Red squirrels can be annoying because they’re so noisy – chattering loudly at anything they don’t like from their perches in the trees. But they can also be greedy, mean and stupid.
I recently visited Michigan and stayed with a friend at his family’s cabin on a lake. At least once a day we enjoyed the beautiful scenery by sitting quietly in Adirondack chairs on the cabin’s lawn. The local chipmunks came up to us to beg for food the first time I sat in one of the chairs, and my friend explained that he often threw handfuls of sunflower seeds to them.
I told him I was a bit confused because there was a small live animal trap near the chairs, and I presumed he was using it to catch troublesome chipmunks. He told me the trap wasn’t for chipmunks, but for red squirrels. They caused a lot of trouble, he said, so he was trying to trap all the local ones. The spaces between the wires on the trap’s cage, he pointed out, were big enough for chipmunks to escape through them, but they were too small for red squirrels to fit through. He said he took the squirrels that he caught several miles away to release them, and they didn’t come back. He added that many of his neighbors on the lake were doing the same thing.
The next day I saw firsthand why he didn’t like the red squirrels. I was sitting in one of the chairs by myself and several chipmunks approached me from different directions. I yelled to my friend about what was happening. He came out from the cabin’s screened patio with a handful of sunflower seeds, threw them onto a nearby bare spot on the ground, and went back inside. The chipmunks immediately ran to the seeds and began stuffing them in their cheek pouches as fast as they could. There were a lot of arguments among the chipmunks about who got the seeds. They chased each other around a lot, while stopping just long enough to pick up another seed or two. One or two of them appeared to be dominant, but all them got at least one chance to grab some seeds.
Then a red squirrel showed up. First, he sat in the tree above the bare spot and yelled at the chipmunks. It was obvious that he was telling them that all of the seeds were his. They ignored him until he ran down the tree and began to chase them. But the way he chased them was different from the way the chipmunks chased each other. He didn’t want to just argue about who got the most seeds, he was trying to hurt the chipmunks. He would charge onto the bare spot and all of the chipmunks would scatter. He’d pick one out and chase it with his teeth bared for a relatively long distance before giving up and returning to the seeds. Then he’d discover the other chipmunks had been busy taking off with more of the seeds while he’d been away, and he’d pick out another chipmunk and chase it while the other chipmunks immediately returned to the bare spot to get more seeds. It seemed the chipmunks knew they could get more seeds if they took turns keeping the red squirrel busy.
In the end, the red squirrel was so busy trying to bully the chipmunks that he got very few seeds.
In 2016 Arizona’s Republican-controlled legislature, in cooperation with Republican Gov. Doug Ducey, passed a state budget bill that gave $3 million to each of two “freedom schools” at the state’s two biggest universities. The so-called freedom schools had previously received startup money from the conservative Charles Koch Foundation.
The Legislature had previously given the U of A’s Center for the Philosophy of Freedom $500,000 a year in 2013, 2014, and 2015. But those appropriations hadn’t attracted much political attention.
But the $6 million appropriation to the freedom schools in 2016 drew widespread criticism for several reasons. First of all, many people suspected it was a political payback for the $8.2 million in outside “dark money, ” much of it from the Kochtopus, which had helped Ducey win the 2014 gubernatorial election.
Also, there was concern the schools would indoctrinate students in the irrational libertarian ideology promoted by the Koch brothers. Dr. William Boyes, for instance, the founding director of ASU’s Center for the Study of Economic Liberty, advocated for the elimination of public schools, and called them the biggest obstacle to greater personal and political liberty. He was also an advocate of the radical Austrian School of economic thought, promoted by the Mises Institute, which calls for the government to be dismembered so the free market can magically solve all problems.
The biggest complaints, however, were about why the Legislature had made funding for the freedom schools a priority when Arizona had cut state university funding more than any other state in response to the Great Recession – and hadn’t restored it. In the 2015 budget bill, for example, they had reduced state university funding by $99 million, and just $32 million of that was restored in 2016 bill, with $6 million of that earmarked for freedom schools.
Gov. Ducey’s spokesperson Daniel Scarpinato defended the earmarks by saying the governor “believes it’s important that students in our university system are exposed to a broad range of viewpoints and academic views on a number of issues, including economics.” State Senate President Andy Biggs, R-Gilbert, said the money was needed to, “teach our young people about the virtues of free enterprise,” and called it “an appropriate use of taxpayer dollars.” And former conservative radio talk show host state Rep. Jay Lawrence, R-Scottsdale, said the money represents “a wonderful opportunity” because, “The universities in Arizona – two of them – have an education and professors who do not adhere to conservative thoughts and rules or the conservative attitude toward government.”
In 2017 the Legislature gave more money to the freedom schools in the state’s FY2018 budget bill. ASU’s School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership got another an additional $3 million, while the U of A’s Center for the Philosophy of Freedom received another $2.5 million. But that wasn’t all. The Legislature also gave each of them another $1 million for “operating expenditures.” This money was included in the appropriations the Legislature awarded each university for capital improvements and operating expenditures. ASU received a total of $7,639,500, and the U of A $4,157,700 for these purposes. The extra $1 million for each freedom school was 13% of ASU’s total, and 24% of the U of A’s.
The Arizona Legislature made similar appropriations in 2018 to the freedom schools in the state’s FY2019 budget bill. It repeated the $3 million for ASU’s School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership, and the $2.5 million for the U of A’s Center for the Philosophy of Freedom. It also gave each of them another $1 million for “operating expenditures.” Again, this money was included in the total appropriations given to each university for capital improvements and operating expenditures. This time the extra $1 million was 24% of the $4,245,000 total that ASU received, and 46% of the $2,164,800 total the U of A received.
The additional money was awarded to the freedom schools despite a report from the Arizona Center for Investigative Reporting that found they still hadn’t spent $9.8 million of the money the Legislature had already given them. State Senate Appropriations Committee Chair John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, defended the extra money for the freedom schools because he believed they provided an ideological balance, as they helped to counter a “left-wing bias” at the universities.
In 2019 the Legislature gave more money to the freedom schools in the state’s FY 2020 budget bill. This time they gave $3,023,800 to ASU’s School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership, and $2,5526,500 to the U of A’s Center for the Philosophy of Freedom. No additional funds, however, were appropriated to the schools for operating expenditures.
In the meantime, critics attacked the two freedom schools for being political propaganda tools of the Koch brothers. A group of Tucson residents, along with some U of A faculty, alumni, and students formed a group called Kochs Off Campus to get the University to sever all ties with the Freedom Center. Prof. Schmidtz denied that Charles Koch had ever influenced or interfered with the Center for the Philosophy of Freedom’s operations.
It appears that ASU responded to the criticism by giving its School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership a makeover. Dr. Boyes is no longer the director of the Center for the Study of Economic Liberty. And Paul Carrese, the founding director of the parent School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership, has challenged critics to reconsider their preconceived notions about the school. In April 2019 the school announced it had created a diverse advisory council called the National Board of Counselors, co-chaired by Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, the former Democratic lieutenant governor of Maryland, and Jon Kyl, former Republican U.S. senator from Arizona.
But whatever the freedom schools might eventually accomplish, the Legislature’s inclination to mandate curricula at Arizona’s universities, and spend lots of scarce tax dollars to do it, is disturbing. This is particularly so because at the same time the Legislature was appropriating millions to the freedom schools, while simultaneously failing to restore university funding, Republican Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich sued the Arizona Board of Regents for significantly increasing tuition and thereby failing to make college education as “as nearly free as possible, ” as required by the state’s constitution. (On April 26, 2018, the The Maricopa County Superior Court dismissed Brnovich’s lawsuit, saying he lacked the standing to sue the state’s universities over their tuition rates.)
During the March 2017 opening of the School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership, Gov. Ducey and conservative political commentator George Will spoke about how the preservation of the 1st Amendment’s guarantee of free speech, especially on campus, was one of the school’s primary missions. But it seems that Arizona Republicans are only concerned about preserving the free speech rights of conservatives. The Legislature, for example, has prohibited the state’s universities from spending money on student newspapers, lawsuits by law students to help inmates in state prisons, and medical marijuana research. These restrictions were imposed by hiding them in the fine print of annual budget bills.
And in 2010 the Legislature passed, and Republican Governor Jan Brewer signed, HB 2281, sponsored by state Rep. Steve Montenegro, R-Litchield Park, to stop Mexican-American studies classes from being included in the curricula of Tucson’s public schools. Republican John Huppenthal, Arizona’s school superintendent at the time, supported the bill because he claimed the classes taught Mexican-American students to resent Anglos. In 2017, however, a federal judge found that the law violated the U.S. Constitution.
The Republican-controlled Legislature attacked free speech rights again in 2016 when it passed HB 2617, sponsored by state House Speaker David Gowan, R-Sierra Vista, and signed by Gov. Ducey, to prevent state agencies from contracting with businesses that boycott Israeli because of Israel’s controversial treatment of Palestinians. In 2018 a federal judge struck down the law because it violated the free speech rights of businesses. That didn’t deter the Legislature, however, because in 2019 state Sen. Paul Boyer, R-Glendale, reintroduced the bill with slightly different language, and it was passed and signed again.
Thousands of Arizona’s motor vehicle owners have purchased a specialty license plate believing a portion of the extra fee they paid for it would go to a good cause. But some specialty plate owners would be surprised to learn where their money really went.
Earlier this year, for example, state Sen. Juan Mendez, D-Tempe, introduced SB 1463 to repeal the creation of the “In God We Trust” specialty plate after an inquiry prompted by the Secular Coalition for Arizona prompted the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) to reveal that the fundamentalist Christian non-profit group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) received the donations generated from their sales. This revelation upset many people because in 2017 the Southern Poverty Law Center declared the ADF to be an anti-LGBT hate group since it supports the recriminalization of homosexuality and promotes a “religious liberty” agenda that justifies discrimination against LGBT people. (In 2017 the ADF disrupted a Tempe Union High School District public meeting about sex education, and they are representing two Phoenix conservative Christian wedding invitation designers in their legal battle against a 2013 city ordinance that bans businesses from discriminating against LGBT customers.)
Arizona has more than 60 specialty plates, but ADOT doesn’t decide what plates are available. The plates are created by the Arizona Legislature after a non-profit organization succeeds in convincing enough legislators to pass a bill to authorize a new specialty plate for their cause. Then the non-profit must pay a $32,000 fee for the production and implementation of the new plate before they can start to collect their $17 share of the plate’s $25 fee.
Usually, the nonprofit organization that receives the money from the plate sales is identified in the law the Legislature passes to create the plate. But that didn’t happen when the Legislature passed HB 2046 in 2008 to create the “In God We Trust” plates. Rep. Ron Gould, R-Lake Havasu City, succeeded in getting the bill amended to include the creation of the plates without identifying the non-profit group that would receive the resultant donations, or describing their purpose. This legal ambiguity delayed the issuance of the plates until after 2011, when SB 1402, sponsored by Sen. Don Shooter, R-Yuma, was passed. This bill still didn’t identify the group that would receive the donations from the plates, but said the purpose of the plates was, “to promote the national motto ‘In God We Trust,’ First Amendment rights and the heritage of this state and nation.”
This was the purpose ADOT described for potential purchasers of the plates. But ADOT didn’t include the fact the ADF was the group receiving the donations from their sales until after the controversy generated by the introduction of Sen. Mendez’ bill – which never received a hearing in the Republican-controlled 2019 Arizona Legislature.
The History Of Arizona’s “Environmental” Specialty Plate
Arizona’s “Environmental” specialty plate is another one that generates donations for a purpose that’s different from what many people think it is. These plates were created in 1990 as part of HB 2675, sponsored by Rep. Karan English, D-Flagstaff, and signed by Democratic Gov. Rose Mofford, to mandate environmental education in Arizona’s public schools. It required the Arizona Department of Education to assist local school districts with the implementation of environmental curriculums using the funds collected from the sales of the plates. This was followed by the passage of SB 1176 the following year to establish the Arizona Environmental Education Task Force. This diverse 17-member committee was tasked with drafting a “coordinated environmental education program” for the state, and in early 1992 they issued their Comprehensive Plan for Environmental Education. Later that year, Republican Gov. Fife Symington, who had won a runoff election in February 1991, unveiled the winning design for the new “Environmental” plates, expressing enthusiasm for their purpose while attaching one to his state car.
Ultra-conservative Republicans in the Legislature, however, were opposed to the new environmental education program and in 1993 they passed HB 2198, sponsored by state Rep. Lela Steffey, R-Mesa, which removed the program’s funding starting in 1996 by ordering that issuance of the “Environmental” specialty plates be stopped at the end of 1995. The passage of this bill prompted the director of the Department of Education, Democratic State Superintendent of Public Instruction C. Diane Bishop, to send a written request to state Senate President John Greene to rescind the termination of the plates during the 1994 legislative session.
In the meantime, Supt. Bishop began setting up the new environmental education program for the state’s public schools. It included teacher training, regional environmental education resource centers, and the opportunity for schools to apply for environmental education grants.
But in the spring of 1994 Republican legislators continued their assault against the environmental education program by passing SB 1122 . This bill, sponsored by Sen. Keith Bee, R-Tucson, rescinded the termination of the “Environmental” specialty plates, but it revised the purpose of the environmental education program. It removed the words, “develop positive attitudes and values toward the environment and encourage civic and social responsibility toward environmental issues,” and replaced them with, “the presentation of various economic and scientific issues.” It also revised the meaning of environmental education to remove the consideration of “resource depletion” and “urban and rural planning.” SB 1122 also established the Arizona Advisory Council on Environmental Education (AACEE). It had nine members appointed by the Governor, with the Governor having the power to designate the chair and vice-chair. But the AACEE, was given few specific responsibilities – just a political advisory role.
But the biggest change implemented by SB 1122 was an amendment pushed by agriculture, ranching, and mining interests that created the Environmental Education Curriculum Review Committee to “revise any environmental education curriculum adopted before the effective date of this act so that the curriculum complies with the provisions of this act.” The committee was required to produce a report by February 1996. These changes delayed the implementation of Supt. Bishop’s environmental education program.
Republican supporters of the bill defended it by claiming that it was needed in order to bring “balance” to environmental education in the state’s schools. Senate Majority Leader Tom Patterson, R-Phoenix, said there was a concern that the state’s environmental education guidelines had an, “Earth-worshipping tone,” and were “really more advocacy than education.” And Rep. Russell “Rusty” Bowers, R-Mesa, said they, “represented theory as fact and encouraged political activism.”
In the fall of 1994 Republican Lisa Graham Keegan won the election for State Superintendent of Public Instruction. When she assumed office in early 1995 she cancelled Bishop’s program and proposed to simply distribute the money from the plate sales, with no strings attached, to the state’s schools on a student population basis. She explained that she was philosophically opposed to the environmental education mandate, and that, “My preference is to take the law off the books.” The chair of the AACEE pointed out that her proposal didn’t comply with the law.
At the same time, the Environmental Education Curriculum Review Committee, chaired by Rep. Bowers, was having meetings. The committee spent most of its time reviewing an alternative set of environmental education guidelines drafted by Michael Sanera, who was an associate professor of political science and public administration at Northern Arizona University. Sanera is probably best know as the author of the 1996 book Facts, Not Fear: Teaching Children about the Environment, which is touted as “a guidebook countering the irresponsible claims of environmental extremists.”
But the committee never produced its report, and Supt. Graham Keegan’s proposal wasn’t implemented, because in early 1995 Republican legislators passed more bills to dismantle the environmental education program. SB 1348, sponsored by state Sen. John Huppenthal, R-Chandler, made environmental education optional in Arizona’s schools. And HB 2274, sponsored by Rep. Bowers, completely revised the program. The bill transferred all monies collected from the sales of “Environmental” specialty plates to the Arizona State Land Department. It instructed the Department to encourage each of the state’s approximately 30 local Natural Resource Conservation Districts (NRCDs) to establish an education center, so they could then apply to the Department for environmental education grants. Critics pointed out that NRCDs, which are administered by the Land Department, were set up to serve the economic interests of local private landowners, especially ranchers. The Hereford NRCD in southeastern Arizona, for example, supported the Bureau of Land Management’s 2018 proposal to increase cattle grazing on the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area by about 375%. Rep. Bowers defended the change by claiming that NRCDs would provide a “broader spectrum of educational opportunities.”
HB 2274 allowed the Land Department to direct up to 50% of the money generated from the sales of “Environmental” plates to the NRCDs. The rest of the money was to be administered for the Department by the AACEE. HB 2274 had also revised the membership of the AACEE. It increased its membership to 10, and allowed the Senate President and Speaker of the House to each appoint three members, instead of the Governor appointing all of them. The Governor, however, continued to have the power to designate the chair and vice-chair. The reconfigured AACEE was tasked with awarding environmental education grants to local schools. All of the grants distributed from the Land Department were required to be used for “environmental education programs that are based on current scientific information and include discussions of economic and social implications.”
In 1997, however, Democratic legislators complained that more than $1.3 million collected from the sales of the plates was sitting idle because the AACEE had not awarded any environmental education grants to the state’s schools, while the Land Department had already started distributing money to the NRCDs. Part of the problem, the Democrats claimed, was that the Republican leaders of the Senate and House had dragged their feet appointing AACEE members, and hadn’t provided the advisory committee with paid staff. AACEE members said they would probably begin disbursing the grants by the end of the year.
Arizona’s schools subsequently received environmental education grants from the AACEE until 2002. That year Republican Gov. Jane Hull proposed to terminate the AACEE and end the environmental education grants to local schools. All of the money collected from the sales of “Environmental” plates would be allocated to fund the state’s NRCDs, although some of it would still be allocated for the environmental educations grants distributed by the NRCDs. Hull defended the proposal as a budget balancing strategy to reduce the amount of money allocated to the NRCDs from the state’s general fund. But it drew widespread criticism and Monica Pastor, the AACEE chairwoman, pointed out they had distributed $399,000 in environmental education grants to local schools the previous year which had helped fund 472 student field trips. Hull and the Republican-controlled Legislature subsequently buried the measure in the state’s FY2003 budget bill.
No money from the sales of “Environmental” specialty plates has gone to the schools since then, it’s all been sent to the Land Department, which has forwarded it to the state’s Natural Resource Conservation Districts. The NRCDs are supposed to use some of it for environmental education grants. But that’s not always the case, as the recent annual reports from the Hereford NRCD’s education center, for example, show that little environmental education was done with the money they received.
According to ADOT, sales of the “Environmental” specialty plates generated about $143,000 in FY2016, $145,000 in FY 2017, and $142,000 FY 2018. It’s likely that a lot of the vehicle owners who purchased them weren’t aware the money wasn’t used to help fund environmental education programs in local schools.
Republican senators met at the Library of Congress two weeks before Democrat Barack Obama’s 2009 presidential inauguration to discuss their legislative agenda for the new Congress. According to reporter Michael Grunwald, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-KY, used the meeting to unveil his scorched earth strategy for sabotaging the newly elected president.
In his book, The New New Deal: The Hidden Story of Change in the Obama Era, Grunwald says that McConnell told his fellow Republican senators, “There are enough of us to block the Democratic agenda as long as we all march in lockstep. As long as Republicans refuse to follow Obama’s lead, Americans will see partisan food fights and conclude that Obama has failed to produce change.”
As a result of the 2014 mid-term elections, Sen. McConnell assumed the position of Senate Majority Leader in January 2015, and on February 23, 2016, he announced that Senate Republicans had decided to block President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court to replace Justice Antonin Scalia, who had died unexpectedly on February 13. McConnell explained that Senate Republicans believed the vacancy “should not be filled by this lame duck president.” Their decision was made before Obama named his nominee.
On April 6, 2017, Sen. McConnell succeeded in getting the Senate to approve the “nuclear option” that eliminated the filibuster rule for the approval of Supreme Court nominees. The change allowed nominees to be approved with a simple majority of the Senate rather than the traditional 60 votes. The change allowed Senate Republicans to approve President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Judge Neil Gorsuch to replace the late Justice Scalia the following day.
On September 27, 2018, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee that Pres. Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her when she was a teenager. In response to a request from Senator Jeff Flake, R-AZ, Trump ordered the FBI to conduct a limited investigation into her accusation that would take no longer than a week. On October 3 Sen. McConnell scheduled a vote in the Senate on October 5 regarding Kavanaugh’s nomination – before the results of the FBI investigation were available. The investigation was not released to the public and the the Senate voted to confirm Kavanaugh to replace the retired Justice Anthony Kennedy by a 50-48 vote on October 6, 2018.
On November 27, 2018, Sen. McConnell said he would block a vote on a bill in the Senate to protect special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Pres. Donald Trump.
On January 3, 2019, the newly elected members of the 116th U.S. Congress were sworn in, with Democrats taking control of the House of Representatives as a result of the 2018 mid-term elections. They promptly passed a bill to end the partial government shutdown that Pres. Trump had initiated on December 22, 2018. Sen. McConnell refused to allow a vote on the bill in the Senate, even though there were plenty of votes to pass it, because it didn’t include the $5.7 billion that Pres. Trump wanted to build more Mexican border walls. McConnell explained that, “The Senate will not take up any proposal that does not have a real chance of passing this chamber and getting a presidential signature.” In other words, he chose party over nation because he didn’t want to force Republicans in Congress to vote to override a Trump veto in order to reopen the government.
On February 19, 2019, former acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe revealed that Congressional leaders were briefed when the agency opened a counterintelligence investigation into President Donald Trump’s connections with Russia after Trump fired then-FBI Director James Comey in 2017. The lawmakers included Sen. McConnell and, “No one objected,” McCabe said.
On March 6, 2019, Sen. McConnell said he would not allow a vote on an election security bill.
On March 25, 2019, Sen. McConnell blocked a Senate resolution calling for special counsel Robert Mueller’s report to be released to the public. He explained that Attorney General William Barr was still working with Mueller to determine if there was anything in the report that should not be released to the public. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-NY, pointed out that the resolution didn’t say the report should be released immediately, just that it should be released.
On April 3, 2019, Sen. McConnell implemented another “nuclear option.” He used Senate procedural tactics to allow for the approval of lower-level executive branch nominations, and district court nominations, with a simple 51-vote majority, instead of the traditional 60 vote approval threshold.
On May 7, 2019, Sen. McConnell arbitrarily declared “case closed” on special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Pres. Trump.
On May 28, 2019, Sen. McConnell said Senate Republicans would fill an opening on the Supreme Court if there were a vacancy in 2020 – even though he said in 2016 that no court confirmations should occur during presidential election years.