We are aware that CAP has adjusted Mr. Bouie’s answer to their survey question regarding adding “sexual orientation” and others to the list of protected classes. We will take everyone at their word that this was Mr. Bouie’s original intention and note that his answers to the CAP survey now mirror my own. As such, I would not comment further on it and would encourage others to do the same.
Of course, our differences on taxes (I have signed the No New Taxes pledge), border security (I favor it), Arizona’s employer sanctions law (I will not take money from those looking to pass employer amnesty), and racial discrimination (I oppose it) remain, and we will limit our campaign topics to those legitimate differences.
In defense of Mr. Bouie, I would like to say that in reading many of these comments, there are many who seem to question Mr. Bouie’s credentials on the issue of Life. I do not, and I would encourage them not to as well. My impression of Mr. Bouie is that he has a pro-life heart. I was honored to receive the endorsement of Arizona Right to Life and would suggest that Mr. Bouie’s failure to receive that endorsement likely has more to do with survey questions that relate more to the periphery of the life issue than the core question of life itself. It is likely also a reflection of my many years working within the movement. As pro-lifers, we should embrace those with pro-life hearts and not berate them for not being 100%. Many of today’s staunchest pro-lifers began as “pro-choice” and gradually made the journey to the truth.
Where Mr. Bouie and I have differences, let the voters decide which set of values and principles they support. I do not believe that our differences on the issue of Life are substantial enough to warrant such a tug-of-war, and I would encourage those participating in the debate to welcome Mr. Bouie as a pro-lifer and move on to our other, far more meaningful differences
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Carl receives the AZRTL-PAC endorsement
Thank You Arizona Right to Life-PAC for your endorsement. It is a true honor to have it. I believe that protecting life at all stages is critical for our State and Country's future. - Carl
Carl endorsed by the NRA
I just wanted to say thank you to the members of the NRA-ila for their endorsement. It is a great honor to have it. - Carl
Monday, July 21, 2008
Monday, July 14, 2008
The debate went Great!
On July 8th, the Clean Elections debate were held at the Hilton Inn Suite off Pinnacle Peak rd. Carl Seel and Sam Crump attended and answer both the Moderators and audience questions. Mr. Bouie was scheduled to attend then didn't show up.
Click here to view the debate.
Click here to view the debate.
Carl puts up signs
They're Back...
The sign you all know and love. (And see from the Moon). Please let us know if you know of any that need repair or go missing.
Carl Seel gets funding through Clean Election
Over the past few weeks we've been working hard to meet voter and answer questions. During that time we've also qualified for the Clean Elections Fund. Through the Clean Elections Fund, Carl can get funding for his campaign and not be beholden to any special interest groups or lobbyist. He's only loyal to you the voters of District 6.
Remember even our Republican Presidential Nominee was going to use public funding for the Presidential campaign if the Democratic Nominee did.
Remember even our Republican Presidential Nominee was going to use public funding for the Presidential campaign if the Democratic Nominee did.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
More on the budget
Here's a great article about the current budget. This was on the American for Prosperity blog. Please visit their blog here.
Only Logical Option to
Budget Mess: Cut Spending
By Russell Pearce
East Valley Tribune,
Saturday, May 31
Arizona has the largest budget deficit in the country, and the growing gap between state tax revenues and projected spending will soon force the state government into a gigantic fiscal train wreck.
For fiscal year 2009 which begins on July 1, Gov. Janet Napolitano and cohorts in the Legislature want to spend $11.4 billion. The amount of tax revenue available to spend is $9.4 billion. That leaves a gap of $2 billion.
The governor has proposed a variety of approaches to the deficit, including a $500 million increase in unconstitutional debt, a $90 million increase in traffic-camera fines, and a $60 million shift in prison burdens to Arizona counties.
Combined with a $300 million rollover for K-12 education and a $200 million payment from the “rainy day fund,” her approaches would reduce the deficit by roughly $1.2 billion — still nearly a billion dollars short of closing the gap. In the real world, there are only three possible solutions to the deficit:
• Raise taxes.
This is the worst option. Arizona families and businesses already labor under heavy tax burdens, and a recession is a bad time to make those burdens worse. Even so, the governor has already proposed increasing state property taxes by $250 million in the 2010 budget, and is heading up an effort with the TIME coalition to increase state sales taxes by nearly 18 percent.
• Increase (unconstitutional) debt.
This is another bad option. Increasing debt usually means increasing future taxes. Further, the debt service payments required for the governor’s proposed debt schemes would soon be more than $200 million a year — meaning that the fiscal holes in 2010 and beyond would be that much deeper. To climb out of those holes, Arizona would have to see spectacular economic growth, with revenue growth of more than 15 percent per year for three years in a row.
• Reduce spending.
According to the governor’s budget office, state government spending now consumes 7.01 percent of the state’s economy — more than it has at any time since 1980. Our proposal is to reducing spending to more reasonable levels.
We have identified more than $1.5 billion in reductions to state agencies. Combined with the K-12 rollover and a payment from the “rainy day fund,” those reductions would balance the budget without increasing debt or taxes.
Although it sounds like a lot, $1.5 billion in operating budget reductions to the governor’s requests would take us back to the overall spending levels we had in fiscal year 2007 — not exactly the end of the world. Government spending as a portion of the state economy would still be larger than it was in fiscal year 2003, before the governor and Legislature went on a five-year spending binge.
Further, many of the agency reductions we propose could be avoided if a majority in the Legislature would refer to the November ballot a measure (HCR2044) by which the voters could give the Legislature emergency discretion to temporarily suspend voter-protected spending mandates. As it is, much of the state budget is on autopilot, with automatic spending increases of more than $500 million a year.
Sadly, there may not be enough fiscal conservatives in the Legislature to get $1.8 billion in spending reductions to the governor’s desk, or to refer HCR2044 to the ballot. That means large increases in unconstitutional debt. And, if the fiscal train really goes off the tracks, it could mean large tax increases and heavy long-term damage to our economy.
As Americans for Prosperity (www.aztaxpayers.org) has explained, the only good card fiscal conservatives hold in this year’s fiscal-policy poker game is the wild card of grass-roots taxpayer activism. With strong grass roots pressure on liberal legislators from both parties, the Legislature would be able to bargain harder with the governor for spending reductions and to refer HCR2044 to the ballot.
To avoid future fiscal train wrecks, voters must enact a firm constitutional spending limit that will keep the government from growing faster than the economy. As the current train wreck shows, the governor and the liberal majority in the Legislature simply do not have the will to restrain themselves when it comes to spending our tax dollars. If we had passed my Taxpayers Bill of Rights, holding spending to no more than inflation plus population growth, we would have a surplus right now.
Rep. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, is the appropriations chairman of the Arizona House of Representatives
Budget Mess: Cut Spending
By Russell Pearce
East Valley Tribune,
Saturday, May 31
Arizona has the largest budget deficit in the country, and the growing gap between state tax revenues and projected spending will soon force the state government into a gigantic fiscal train wreck.
For fiscal year 2009 which begins on July 1, Gov. Janet Napolitano and cohorts in the Legislature want to spend $11.4 billion. The amount of tax revenue available to spend is $9.4 billion. That leaves a gap of $2 billion.
The governor has proposed a variety of approaches to the deficit, including a $500 million increase in unconstitutional debt, a $90 million increase in traffic-camera fines, and a $60 million shift in prison burdens to Arizona counties.
Combined with a $300 million rollover for K-12 education and a $200 million payment from the “rainy day fund,” her approaches would reduce the deficit by roughly $1.2 billion — still nearly a billion dollars short of closing the gap. In the real world, there are only three possible solutions to the deficit:
• Raise taxes.
This is the worst option. Arizona families and businesses already labor under heavy tax burdens, and a recession is a bad time to make those burdens worse. Even so, the governor has already proposed increasing state property taxes by $250 million in the 2010 budget, and is heading up an effort with the TIME coalition to increase state sales taxes by nearly 18 percent.
• Increase (unconstitutional) debt.
This is another bad option. Increasing debt usually means increasing future taxes. Further, the debt service payments required for the governor’s proposed debt schemes would soon be more than $200 million a year — meaning that the fiscal holes in 2010 and beyond would be that much deeper. To climb out of those holes, Arizona would have to see spectacular economic growth, with revenue growth of more than 15 percent per year for three years in a row.
• Reduce spending.
According to the governor’s budget office, state government spending now consumes 7.01 percent of the state’s economy — more than it has at any time since 1980. Our proposal is to reducing spending to more reasonable levels.
We have identified more than $1.5 billion in reductions to state agencies. Combined with the K-12 rollover and a payment from the “rainy day fund,” those reductions would balance the budget without increasing debt or taxes.
Although it sounds like a lot, $1.5 billion in operating budget reductions to the governor’s requests would take us back to the overall spending levels we had in fiscal year 2007 — not exactly the end of the world. Government spending as a portion of the state economy would still be larger than it was in fiscal year 2003, before the governor and Legislature went on a five-year spending binge.
Further, many of the agency reductions we propose could be avoided if a majority in the Legislature would refer to the November ballot a measure (HCR2044) by which the voters could give the Legislature emergency discretion to temporarily suspend voter-protected spending mandates. As it is, much of the state budget is on autopilot, with automatic spending increases of more than $500 million a year.
Sadly, there may not be enough fiscal conservatives in the Legislature to get $1.8 billion in spending reductions to the governor’s desk, or to refer HCR2044 to the ballot. That means large increases in unconstitutional debt. And, if the fiscal train really goes off the tracks, it could mean large tax increases and heavy long-term damage to our economy.
As Americans for Prosperity (www.aztaxpayers.org) has explained, the only good card fiscal conservatives hold in this year’s fiscal-policy poker game is the wild card of grass-roots taxpayer activism. With strong grass roots pressure on liberal legislators from both parties, the Legislature would be able to bargain harder with the governor for spending reductions and to refer HCR2044 to the ballot.
To avoid future fiscal train wrecks, voters must enact a firm constitutional spending limit that will keep the government from growing faster than the economy. As the current train wreck shows, the governor and the liberal majority in the Legislature simply do not have the will to restrain themselves when it comes to spending our tax dollars. If we had passed my Taxpayers Bill of Rights, holding spending to no more than inflation plus population growth, we would have a surplus right now.
Rep. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, is the appropriations chairman of the Arizona House of Representatives
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Carl Seel Files Signatures!
We are proud to announce that Carl Seel has filed his nomination petitions with the Secretary of State. Carl filed 910 which more than doubles the required number. We want to thank everyone who helped with gathering.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Carl Seel agrees with Rep. Sam Crump
I was doing my evening surfing and ran across this video. I completely agree with Representative Sam Crump. We do need to put ourselves on a "Spending Diet". We also need to balance the budget without accounting gimmicks.
Russell Pearce Supports Carl Seel
I am happy and honored to have the support of such a true conservative. As your next Representative, I promise to be a voice of fiscal restraint and smaller government.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Shadegg Calls For Earmark Reform
In a story form azcentral.com Shadegg points the finger at earmarks as the reason why Republicans are on a losing streak.
We have slipped too far in terms of spending and not cleaning up our act and policing our own ranks," Shadegg said.
He became so discouraged by the degradation of the conservative brand that in February he announced his intention to give up his seat representing a district that encompasses north Phoenix, Paradise Valley, Cave Creek, Carefree and Anthem.
A week later, at the urging of 145 House GOP colleagues who wrote a letter praising his capacity to "inspire, embolden and lead," he reversed that decision. Now, he is busy raising money for what figures to be his first tough re-election contest, against attorney Bob Lord, a Democrat.
Earmarks are expected to be a hot topic in that race.
I support Congressman Shadegg's view on earmarks and government spending. I commend Congressman Shadegg for his service and fully support him in his re-election.
I urge you to visit Congressman Shadegg's website and donate to his campaign.
We can not afford to lose Congressman Shadegg.
We have slipped too far in terms of spending and not cleaning up our act and policing our own ranks," Shadegg said.
He became so discouraged by the degradation of the conservative brand that in February he announced his intention to give up his seat representing a district that encompasses north Phoenix, Paradise Valley, Cave Creek, Carefree and Anthem.
A week later, at the urging of 145 House GOP colleagues who wrote a letter praising his capacity to "inspire, embolden and lead," he reversed that decision. Now, he is busy raising money for what figures to be his first tough re-election contest, against attorney Bob Lord, a Democrat.
Earmarks are expected to be a hot topic in that race.
I support Congressman Shadegg's view on earmarks and government spending. I commend Congressman Shadegg for his service and fully support him in his re-election.
I urge you to visit Congressman Shadegg's website and donate to his campaign.
We can not afford to lose Congressman Shadegg.
News From Center for Arizona Policy
On Wednesday, Planned Parenthood convinced the Board of Nursing to declare that surgical abortions are within the scope of practice for the state's 2,600 nurse practitioners. Not content with killing over 10,500 babies per year in Arizona, the abortion industry is undertaking a concerted effort to expand abortion in our state with no regard for the health and safety of women.
With the Board's ruling, Arizona becomes the first state in the country with a published ruling that surgical abortion is within the scope of practice for nurse practitioners. Planned Parenthood testified to the Board that many abortion doctors are retiring and many younger doctors are refusing to perform abortions, so they are seeking to expand the pool of abortion providers.
Here's how these outrageous events have developed over the last few months:
Complaint to Board of Nursing
In November 2007, the Board of Nursing reviewed a complaint involving a nurse practitioner named Mary Andrews who has been performing first and second trimester surgical abortions at Planned Parenthood in Tucson for at least eight years. The Board could not reach a conclusion as to whether surgical abortion was within the nurse practitioner's scope of practice, so they decided to wait and consider the case again at the next meeting. However, in the meantime, they allowed Mary Andrews to continue performing abortions!
Legislation Filed, Passed House
State law allows only licensed physicians to perform abortions, but when members of the Legislature learned of the Board's inaction in the Mary Andrews case, Rep. Bob Stump sponsored legislation that specifically prohibits nurses from performing surgical abortions. HB 2269 passed the House by a vote of 32-28 in March and is waiting for approval from the full Senate.
Board Decides Surgical Abortions Okay for Nurse Practitioners
On May 6, the Advanced Practice Advisory Committee of the Board of Nursing recommended to the full Board that first trimester surgical abortions are within the nurse practitioner scope of practice. On Wednesday evening, the Board voted 6-1 to adopt that recommendation, stating that there is no difference between a doctor and a nurse practitioner handling complications from an abortion.
The members reasoned that nurse practitioners have the motor skills to perform biopsies, sutures, and toenail removals, so there should be no restriction on them performing surgical abortions. As one member stated, "Our ability defines the authority for what we can do, not the other way around."
The Committee also dismissed the seriousness of complications from abortions, even though a Planned Parenthood doctor from Tucson admitted that complications like a perforated uterus are underreported. The doctor went on to say that a perforated uterus is not a big deal, but she failed to acknowledge that an Arizona woman died in the late 1990s from excessive bleeding from a perforated uterus caused by an abortion.
Board Dismisses All Charges
After the decision on scope of practice, the Board set a dangerous precedent by unanimously dismissing all charges against Mary Andrews. The Board members said it was unfair to discipline her since the Board had not decided the issue when she first started performing abortions.
Note From Carl:
This a sad day for Arizona. Arizona SHOULD NOT be proud of this first. As your Representative I will fight for the innocent. Please visit the Center for Arizona Policy's website at www.azpolicy.org and sign up for their newsletter.
With the Board's ruling, Arizona becomes the first state in the country with a published ruling that surgical abortion is within the scope of practice for nurse practitioners. Planned Parenthood testified to the Board that many abortion doctors are retiring and many younger doctors are refusing to perform abortions, so they are seeking to expand the pool of abortion providers.
Here's how these outrageous events have developed over the last few months:
Complaint to Board of Nursing
In November 2007, the Board of Nursing reviewed a complaint involving a nurse practitioner named Mary Andrews who has been performing first and second trimester surgical abortions at Planned Parenthood in Tucson for at least eight years. The Board could not reach a conclusion as to whether surgical abortion was within the nurse practitioner's scope of practice, so they decided to wait and consider the case again at the next meeting. However, in the meantime, they allowed Mary Andrews to continue performing abortions!
Legislation Filed, Passed House
State law allows only licensed physicians to perform abortions, but when members of the Legislature learned of the Board's inaction in the Mary Andrews case, Rep. Bob Stump sponsored legislation that specifically prohibits nurses from performing surgical abortions. HB 2269 passed the House by a vote of 32-28 in March and is waiting for approval from the full Senate.
Board Decides Surgical Abortions Okay for Nurse Practitioners
On May 6, the Advanced Practice Advisory Committee of the Board of Nursing recommended to the full Board that first trimester surgical abortions are within the nurse practitioner scope of practice. On Wednesday evening, the Board voted 6-1 to adopt that recommendation, stating that there is no difference between a doctor and a nurse practitioner handling complications from an abortion.
The members reasoned that nurse practitioners have the motor skills to perform biopsies, sutures, and toenail removals, so there should be no restriction on them performing surgical abortions. As one member stated, "Our ability defines the authority for what we can do, not the other way around."
The Committee also dismissed the seriousness of complications from abortions, even though a Planned Parenthood doctor from Tucson admitted that complications like a perforated uterus are underreported. The doctor went on to say that a perforated uterus is not a big deal, but she failed to acknowledge that an Arizona woman died in the late 1990s from excessive bleeding from a perforated uterus caused by an abortion.
Board Dismisses All Charges
After the decision on scope of practice, the Board set a dangerous precedent by unanimously dismissing all charges against Mary Andrews. The Board members said it was unfair to discipline her since the Board had not decided the issue when she first started performing abortions.
Note From Carl:
This a sad day for Arizona. Arizona SHOULD NOT be proud of this first. As your Representative I will fight for the innocent. Please visit the Center for Arizona Policy's website at www.azpolicy.org and sign up for their newsletter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)