Fact Checking GOP Tucson City Council Candidates’ Walk Pieces

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

A Republican campaign worker dropped off walk pieces for the GOP Tucson Council Council candidates at my door today. (I understand that Republicans have $1 million to drop on this city council race and have the money to piss away on Democratic voters). Well, I'll make you pay for littering my doorstep with your trash.

Time for a Fact Check, since the practically useless Arizona Daily Star sure as hell isn't going to do it. Too much advertising money is being spent by GOP money-man Jim Click lately on full page color ads. If you believe advertising revenue does not affect news content, I've got some ocean-front property in Arizona I'd like to sell you. Journalistic ethics died a long time ago.

Let's begin with Shaun McClusky, the least qualified of the Republican candidates in the race and apparently a "chatty Cathy." Lot's of copy, way too busy a piece. (Shaun, a word of advice. Whoever did your walk piece – fire them. A photo with your dog? Really? Family photos, Shaun).

The line that first jumped out at me was "The time for vague and secretive plans, worthless rhetoric and indecision has passed." Oh really? This is the same guy who told the Tucson Weekly "You can't tell me that there is not mismanagement and outright waste in the current city budget," says McClusky, who suggests that paying more attention to turning off lights in city buildings could cut utility costs." "I think there's enough money in the budget to go around to everybody and not have to cut anything," McClusky says. "You wouldn't have to reduce services, nor would you have to raise fees, nor would you have to raise taxes. We need to streamline the budget."

Where are any specifics about the programs and expenditures McCluskey proposes to eliminate? Other than turning off lights that is. Sounds like a lot of "secretive plans" and "worthless rhetoric" to me. Tell the voters specifically what you intend to eliminate to pay for Prop. 200. What are you afraid of Shaun?

On the front of his walk piece is this bullet point: "Create jobs and economic growth by lowering corporate income and personal taxes." I hate to break it to you McClusky, but that's the job of the state legislature. City councils have no power over corporate and personal income tax. The City of Tucson does not have an income tax. It has a two-percent city sales tax and primary and secondary property taxes. Shaun, if you do not understand what office it is you are running for and what powers and authority that office entails, you are not qualified to serve in elective office.

McClusky next says he fully supports the "Safety First" initiative on this year's ballot, and he will do so without raising taxes. Ah, this is a special moment for Shaun. This political virgin just told his first big lie. The Independent Audit Commission says you can't pay for Prop. 200 without raising taxes (the report is linked on this site). County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry also says you can't pay for Prop. 200 without raising taxes. So unless this political virgin has some magic beans in his pocket that can grow money trees – he is lying.

The third bullet point on the front and the fourth paragraph on the flip-side talks about McClusky's support "for the installation of money-saving geothermal energy systems on our public buildings." OK… Geothermal power (from the Greek roots geo, meaning earth, and thermos, meaning heat) is power extracted from heat stored in the earth. Geothermal power is cost effective, reliable, and environmentally friendly, but has historically been limited to areas near tectonic plate boundaries. Sorry, no tectonic plates in Tucson.

I'm not certain whether McClusky actually meant to say solar power. I'm not certain whether he even knows the difference. The City of Tucson is already installing solar power on public buildings. Ask councilwoman Shirley Scott for a tour of her ward office.

Next up, Steve Kozachik, who is trying to be hip and cool by calling himself the "Koz." There is only one "Cos" and that would be comedian Bill Cosby. You might want to check with your lawyers about trademark infringement. Cosby can afford a whole team of lawyers.

Steve-O's first bullet point is "the 'Koz' is about competency… "Four years and $150 million dollars squandered and still no Rio Nuevo." Um, Steve-O, Rio Nuevo was approved by Tucson voters in 1999 – ten years ago. Republican Bob Walkup was first elected Mayor of Tucson that year running on the promise of Rio Nuevo. Remember that?

I do not dispute that a lot of money has been pissed away on engineering and design firms (the UofA's rainbow bridge concept for the Science Museum immediately comes to mind), but to suggest that there has been no progress downtown is patently false. And almost all of that progress has occurred since 2005 – during the last four years.

Steve-O is trying to assign blame for the original delays during the first six years of Rio Nuevo, when we had a de facto Republican city council (Republicans Bob Walkup, Fred Ronstadt, Kathleen Dunbar and "independent" Carol West) to the current Democratic city council – Karin Uhlich and Nina Trasoff were not elected until November 2005, and Richard Fimbres is running for the first time – which has followed through from the planning and design phase to the build-out phase. Steve-O wants to compress time in the "way back time machine" to make you forget all about who was responsible for the original planning and design delays. Hint – it wasn't the Democratic council candidates running for office in 2009.

Steve-O's next bullet point is "The 'Koz' is all about responsibility… "City Council has cut funding for police and fire while our local crime rates rise." Again, this is patently false. Is it responsible for someone to so easily lie? The Tucson Weekly destroyed this talking point on September 24, 2009 Police Action, and I have addressed it in several posts at this blog. Steve-O's practicing the "big lie" technique: just keep telling the lie over and over again until enough people eventually believe it's true – like space alien abductions.

Steve-O of course supports the "Safety First" initiative, but uses weasel words to say that he will fully fund public safety "in a responsible manner." Right. This is the guy who couldn't – or wouldn't – explain to the Tucson Weekly where he would cut the budget to pay for more police officers. Cost of Crime He seemed to think that providing voters specifics about the programs and expenditures he proposes to eliminate is a "gotcha" question. "I could sit here and give you examples, but I'm not going to do that, simply because it's not for one person to decide." Sorry, Steve-O, the voters have a right to know your specific budget cut proposals. What are you afraid of Steve-O?

Steve-O's final bullet point is "The 'Koz' is about credibility…" OK, I think we have already destroyed this talking point. He follows up with a curious line about "we must stop sending opportunity and revenue out of Tucson." Does he mean that he wants to withhold Tucson's share of sales tax collections from the State of Arizona? Does he know that the state of Arizona wants to withhold Tucson's share of revenue sharing from sales tax collection? Finally, Steve-O "believes in Tucson's firms and talent…" OK, you're a pro-corporate Republican, we get it.

Oh, and Steve-O, those social service programs that you will have to eliminate to pay for Prop. 200? They are a life-line for the work force in Tucson which has a high rate of poverty. By cutting off their life-line to teach them about Republican self-reliance, it is you who will be "devaluing our local work force."

Next up, Ben Buehler Garcia doesn't want you to know anything about him. Instead, his walk piece is a poorly designed "hit piece" on Karin Uhlich. There is a checklist of bullet points, followed by "endorsed by: Tucson Police Officers Association." Well yeah, they are one of the usual GOP suspects in every city council election; of course they endorsed you.

The flip-side is a misleading graphic of "Tucson's crime map in the last 30 days" – the colors all blur into a kaleidoscope of terror! – with an unflattering photo of Karin Uhlich superimposed over the map. The caption says "Four years ago Karin Uhlich promised to 'Fight crime by fully funding TPD' – Instead she cut funding while spending over $1,000,000 on her pet projects! (what? no flashing siren from the Drudge Report?) I'll return to the Tucson Weekly to refute this misrepresentation Police Action:

Given everything that Tucsonans hear about criminal activity, it's a little surprising to learn that crime rates, for the most part, have been declining since the mid-'90s, according to Tucson Police Department statistics.

Violent crime—homicide, sexual assault, robbery and aggravated assaults—has dropped by more than a third between 1995 and 2008, as measured by the number of reports to TPD per 1,000 residents. Burglary calls have dropped 38 percent since peaking in 1997. Criminal-damage calls have decreased 29 percent since a 1997 high.

Nearly all of Tucson's crime-rate categories are dropping. Even homicide, which saw a minor uptick in 2008 over 2007, has dropped 16 percent since 1995.

* * *

The city is already spending about $268 million—or 64 percent—of its $420 million annual general-fund budget on public safety, if you include court, jail and administrative costs, according to a presentation that Letcher made to the council last week.

The city has boosted spending on public safety in recent years. As part of its "sustainability plan," council members moved forward with plans to expand the police force by 80 officers between 2006 and 2008. (About 70 of those positions are currently unfilled, because of officers who have retired or quit. The city plans to hire new officers to replace them later this year.)

Sounds to me like the city council has done the best it could under very difficult economic circumstances – the most severe economic recession since the Great Depression. But Benny and his boys in the Tucson Police Officers Association reject economic realities. They want to be "fully funded" damnit! – and they want to do it at the expense of everyone else and other critical need priorities. That kinda attitude is not going to endear you to the voters.