direct benefit of this more official designation is the ability to offer degree programs.
However, I and many of the true believers in liberty are more concerned about promoting the proper philosophy than the ability to grant degrees. This is because of the very extreme leftist bent of faculty and staff on almost all academic institutions in the United States, including the public universities in Arizona. Even though a substantial majority of Arizona citizens identify themselves as conservative, the faculty and staff of our public universities are overwhelmingly liberal. There is a desperate need for conservative and libertarian views on our campuses.
But, if these centers are taken over by government funding (remember that “he who pays the piper calls the tune”) then their benefit will be lost. We can see this happening in the name selected for the new school: It will be the School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership. The CPTL has always been more conservative than libertarian, as are the principals involved on their board. The other center, the CSEL, is more “pure,” that is, more libertarian or more free market. The key word in their name is “liberty” and that exemplifies their bias. This commitment to liberty is even more desperately needed at public universities than more traditional “conservatism” but the word “liberty” was dropped from the name of the new school. It should be reinserted to emphasize that the new school will truly emphasize the free market viewpoints that are so lacking at ASU.
We fought this same battle several years ago when I was working in fund raising at ASU and I am personally aware of how difficult it is to get that free market emphasis, even in the business college, a place where one would expect to find free market views. In fact, there are very few true believers in free markets among the staff or faculty at the WP Carey School of Business. While I was on the staff I organized a trip to Wichita Kansas to meet with Charles Koch. I was hoping to gain support for Koch’s free market views at ASU. Charles had written a book called Market Based Management and I had hoped to bring these ideas to ASU. But there was insufficient support at that time. Since then, free market views such as those of Charles Koch have gained more popularity and the formation of CSEL is an outgrowth of that.
CSEL was on the right track. The person selected to be the executive director, Scott Beaulier, could not have been a better choice. Scott is a brilliant scholar, is truly committed to free markets, and is more connected to others in the movement than anyone I know. However, Scott’s talents have been recognized by others and he is leaving to be the dean of a business college. The founding director of CSEL, ASU Professor Bill Boyes, has been the primary spokesman for Austrian economics and free markets at ASU for many years but Bill is now a retired professor and I am concerned that he cannot carry the baton alone.
With the formation of CPTL and CSEL Arizona has a wonderful opportunity to advance free market views that are sorely needed at ASU. We should not let this opportunity slip through the crack by letting the nose of government under the tent and dropping the stated emphasis on liberty.
We are now past the annual “Holocaust Remembrance Day” activities and editorials. It seemed to me that there were fewer “remembrances” this year. Maybe this is inevitable. I wonder how long it will take before this horrible event is completely forgotten. How important is it to remember? What lessons should we learn? Even in years when there are many remembrances, there is very little said about HOW the Holocaust could have occurred in what was arguably one of the most advanced nations in the world. This is the real answer to the question of why it is so important to remember this event. How could intelligent and well-educated people commit such atrocities and why did so few speak out? Naturally, I want to offer my own answer, an answer which is as simple as it is frightening: the unchecked growth of government. Once power is centralized in the federal government there is a disincentive to criticize its actions for fear that you may jeopardize some provision of the law that benefits you or your friends.
Can it happen again? Can it happen in the United States? Look at our own federal government. Each day our government’s power over the people increases, both through the maze of “entitlement” programs and through the increasing number of special interest laws, rules, and regulations. And our education system (the government schools) teaches children that government is good and that we should obey our government “leaders,” (he who pays the piper calls the tune). Therefore, the graduates of this system are not instinctively inclined to question the actions of the government.
The way to prevent a Holocaust from ever happening again is to remember that government has only one proper function, the protection of our liberty. We should keep it limited to that function. Eternal vigilance is the price of that liberty.
Prop 123 is Not Great….I Am Voting Yes
Proposition 123 is not a great idea but I am going to vote for it because my idea is not likely to reach the ballot. My idea is that we ought to sell more land and sell it quickly. The value of the land that is sold would immediately go into the state land trust and begin earning more money which then goes to education. And, instead of arguing over what percentage payout should be made from the trust, the trust should simply pay out all the earnings. The total trust fund would not decrease in value but would actually increase by the amount of the land sold.
State bureaucrats will argue that they know better how fast the state land should be sold and in what manner it should be sold. They will also argue that the state lands near urban areas should be leased and not sold. This is all nonsense. (I was a lobbyist in 1980 when we passed the Urban Lands Act and it was flawed logic then just as it is now.) If these bureaucrats really had that kind of expertise and were smarter than the free market and the hundreds of real estate professionals in Arizona, then they should quit their jobs with the state, and go into the private sector where they can make far more money by applying these skills.
Non-partisan is a Meaningless Term
Almost any new organization formed these days claims to be “Nonpartisan”. This term is either meaningless or, more likely, deceptive. What the organizers would have you believe is that the group has no philosophical bias. But this is almost never the case. Most new groups have a decidedly liberal bias because most groups are trying to get some favor from government, either tax money or regulations that favor whatever the new group is trying to accomplish.
Be wary of any group claiming to be nonpartisan. They are pulling the wool over your eyes.
Light Rail trains will be empty in five years
Passenger travel by rail is dead, including light rail, and heavy rail, and commuter rail. The age of self driving vehicles is rapidly approaching. Why would anyone take a train or a bus when they could move directly from their own home to their destination, door to door? Phoenix, San Francisco, Los Angeles and several other major cities are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on outmoded transportation systems. When will they wake up??
We recently had the second meeting of the Phoenix Citizens Transportation Commission (CTC) and it turned out to be a disappointment. The commission was formed in the wake of Proposition 104, the thirty-billion-dollar spending plan for Phoenix transportation for the next 35 years. The CTC was supposed to be an “oversight” group to insure that the extremely large amount of money approved by the earlier Phoenix Committee on the Future of Phoenix Transportation (CCFPT), and voted on by Phoenix citizens in the form of Prop 104 would be spent wisely. (I was on the original CCFPT and am also serving on the CTC.)
There have been two meetings of the CTC and, so far, I have observed very little “oversight.” The CTC is simply serving as a rubber stamp for Phoenix City Staff. (Sadly, this is exactly the same role that the CCFPT performed). We are spending Phoenix taxpayer dollars on whatever is most politically popular rather than what will most efficiently get people to their destination. Here are two examples: At the first meeting the Phoenix City staff announced that they planned to hire a management consultant to help us. Staff did not even have the courtesy to put the item on our agenda for action; they simply told us that this million dollar per year expenditure had to be done quickly. I strongly objected in the first meeting and CTC Chair Ed Pastor offered to speak with Phoenix Council Transportation and Infrastructure Sub-Committee Chair Thelda Williams. In spite of that, the sub-Committee went ahead with the proposal and the Council approved it with no input from our CTC oversight group.
At our second meeting I again objected to the hiring of this consultant without our input. At one point in our CTC meeting another commissioner asked for an example of a specific need that staff would have in the upcoming year for the consultant’s services. Staff could not list even one specific, even though the need to hire the consultant was, supposedly, so great that it had to be done without CTC approval. At one point I requested that, because our commission was dealing with such large amounts of spending, and because our commission is going to around for 35 years, I thought it was reasonable to ask for one meeting between City staff requests for money and our approval. A majority of the CTC did not seem to need such additional time.
Another rash decision (my opinion) followed immediately thereafter with the next agenda item, our first proposed construction project; $23 million for a new light rail station at 48th Street and Washington. I stated that it was very difficult for me to imagine that this could be the most important first construction project since it did not add any new track, nor add even one bus, nor fill one pothole (and it may not even add any riders to the light rail); and it will delay the train. How can this possibly be more important than even completing our promises that were made in the Transit 2000 vote and are yet unfulfilled. The answer is politics;……..even though this station does not seem to create a more efficient system……..it is obviously a very popular item politically because of several human service agencies located near the proposed station.
If the CTC has any usefulness (a point I am beginning to question), surely it must be to resist political pressure and insure that Prop 104 money is spent first on the projects that will help people move most efficiently to their destination. If we are only going to be a rubber stamp for the City staff, then there is no need for the Commission.
To Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton: I write to oppose the hiring of a Program Management Consultant (PMC) to advise City staff prior to this matter being considered by the Citizens Transportation Commission. Have we learned nothing from the oversight problems facing Valley Metro? The CTC is supposed to give advice regarding the spending of Prop 104 revenue. How can the CTC effectively do this if the first major decision, hiring a PMC, does not even come to the CTC and is made without any input from the CTC? At our first CTC meeting the City staff briefed us on the PMC hiring but said we could not take any position on this issue because it was not on the agenda. (Then why was it briefed and why was it not on the agenda?)
One reason given for the need to hire a PMC was that the staff did not have sufficient time to do the necessary planning. This seems like nonsense to me. The issues surrounding the spending of Prop 104 revenue are not new issues. They are the same issues that staff has been dealing with for decades. Also, how can the City have insufficient staff to do the planning but yet sent 25 staff members to our CTC meeting? (If some of them were doing transportation planning, there may not be a need to hire additional consultants.)
At the very least this matter should be continued to a future Council meeting after the CTC has had time to review it.
Open letter to Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton: My front yard has faced the Encanto Golf Course for 37 years and, in all that time, I have never seen the course look more beautiful. The only logical explanation for this change is that the management of the course was recently transferred to a private operator.
Could we learn a lesson from this? Maybe we should consider privatizing some other Phoenix services
“Police board undermines discipline”: This is a serious, and recurring, issue
On August 25 the lead editorial in the Arizona Republic began with the headline “Police board undermines discipline” Amen, Amen is my response…..but this is not a new issue and I wonder when the Republic is going to go after the real guilty party and start holding the Mayor of Phoenix responsible. The Republic needs to stop criticizing the Civil Service Board and place the blame where it belongs. These board appointments are made by the mayor and, if the mayor appoints liberals to these posts, we will get people who side with the unions and oppose management. The mayor needs to replace a few of these whiney liberals who are married to the unions (as is the mayor—part of the problem) and appoint some tough minded conservatives who understand the importance of discipline in a quasi-military organization like our police department.
I have been editorializing on this issue for over 30 years as a result of my personal experience when I was chairman of the Phoenix Civil Service Board in the 1980s (see a copy of my most recent submission below) but nothing has changed.
Remember that oft quoted definition of insanity…….let’s keep it in mind and do something different.
Roy’s last editorial-Do the Unions Run the Phoenix PD (comment on Jan 11, 2015 Az Republic)
Phoenix residents should pay particular attention to the January 11 Arizona Republic article “Garcia, board differed on discipline.” The article questions whether the Phoenix Civil Service Board undermines the authority of the Chief by reducing punishments meted out to offending police officers. Most Phoenicians will agree that police officers should be held to a higher standard of behavior and character than other Phoenix employees, especially those who do not carry weapons and who are not asked to place their lives (and the lives of their fellow officers) on the line every day. This higher standard requires a more authoritarian approach to discipline than some people who have never worn a uniform will understand. We need only look to Chicago or New York or Washington DC for examples of what can happen when police discipline is not maintained at very high levels.
Phoenicians should know that this problem is not new to our city. Some with longer memories will recall an incident in the 1980s where seven Phoenix police officers were dismissed for public drunkenness, firing their weapons, and public disturbance. These incidents occurred under the Seventh Avenue Bridge, a spot that had become a gathering place for off-duty cops, and these officers came to be known as the Seventh Avenue Seven. At that time we had another police chief, (Rueben Ortega), who believed in very high standards for his officers, just like our recently terminated Chief Garcia, and he enforced those standards strictly. He terminated all seven officers.
I was serving on the Phoenix Civil Service Board when these seven officers appealed the terminations. At that time the Civil Service Board members (who were appointed by a conservative mayor-Margaret Hance) also believed in very high standards for police officers and we upheld the terminations by a vote of 5-0. What happened next should be a lesson for Phoenix residents. Over the next three years the police officers appealed the decision to the Maricopa County Superior Court. The court eventually remanded the case to the Civil Service Board. During the intervening three years there were three new appointments to the board (appointed by a more liberal mayor-Terry Goddard). Unfortunately (in my opinion), the new appointees to the Board did not have the same concern for police discipline. The Board voted 4-1 to reinstate the officers. (One remaining member, a union business manager, changed his vote.) By the time of the rehearing, I was chairman of the board and I was the only board member who stuck to upholding the terminations. (I was so disappointed and disillusioned that I resigned from the board shortly afterward.) The case drew so much publicity that the rehearing had to be conducted in the Phoenix Council Chambers.
I believe that this decision caused, or at least revealed, a decline in the authority of the Chief of Police and a consequent increase in behavior that should not be tolerated. Let’s not let it happen again.
roymilleraz 