Occasionally, Even a Blind Hog Can Find an Acorn

by Jeff Latas
Recently, Russell Pearce did introduce some legislation that will affect the public good and benefit those in need. His legislation on the Military Family Relief Fund is sound, logical, and solves problems encountered by grieving military family members financially struggling after extremely traumatic events that would devastate anyone’s life.

Ironically, the legislation was so good that the Arizona Democratic Veterans' Caucus held a press conference calling on the Arizona legislature to pass SB 1176, a bill that will deliver much needed assistance to Arizona's military families who suffer from hardships presented when a loved one is injured or killed while serving our country. There is still room for improvement. The bill only addresses those who died in a theater of combat. I have voiced my recommendations to make this legislation less exclusive by including those who sustained injures in combat but died outside the combat zones.

The press conference, held yesterday, was very successful, with three network TV stations, two newspapers, and one radio station covered the event. Special thanks goes out to Sen. Manny Alverez and Rep. Patricia Fleming of District 25, Rep. Chris Dechene, USMC veteran, of District 2, and Rep. Daniel Patterson of District 29. Also, two notable veterans from the Arizona Democratic Veterans Caucus deserve credit for their part in recognizing the benefits of good legislation over partisan quarrelling. Matt Capalby and Ruben Gallego did a good job speaking and representing the Caucus in support of SB1176.

Another example of good legislation that was severally disparaged by Democrats at a federal level was a bill introduced by Senator McCain.  When Senator Jim Webb introduced the New GI Bill, McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham instead introduced a competing bill that sought to improve current Montgomery G.I. Bill benefits. The battle came down to which was better instead of seeing the merits which both would have. Democrats supported Webb’s bill, also introduced by Congressman Harry Mitchell, and blasted the McCain/Graham bill. However, there was huge benefit to many in improving the Montgomery bill. One of the benefits was that the Montgomery Bill benefited those who don’t qualify for the New GI Bill. There was no reason why both the New GI Bill, introduced by Webb/Mitchell (a very good bill that I fully supported), and the needed changes to the Montgomery Bill, introduced by McCain and Graham, couldn’t have happened. Why not both?

There is yet another example of showing our true values by supporting legislation introduced by someone we all know here at BFA. Those who know me know I love my dogs. I have three pit bulls that were rescued from certain death. Two were pulled from the dungeon-like conditions seen at the Pima Animal Control facility. Every year nearly 20,000 dogs and cats are put to death in Pima County at a cost of around $250 per animal ($5 million). That’s some big money we Pima citizens fork out to support status quo killing. Many communities have adopted “no-kill” policies that have had major reductions in costs to taxpayers and in saving lives. Where am I going with this? Senator Al Melvin introduced a bill that would make Arizona a no-kill state, SB1446. Although not perfect, it’s a step in the progressive direction and the first in the nation. The bill benefits both the taxpayers and the animals. My wife, Oro Valley Councilmember Salette Latas, has met with Sen. Melvin to suggest amendments that would strengthen the legislation.

We need to be careful not to demonize good legislation based on who introduced it. I don’t support Melvin, Pearce, or McCain based on their total record, but occasionally they do have progressive moments. So please, let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water.