Somebody sent me the "State of the State speech Jan Brewer never gave," which was supplanted by her short talk to the Legislature in the wake of the assassination attempt on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. It sounded so much like a screed out of the Goldwater Institute that I wanted to make sure it was real. It is. You can download it here. She starts out:
As America enters the fifth year of the most devastating economic downturn since the Great Depression, Arizona is party to a vital national debate focusing on how state governments can most effectively enhance quality job creation and personal income growth. In pursuit of that objective, the leaders of some large states – principally in the Northeast and Midwest and on the West Coast – have chosen a perilous path that calls for dual expansion of the public sector and the regulatory supremacy of state government, while undermining and, in too many instances, scorning the principles of free enterprise that for more than two centuries have made America the envy of the world. This reckless strategy mirrors the model of irresponsibility that Congress and the White House have exhibited with uncommon zeal during the last two years.
In contrast, other states are pursuing a more prudent approach that limits the growth of the public sector and restrains unnecessary regulatory encroachment upon areas that are outside the rightful scope of state government, with the affirmative goal of stimulating free enterprise.
As to which economic model is superior, the verdict is in: With few exceptions, states that have a strong private sector enjoy a more robust level of job growth than Big Government states that deny the central role of the free market in putting people to work.
Brewer then lays out her Four Cornerstones of Reform. Among them: "remove unnecessary barriers that impede economic growth, and provide a stable, predictable, business-friendly environment in which private employers can grow." It's hard to know where to begin with this delusional, ideological mindset of the newly elected governor. But I suppose we must make a start.
In fact, the Great Recession was a come-as-you-are affair, and its aftermath has left a landscape of devastation among the states, red and blue. Those that arrived at the recession with a strong, diverse economy are doing better than those that didn't. Thus, South Carolina, a state that follows Brewer's prescription to the letter — except for offering far more lavish business incentives than Arizona is capable of — suffers higher than average unemployment and child poverty, and much lower wages, than even the national average. The "socialistic" blue states are doing much better by almost any measure, and they have the strongest private sectors. The exceptions are low-population states that enjoy highly subsidized energy and farm sectors, and didn't suffer from the housing bubble. Even Texas, which was once trotted out as the model even though its oil riches and deep corporate bones make it sui generis, has the second worse budget deficit in the nation and a miserable standing in social and human capital measures.
Arizona is a highly populous, highly urbanized state, competing in a complex, globalized economy. So it's not as if she can channel the ghost of George W. P. Hunt and just let the copper companies, railroads and federally subsidized farmers and ranchers handle things in a small, frontier state. And that's giving her credit to even know who Hunt was. The speech was more instructive for what was not mentioned. The destructive dependency on housing and population growth. The decades of infrastructure needs that have been pushed into the future (is it "business friendly" to have such an inadequate rail and road system, or to be defunding the universities that are magnets of talent and job creation?). The growing underclass and pressures on the state's low-wage middle class (even the Arizona Republic has caught onto this crisis). The second-worst poverty rate in the nation, with almost 800,000 Arizonans on food stamps. Among the worst education outcomes and funding in America. An inability to compete for high-wage jobs. Sustainability. Water.
Nor did the governor follow her propaganda to its headwaters, which would include defunding Social Security, Medicare, reclamation and a myriad other programs, as well as a massive defense establishment (hardly something the framers wanted). All the things that make Arizona a net taker state from Washington, one that was allowed to float for years with a weak private sector on a river of denial.
To be sure, governors around the country are becoming, as Nobel laureate Paul Krugman put it, "fifty Herbert Hoovers." With corporations in control and the minds of Americans bleached of any idea except tax cuts, the commons are slowly eroding. And with this is failing not only our ability to maintain a strong economy or strong military, but the assets that "have made America the envy of the world." But the rot starts in the places with the least, so Arizona is in for more of the same, only worse.
In the generally accurate movie, The King's Speech, the noble George VI is almost done in by a speech impediment, this at a time when Britain stood alone against Nazi Germany, and Hitler and British fascists dreamed of re-installing the king's fascist-sympathizer brother on the throne and hanging Churchill. In Arizona, the kind of debate meltdown that is supposed to be career-ending in our media age barely slowed Brewer on the way to decisively defeating the best-qualified candidate for governor in the state's history. And Jan Brewer is no George VI. About the best I can get from her non-Kook admirers is that "she's a nice person."
So it makes me wonder: Who is Janice K. Brewer? Who is pulling her strings: the real-estate industrial complex, the East Valley and rural Mormons, the big conservative money from back East? Looks like we'll have four years to find out.
Who is Janice K. Brewer?
No idea. Does she even have a high school diploma? I haven't seen it. No college that is for sure. So why should she value the U of A? After all, look how far she has gone without book learning. All it takes is yadda yadda yadda hard work. (The low esteem American understands here that he was not worthy of success.)
Who is pulling her strings?
Obviously that speech was cooked up by some right wing think tank financially obedient to the Koch brothers. No evidence Granny could ever so compose.
So who wrote it?
I suppose someone could run some sort of text comparison software to figure out which tank; unless of course, you believe like me, they incestuously echo each other so much that the sentence structure might be traceable to Barry or Irving Kristol...
Good thing for them that in America, suckers are born every second to swallow whole the fug-you-go-me boilerplate. Want to get rich off these suckers? That seems like an admirable thing to do. Then remake an Ayn Rand book into a movie. May I suggest Tommy Cruise in the lead?
Me?
I'm working on a Ronnie book...
With dogs...
And Christianity...
Posted by: koreyel | January 24, 2011 at 12:47 PM
Brewer's speech writer is Mark Genrich. These words are not her's as she is hardly capable of competent sentence forming during interviews: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2011/01/23/20110123jan-brewer-speechwriter.html
There are rumors that Brewer was, at one time, a certified X-ray tech who was at fault for a DUI accident on I-17. She was let go and not really charged for the crime by some bureaucratic loophole.
The speech written for her is pure propaganda and I doubt even her voters truly believe the words. They just voted for her out of pure reactionary purposes. Voter turn out was depressingly low (even compared to 2 years prior). Most of those who turned out to vote are also bipolar or senile given that they can't decide if they are moderate, liberal, or extreme conservatives.
Voters simultaneously supported the flock of Pearce while legalizing medical bong hits, supporting a tax heavy "First Things First" program by smacking the hands of the Rep. legislature away from its flush bank account.
Still, Brewer plans to borrow $300,000,000 from the First Things First program as an accounting gimmick to "balance the budget." Hardly a conservative tactic since this creates more debt. Jan seems to be suffering from senility much like many AZ voters.
Posted by: phxSUNSfan | January 24, 2011 at 01:25 PM
"But I suppose we must make a start." - Rogue
Your patience and perseverance never cease to amaze.
It is a pleasant thought that this speech was muted.
Posted by: Rate Crimes | January 24, 2011 at 02:41 PM
The charm of right-wing voodoo is that it's never wrong. Deregulate the financial sector to the point it goes crazy and implodes? It's the fault of government bureaucrats who made honest bankers give minorities mortgages! Cut taxes to the point that government can't function? You didn't cut them enough! A health-care industry that is the most expensive in the world? You should let insurance companies sell across state lines. That way, they can provide products without regulators making sure they're as good as advertised.
This is not just Arizona, it's America. We have reached the inflection point where the average citizen is so stupid that it calls into question whether national survival itself is an option. As an example, 71% of Americans think the debt ceiling shouldn't be raised this March. Maybe the complexity of modern civilization is a bummer and we should simply expedite the inevitable decline to banana republic. But March is barely a month away.
Jan Brewer is Sarah Palin minus the manic self-pity. As such, she gets points for being affable in her tongue-tied idiocy. Aside from that, she's not cunning enough to be an instrument of power. She's a blessed vessel of divine Reaganesque wisdom, post-senescent and compliant to the corporate interests underwriting that wisdom.
If you think our discourse needs to be elevated, without meanness, rancor, or ad hominem fallacies, this is what your good citizenship has delivered: a nation so bereft of even modestly informed outrage that citizens elect virtually anyone wishing us "a nice day".
Obama's SOTU, a "clarion call to something or another", is tomorrow night. The rest of the week will be filled with dour Republicans reminding us that we can't throw money at problems. Unless those problems benefit their principle constituencies and corporate sponsors. Which, means, 97% of the federal budget cannot be cut but that taxes can always be cut because that's how voodoo works. You have to believe. Everything else is so much negativity and government waste.
Posted by: soleri | January 24, 2011 at 03:54 PM
Here is a little more background on Brewer. This is dealing with her DUI issue from 1988; I think it sheds a little light on her politics and what she learned about the game:
http://tucsoncitizen.com/three-sonorans/2010/10/27/jan-brewers-dui-and-car-crash/
Posted by: phxSUNSfan | January 24, 2011 at 06:03 PM
As I read the other day, AZ is currently led by Senate and House leaders who have never actually worked in the private sector. And a Governor whose education was completed with an X Ray Tech certificate.
This group will lead the business community to stimulate the economy and will attract world class businesses to invest in a state that is already 50 out of 50 in education and is working diligently to go even lower.
Shouldn't we all be proud?
Posted by: A Vintage View | January 24, 2011 at 08:54 PM
Being well-acquainted with Dr. John Kavanagh, I doubt that his law enforcement career has prepared him for his leadership role as appropriations chair for the House. As Russell Pearce's co-pilot, Dr. John has catapulted from the Fountain Hills town council into the national limelight. Gov. Brewer may also like him because he puts an intelligent and articulate face on her lackluster administration.
Posted by: Jim Hamblin | January 25, 2011 at 10:22 AM
The Chancellor of Pima College "looks forward":
"Facing $2.2 billion in state budget deficits, Governor Jan Brewer budget includes huge cuts in community college funding. She has proposed an average decrease of 65% for community colleges. Pima Community College is earmarked for a 56 percent cut in its Fiscal Year 2012 appropriation to the College, from approximately $16 million to $7 million. This comes on top of the 30 percent reduction in state funding that PCC has absorbed over the past two years. The consensus of the community college presidents around the state and lobbyists is that there is a good chance that the budget the legislature adopts will include those numbers.
Governor Brewer’s budget proposal is a game changer that potentially could alter the nature of community colleges in Arizona. It seeks to dissolve the longstanding understanding between state government and community colleges regarding funding. Historically, PCC and the state’s other community colleges have been funded through tuition, state appropriations and property tax revenue. If the FY 2012 proposal is enacted, only 3 percent of the College’s general fund revenue would come from state appropriations. The proposal is an explicit message to the College: You need to make drastic cuts to programs and services. The proposal also contains an implicit message to students and the community: You need to bear a greater financial burden in funding community colleges.
But the reality is that property tax increases are capped at 2 percent, plus tax revenue derived from year-over-year real estate growth. Also, PCC students already absorb yearly tuition increases, which have been kept low because many of our students face economic hardships.
The Governor’s appropriation proposal means that we will be unable to offer enough courses and services to meet the robust demand of the community. The state’s budget cuts will result in a de facto enrollment cap."
How do you like those withered apples?
Like a face that got too much sun...
Poor Arizona, a fourth-world loser...
Posted by: koreyel | January 25, 2011 at 12:18 PM
And this just in at Huff Po:
"A White House official says President Barack Obama will call for a five-year freeze in non-security, discretionary spending during his State of the Union address."
Oh goody.
51 Hoovers now...
And a sad sack Senate of millionaires...
And a mendacious House of Teabaggers.
Looks like all these serious people can agree on one thing: To hell with the Great Recession, bring on The Depression...
And you know what?
I'm all for it. As that's probably the only way to bring on the bottom-up class warfare that this country needs. Whatever it takes to knock billions out of our billionaires. If it means I suffer... fine. Just so long as we finally get our hands on our various Richy Richs's windpipes and squeeze the klepto out of these keptocrats.... I'm good.
Posted by: koreyel | January 25, 2011 at 12:38 PM
Koreyel, what I write might be hugely unpopular with many of you but it might benefit the state universities and colleges to slightly increase tuition and cap enrollment. This would increase selectivity and improve university and college standings.
This might, technically, be unconstitutional according to the State Constitution. It would, however, take some of the burden off the institutions to teach undereducated Arizona high school graduates up to the university level. Instead more money should be dedicated to improving K-12 standards and achievement in Arizona.
Having the colleges and universities become more selective may just open the eyes of many Arizonans when their children no longer qualify for admission into the state schools. Personally, recounting an experience at a Maricopa CC while earning my second degree from ASU, I encountered high school graduates from AZ whose level of educational attainment (even reading comprehension) is extremely low and their attention not dedicated to the instructor.
Higher prices might ward off those who would use financial aid as a welfare system while attending a few classes for social purposes when not on Facebook. Smaller college enrollments and more selective processes could also increase funding research capabilities for the schools (rather than accepting 10,000 incoming freshmen every year).
In plain speak, not everyone is college material and there is nothing wrong with that. As stated before I have an issue with cutbacks and the suffocation of K-12 resources.
Posted by: phxSUNSfan | January 25, 2011 at 01:46 PM
Koreyel, I'm not sure how seriously to take this discretionary spending freeze. Since it's coming during a primetime address to the nation, I suspect it's mostly optics. Obama wasn't going to get much through Congress in any case so this might simply be a way of hijacking the austerity riff for his own benefit. Of course, reducing spending in a recession is vintage Hoover economics but the average citizen is as economically literate as Bob Robb. Still, I'm impressed by the poll numbers suggesting most voters favor cutting defense spending over SS and Medicare. Neocons better get to work with their terror alerts and jihadist menace chat. It looks like the empire is losing the rubes.
Posted by: soleri | January 25, 2011 at 02:24 PM
Looks like Laurie Roberts has taken years of comments on this blog and condensed it down to a simple one sentence title on her column. Simple and to the point.
Posted by: azrebel | January 26, 2011 at 11:16 AM
Azrebel, I assume you mean this blog post: http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/LaurieRoberts/115582/sort_A/Offset20. The comments are interesting because they seem to straddle the left/right divide. BTW, are you "oldman47"?
I'm mostly in agreement here with Laurie Roberts' exasperation. Still, I've got an issue with this conflation of all government spending in order to make a point about defunding transplants on ACCCHS. It would be analogous to saying we shouldn't spend one dime on the arts until every other real human problem has been solved. Of course, that point never arrives, so anti-tax zealots point to the NEA (or some other cultural program) to pummel us with the specter of liberal fecklessness.
Laurie Roberts, it should be pointed out, does this quite a bit. She's been an unrelenting critic of Child Protective Services because its wards sometimes fall through the cracks and even die. So, what does she propose in its stead? Well, she really doesn't have a solution besides demonizing the one program that actually does help these kids. But because it's not perfect, she gets to pose as a crusader for everything that's righteous and moral.
As you notice, Roberts' fans are both on the left and right. Populism itself can be left or right wing. I'd like to think that we "liberals" are a bit more aware of the ways media narratives can serve the interests of the oligarchy while pretending to attack it. It's why the Tea Party is so worthy of scorn. Anger is a good thing when it causes us to question decorous discussions that disguise fundamentally unfair arrangements. But for right-wingers, this anger is directly almost entirely at their "lessers", poor people on the bottom and their champions. That these attackers may themselves be on the dole is often shrugged off. Being tools can buy some people a lot of protection.
A nation that is more committed to cutting taxes on the rich than providing health care for its citizens is probably not ready to have, as Republicans love to say, "adult conversations" about the morality of our choice-making. I'm not a Christian but I sometimes want to grab one by the lapels and scream at them: why is it more moral to spend countless billions on Cold-War weapon systems than give a struggling person adequate health care? This is what I want Laurie Roberts to do. I want her to risk alienating her right-wing fans by making them aware of these trade-offs and choices. I think the last thing she will do, however, is risk her special relationship with them. In my opinion, this is the tragedy of contemporary America: with very few exceptions, we're more comfortable with blurring distinctions than risking socially inappropriate anger.
Posted by: soleri | January 26, 2011 at 01:12 PM
Soleri wrote:
"A nation that is more committed to cutting taxes on the rich than providing health care for its citizens is probably not ready to have, as Republicans love to say, "adult conversations" about the morality of our choice-making."
I am not so sure. Here is a line of inquiry that even a adult AZ child could understand. Maybe someone has brought it up, but I've not seen what seems like a natural pushback to white-righty:
Should poor people be organ donors anymore in Arizona?
I think not. Why give organs when you can't receive them? So that the very people (rich republicans with health care) who deny you health care can survive and thrive on your organs? I call BS on that...
Right now, across Arizona there should a loud movement to stop being organ donors. And there should be a place to post your story: Why I am no longer an AZ organ donor.
That's how you pushback. Tear the social fabric wide open in their faces. Make class warfare work both ways. Don't let Arizona Cheneys have a chance at your heart! Stop organ donation today.
Shout it.
Do it.
I have.
Posted by: koreyel | January 26, 2011 at 02:38 PM
I wonder, koreyel, if we can have stated in a medical will that our organs can only be donated to family or those with the most financial need.
Soleri, I don't think Roberts is a poser of any sort but more an angry citizen whose moral compass is more attuned to the gravitas concerning certain populations. That she lacks any solution could simply be that she doesn't have any but that doesn't dicredit her anger.
Posted by: phxSUNSfan | January 26, 2011 at 03:02 PM
"That she [leaves out] any [written] solution..."
When I type on my phone it auto corrects and omits some words; I must find that setting and disable it. It is especially bad on the light rail.
One more thing to add: That Roberts writes about the mishaps and tragedies occurring under the supervision of CPS may not be a whole solution, but it does bring about awareness to grievances that happen under CPS' watch. In turn, this awareness can lead to solutions.
Posted by: phxSUNSfan | January 26, 2011 at 03:14 PM
Koreyel, your scenario is interesting since the poor have virtually no politically leverage as it is. They certainly have no moral hold on the smug if larval conscience of Christian Arizona. I don't think this is a coincidence. If your moral conscience isn't informing your politics, you're probably dissociated to the point of moral deregulation. Remember: Arizona looks this way for a reason.
If this be class warfare, they still have the numbers on their side. Maybe Arizona will eventually contract economically to the point where a majority is actually poor. But we're not there yet and until we get there, we better play to their better angels. A majority of Arizonans see themselves as "haves" and they intend to stay that way. They also see liberalism as a primary threat to their current advantages. As it is, the white-right looks on the burgeoning Hispanic underclass with contempt bordering on malice.
So, how do we reach them? I think the Christian tropes and ethical teachings are the best. Keep reminding them of the distance between core Christian values and their Republican dogma. Who would Jesus let die? Who would Jesus judge as "less than"?
I'm not a big fan of EJ Montini but I see his work in this light. He's holding up a candle in the darkness and asking the Republic's readership to see a connection between themselves and the "others". Often, these "others" are simply the unfortunate who were in an accident, or got a death sentence through a medical diagnosis, or were trapped in the nightmare of mental illness. He's not screaming at them (as I would). He's just putting it out there: am I not my brother's keeper?
Our social compact is shrunken and dessicated. Modernism is partly to blame, but equally to blame is the fear that nothing really means anything. Paradoxically, people take refuge from this nihilism by engaging in a politics of nihilism. This is our story as of 2011.
I have a lot more in common with the comfortable Republican than the brutalized working poor. If there's a bridge we can build, let's explore those ways that heals their wounded angels. It's fear that is disabling the vital connection between "mine" and "ours". Ultimately, we're looking for their humanity, not their submission.
Posted by: soleri | January 26, 2011 at 03:42 PM
No, soleri, I am not "oldman47". I'm Azrebel where ever I post. I want to make it easy for Homeland Insecurity to track me.
The reason we are not having any type of class warfare is because the upper class has convinced the remaining middle class that upper and middle are all the same team and the enemy is the dirty, lazy, uneducated, smelly, sickly, socialist, progressive lower class. How could you not hate scumbags like that? (it also helps that they are powerless to defend themselves in any political environment)
EJ and Laurie try to jump start empathy, care and compassion within our Arizona heart, however, I'm afraid our Arizona heart has as much humanity left in it as Cheney's android pump.
If you were to take the Tucson shooter's comments and mix them into comments regularly posted on AZCentral, his comments would not stand out at all. Biggest bunch of whackos I've ever seen in my life.
I wish the people who comment on AZCentral were found to be adolescent teen boys. That I could understand. I'm afraid most are Arizona adults of all ages. Their ignorance is beyond comprehension. Their anger, meanness and lack of compassion is hard to fathom.
Posted by: azrebel | January 26, 2011 at 04:39 PM
Azrebel, posting on AZCentral used to be fun when I was a teenager. Rousing those wackos with some "liberal B.S." was great. TODDtheStallion, or something like that, is most hilarious.
I no longer fancy such comedies but from time to time I'll post something to get them going. Usually, you can count on certain SNs to post their hate, meanness, and such. I wonder if these people live how they write? I would find that type of negative lifestyle taxing.
Posted by: phxSUNSfan | January 26, 2011 at 05:33 PM
Did anybody else see this?
When the politically fueled murder of a 9-year-old girl in Arizona is NOT national news
hhttp://mediamatters.org/blog/201101260047
Posted by: koreyel | January 27, 2011 at 07:43 AM
Koreyel, it's not national news because a) there aren't any scary black people involved, and b) the victims aren't white.
What breaks through the national chatter is usually predetermined by assignment editors on the right. Say, Matt Drudge or Roger Ailes. They have these improbably large megaphones that drown out virtually all others. The MSM are more than willing - compliant, perhaps - to air their shocking exposés about organizations registering black people to vote (ACORN), or Shirley Sherrod's hating on white people.
And let's not forget: "both sides do it".
This helps explain why people who live in trailers or cinder-block bunkers in Mohave County perceive themselves as tribally affiliated with The Goldwater Institute, The Republican Party, and The Club for Growth. What do they all have in common? Nothing but the color of their skin. And the distribution of wealth in this country is so lopsided now that you might think even those woebegone gun nuts might see the real nature of their captivity. Fortunately, they're redirected by their tribal elites to look on brown skin and liberalism as the true enemy. And on one level, there is a crumb of truth. By the time our social democracy is just a distant memory, we'll all be scrapping for those crumbs because that's all that will remain.
Posted by: soleri | January 27, 2011 at 08:50 AM