What if Trump Wins a Second Term?

I try hard to value others’ opinions, especially when they are informed. That’s tougher in the digital age, because we are increasingly entrenched in information silos which don’t always provide us unfiltered truths. Still, I’ve tried to moderate my publicly stated positions on President Trump because I’d rather inform than alienate. At this point though, I feel silence is complicity.

A great article in the Atlantic explains some of the potential dangers of a second Trump presidency. The Pulitzer Prize winning author, Paul Starr, writes that

“the biggest difference between electing Trump in 2016 and re-electing Trump in 2020 would be irreversibility.”

He points to the areas of “climate change, the risk of a renewed global arms race, and control of the Supreme Court ”to make his case. The first two he writes, “will become much harder to address as time goes on.” The third one, “stands to remake our constitutional democracy and undermine capacity for future change.”

One specific example Starr points to, is Trump’s work to hinder the reduction of CO2 emissions. “According to the Global Carbon Project, a worldwide decarbonization effort begun now, would require a 5% per year emissions reduction to keep us below 2 degrees Celsius of warming. If put off another decade, it will take 9%. “In the United States” Starr writes,

“the economic disruption and popular resistance sure to arise from such an abrupt transition may be more than our political system can bear.”

Starr also warns that a Trump re-election will likely result in a “stepped-up” arms race, with countries in the Middle East and Asia pursuing nuclear weapons because they no longer believe they can rely on “American security guarantees”. These aren’t the only regions of concern. When Trump suspended U.S. participation in the INF treat, Putin did the same and promised a “symmetrical response” to new American weapons. In his State of the Union address shortly after, Trump threatened to “outspend and out-innovate all others by far” in weapons development.

A two-term Trump may also, writes Starr, have the opportunity to appoint four Supreme Court justices. Nixon was the last president to have this opportunity, and not since FDR has there been such an opportunity for a president to shift the Court’s ideological balance. At risk are not only “Roe v. Wade, and other decisions expanding rights protecting free speech, and mandating separation of church and state”, but also worker protections such as minimum wage provided by the federal government’s authorization to regulate labor and the economy. All a fully conservative Court need do, is reverse the previous decision from 1937 regarding the Constitution’s commerce clause, to “sharply limit the government’s regulatory powers”. The first casualty of that change might very well be the Affordable Care Act, which was saved in 2012 only by Justice Roberts holding it was a constitutional exercise of taxing power by the government due to the commerce clause.

Starr concludes,

“with a second term, Trump’s presidency would go from an aberration to a turning point in American history”.

Both “the effects of climate change and the risks associated with another nuclear arms race are bound to be convulsive”. And, the country would be dealing with these global threats in an increasingly hostile environment of “deeply alienated from friends abroad and deeply divided at home”. The Supreme Court would also likely be far out of line with public opinion, thereby positioning itself at the center of political conflict.

The key it appears, is for Americans to wake up from the matrix in which they’ve been living, and fully understand the stakes of the 2020 election. Whether we will do that, remains to be seen. As Starr writes, “the master of distraction will be back at it next year” and concludes with

“if we cannot focus on what matters, we may sleepwalk into a truly perilous future.”

I just hope and pray that enough of us wake up before Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell walk our country off the proverbial cliff.

Should seniors skate?

The Legislative session doesn’t start for another week and a half and I’m already tired of the bad ideas being proposed. I previously wrote about HB2002 Rep. Mark Finchem’s (R-Oro Valley) proposal, which would “allow the state to fire teachers who discuss politics, religion, or racial issues in classroom settings.” Yesterday, Newsweek picked up on Phoenix New Times reporting that nine of the points in his bill were “lifted directly from the Stop K–12 Indoctrination campaign, which the David Horowitz Freedom Center sponsors. The Southern Poverty Law Center describes David Horowitz as ‘a driving force of the anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, and anti-black movements.’” Not to be outdone, Rep. Kelly Townsend (R-Mesa) submitted HB2015 which covers the same territory.

Now, we have “a self-proclaimed ‘tax activist’ who wants to excuse anyone 65 or older from paying property tax. Her name is Lynne Weaver and she is working with a former state GOP chairman to permanently ban property taxes on AZ home owners 65 and older.

What a ridiculous idea! As a Capitol Media Services article points out, if the initiative passes, homeowners under 65 would be left to make up the property tax burden the elderly were relieved of. This tax money after all, funds public education, emergency services and other community programs. In a perfect world, we wouldn’t rely on property taxes to fund these programs because it inevitably results in winners and losers. But the funding for these essential services has to come from somewhere and for now, that’s property taxes.

According to the AZ Department of Health Services “2014–2018 Arizona Healthy Aging Plan”, the number of Arizonans aged 65 and older was 14% in 2010. By 2025, the plan states “there will be as many people over 65 as under age 15 living in Arizona. These increases will be accompanied by a decrease in the proportion of working-age Arizonans who help support older adults in numerous ways including paying taxes on wages that help fund Social Security and Medicare.”

So, not only will there not be enough young people to support the older ones, but Weaver’s initiative would have those young people responsible for picking up the bill for elders’ property tax relief as well?

A California transplant, Weaver’s tried to limit property taxes before with efforts based on California’s disastrous Proposition 13, “a 1978 measure rolling back property valuations and capping year-over-year increases.” With this latest effort, she thinks she’ll have more luck targeting only seniors. But, she’ll need to get 356,467 valid signatures by July 2, 2020 for the initiative to make the ballot next year.

Which brings me back to another of Finchem’s proposals. He recently announced he wants to allow initiative organizers to collect signatures online. This caught my attention because although Sandy Bahr of the AZ Sierra Club lauded his proposal, I know (given his denial of climate change), he is not proposing this change to help promote renewable energy, or any other sane issue liberals care about.

What if Finchem wants the on-line initiative signing capability to help Weaver’s initiative qualify for the ballot? And if it qualifies, what’s the chances the voters will approve it? I don’t know the answer to that, but I do know that the 65+ age group are the most reliable voters of them all.

Then again, maybe I’m just getting cynical in my old age. No, I’m not 65 yet, but I do live in an active adult community. And yes, I believe in paying taxes for public education. Retirees (and others) paid for mine after all, and I want to ensure there are plenty of well educated young people to take care of all of our futures. Crazy concept, huh?

I-11? NIMBY

Picture Rocks (a rural, unincorporated community west of Marana) was the place to be this past Tuesday night when representatives from the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) came to a Citizens for Picture Rocks (C4PR) meeting to brief residents about the proposed I-11 highway. I counted about 120 people overflowing the community center and although people were mostly polite, it was obvious feelings run raw on this subject.img_2037.jpg

I-11, is a new north-south Interstate Highway envisioned to someday run from Mexico to Canada. In Arizona, the project is at the Tier 1 Environmental Impact Study (EIS) stage to identify a Selected Corridor Alternative on a 280-mile long corridor between Nogales and Wickenburg. This EIS was authorized by the State Transportation Board in December 2014 and was slated to run for three years at a cost of $15 million to determine the “preferred alternative” route.  i11 map

Jay Van Echo, ADOT project manager for I-11, gave a “15 minute presentation” that must have lasted at least 45 minutes. During that time, he frequently stated that the “facility” (highway) project is in the deliberative, not decision stage. But, at a meeting in May 2016, he acknowledged there are only two serious possibilities: “through the Avra Valley or along the existing I-10.” The latter alternative involved the possibility of double-decking six miles of Ruthrauff and I-19. According to then-ADOT State Engineer Jennifer Toth in 2008, “it would do everything planners want for the next 30 years at one-third the cost. That would save taxpayers nearly $2 billion.” But, according to the article in TucsonLocalMedia.com, ADOT rejected that option due to “cost”.

History like this might be why, despite very diverse political viewpoints, the Picture Rocks community (and many other stakeholders) is united in their opposition to an outcome many believe has been predetermined. That outcome, is a new interstate running through pristine Sonoran desert, and what they want to know is, how to stop it.

Although unified in opposition, they voiced a variety of reasons for it. Most of course, are concerned about losing their homes or having their property values negatively impacted. One resident though, raised concerns about how the proposed highway would obviously help Mexico and Canada, but was not about putting “America First”. Another, wondered how the President’s border wall would affect the project. Yet another raised a concern about a conspiracy between various government entities and with wealthy people who appear to be buying up land in the area. Nothing it appears, is apolitical, or what it seems, these days.

Other questions included concern for how pollution from trucks would be mitigated, whether homeowners would be fully compensated for their property if forced to move, whether there was any benefit for residents of Avra Valley (which abuts the Ironwood National Monument area) and when the final decision of a route would be made. On that last one, I never heard a definitive answer. What I gleaned from the i11study.com website, is that once the EIS analysis is complete this month, the effort will progress to the Final EIS from November 2018 to October 2019 to identify the preferred alternative and then the Record of Decision will identify the selected alternative between October and November 2019.

Van Echo repeated several times that there would be more opportunities for community members to provide comment and ask questions prior to the eventual decision being made. I got the impression though, that those responsible for this decision are not necessarily listening. Both the questions presented on behalf of the C4PR Board and members of the Picture Rocks Transportation Committee, and comments eventually allowed later by those in attendance, led me to that conclusion.

It’s not that people aren’t trying to be heard. The I-11 Joint Stakeholder Community Planning Group (JSCPG) provided a clear position in their I-11 position statement issued on August 3, 2018. Consisting of representatives from the Coalition for Sonoran Desert Protection, (comprised of 34 environmental and community groups and representing 30,000 people) and others in Pima County and beyond, agreed that,

Of the two routes proposed for a future 1-11 highway, the expansion and reconfiguration of the existing I-10 and I-19 corridor is the only acceptable route. A by pass through Avra Valley is not acceptable.

I imagine a NIMBY (not in my backyard) approach to a project such as this is fairly common. After all, an interstate may be good for business, but I can’t imagine anyone wants it running through their neighborhood. In a flyer handed out at the meeting, the JSCPG raised the point that this project could provide significant opportunity to address historic consequences resulting from the construction of I-10, “which physically divided our community and diminished the quality of life of our downtown and other neighborhoods along the highway.” They also encouraged ADOT and FHWA to refer to the I-11 Super Corridor study submitted to ADOT in 2016. This transdisciplinary study  was completed by the University of Arizona, Arizona State University and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. The recommendations they put forward consisted of a comprehensive approach such as “the addition of light and heavy rail, walking, cycling, new technology for controlling traffic, as well as incorporating alternative forms of energy production and transportation.

Albert Lannon, a Picture Rocks resident and member of the Avra Valley Coalition, concludes of the two routes available, double decking I-10 through town, or making the truck route through Avra Valley, the FHWA is leaning toward the latter. But, Lannon isn’t taking that eventuality sitting down. According to the Arizona Daily Independent, in January of this year, he filed a formal complaint with the Board of Supervisors alleging the County Administrator and his staff of ignoring BOS Resolution 2007-343 which expressly “oppose[d] the construction of any new highways in or around the county that have the stated purpose by [sic] bypassing the existing Interstate 10 as it is believed that the environmental, historic, archaeological, and urban form impacts could not be adequately mitigated.” The resolution also discussed Avra Valley as worthy of protection.  His complaint was dismissed.

Unfortunately for the resident stakeholders and groups that want to protect our environment and wildlife, Pima County isn’t the only government entity now on-board with the project. According to PinalCentral.com, the “Pinal County Board of Supervisors passed its own resolution in 2010 in relation to Interstate 11, though this one expressed support for the project and deemed I-11 a ‘transportation priority.”‘ Likewise, both towns of Eloy and Casa Grande have issued statements of support for the project.

Meanwhile, Albert Lannon is not giving up and having watched the dynamics at the C4PR meeting, there are plenty who plan to fight on. Lannon obviously believes the cause is too important, claiming, “the new freeway would hinder existing businesses that cater to truckers driving on I-10 and damage the tourism industry that thrives in the many wildlife parks around Avra Valley.” He says his coalition will continue to hold candidates accountable. In an election year, maybe that matters, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.