Narrow Search

  • Show Only

  • Category

  • Narrow by Date

Comment Archives: stories: News & Opinion: The Skinny: Last 30 Days

Re: “Skinny

• HB 2071 would allow candidates for public office to request that their home addresses would not be considered a public record.

If politicians are exempt, all citizens should be exempt as well. We were supposed to all be the same, under the law.

8 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by David W on 01/22/2015 at 1:20 PM

Re: “Skinny

Funny, McSally reminds me of another politician that made promises to get elected, got elected, then carried them out. Ticked a lot of people off. Turns out the other pol was a hero. Reagan.

1 like, 7 dislikes
Posted by frank McLaury on 01/22/2015 at 11:27 AM

Re: “The Skinny

The ACA no matter how you tweek it is a loser. Obama will veto everything because that is his baby.

I have to agree that Ducey is stupid to make blanket absolute proclamations. Mr. Governor you have disappointed me already. You are painting your self in a box just like Obama did.

5 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by Harlan Thomas on 01/16/2015 at 11:29 AM

Re: “The Skinny

What's interesting about the lack of detail both in Ducey's campaign rhetoric and in his State of the State address? He was State Treasurer for four years! If four years did not give him the necessary insight into the budget and state operations, what will? Mr. Business either can't read a spreadsheet or doesn't want to.

6 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by BuffCrone on 01/15/2015 at 10:47 AM

Re: “The Skinny

Our new Governor comes to town and pledges "no new taxes", tax giveaways on schedule and we have a BILLION Dollar DEFICIT facing us. The old song and dance, taxes aren't the problem, spending is the problem. Governor Ducey promises not to raise taxes, he gives us the snake oil salesman's pitch, we need to "demand more fiscal responsibility from government".

I guess what he is saying is, the last ten or more years of right-wing Republican leadership in Phoenix with all the spending cuts has put us in a desperately bad fiscal position and the answer is more of the same.

When Governor Ducey talks about his BILLION Dollar DEFICIT, he is talking about the money that should have been spent over the years but was transferred to the folks that funded electing Republicans and could afford high-paid lobbyist to obtain special fixes for their clients. Nothing criminal about that except the smoke-screen of social issues, guns, personal and property rights covering up what is really going on in the budgeting process is the problem.

Governor Ducey blames empty classrooms and puts out that crap about school choice as the blame for our well documented underfunded, under performing state educational system.

All he needs to do is look at the slow destruction of local school districts by willful underfunding and the rulings of the Courts in declaring illegal withholding Arizona's Citizen's mandated revenue for public schools are the cause of part of the fiscal problem facing the state.

Given the record of the Phoenix power-brokers and Legislative leaders, his pledge to provide the details on his plans "are still be sorted out" , falls far short of anything like an honest answer. The truth is more of the same, while Governor Ducey is on his way back to the Capitol to hide and pretend he is focusing on growing the economy. He really continues playing games to fool the people of Arizona, in reality he has no answers. Freeze hiring, his big solution?

11 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by hakeson on 01/15/2015 at 6:27 AM

Re: “The Skinny

Scrooge McDucey is Fife Symington version 2.0. His speech featured NO new approach. Just a warmed over version of Project Slim.

8 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by Steve M on 01/15/2015 at 3:50 AM

Re: “The Skinny

So you still believe LBJ ended poverty by spending our way it?

4 likes, 9 dislikes
Posted by Rat T on 01/08/2015 at 9:17 PM

Re: “The Skinny

Nope just working on the velocity of money with out misunderstood supply side econ.

6 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by moyla75 on 01/08/2015 at 5:41 PM

Re: “The Skinny

greed, wealthy people feeling entitled, job off-shoring, wealth accumulation and the shrinking of the middle class into poverty?

10 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by Not a Rancho Snob on 01/08/2015 at 4:56 PM

Re: “The Skinny

Still working the old Cloward Piven theory, huh boys and girls?

Still don't remember what tax cuts created do you?

6 likes, 12 dislikes
Posted by Rat T on 01/08/2015 at 3:19 PM

Re: “The Skinny

"Rat T is a bit of a simpleton..."

A bit?

That is the understatement of the year and we are only 8 days in.

13 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by AZ/DC on 01/08/2015 at 2:04 PM

Re: “The Skinny

Rat T is a bit of a simpleton; based on his prior comments we all knew that though. Economics (job creation) has nothing to do with rich or poor. Demand creates jobs which encourages supply. Liquidity (aka cheap money) helps bolster business far better than tax cuts for the rich. We have the loosest money in my lifetime so on that aspect we're fine. If we cut the tax rates of the rich to 0 it would create no jobs........well maybe an extra landscaper or pool man so they could work round the clock. If Rat T wants to create jobs give everyone who spends 100% of their disposable income extra money (the poor) and you know what they will do...........SPEND IT! That my friend is the best job creator there ever was. Oh wait where does that money come from...probably the rich and middle. Who would benefit most from it............the investor class (the rich).

12 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by moyla75 on 01/08/2015 at 11:46 AM

Re: “The Skinny

Welcome to West Kansas.

9 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Tonya Mather on 01/08/2015 at 9:15 AM

Re: “The Skinny

Now here is somebody that understands economics. Tax cuts for the rich create jobs for the poor.

End of problem. But the beginning of hate.

Enter Al Sharpton.

6 likes, 19 dislikes
Posted by Rat T on 01/08/2015 at 8:34 AM

Re: “The Skinny

Y'know, all these budget problems could be solved in one fell swoop, along with the problem of poverty. We've often used taxes to encourage the kind of behavior we want, and discourage the kind of behavior we do not want. So, how about this? We just tax the heck out of poor people, and cut taxes for the rich. That will up the revenue considerably, and at the same time encourage people to be rich. Why, it will basically eliminate the poor - and who can argue about THAT??!?

Uhhh, what?

11 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by W Corvi on 01/08/2015 at 2:31 AM

Re: “The Skinny

What Tucson needs is not more power or more money for its Mayor and Council. What's needed is more transparency regarding the actions of the Mayor and Council, and all its elected officials.... more pressure on elected officials to act in the interest of ALL residents of Tucson, not just those with lots of money and power. But to achieve that, we will have to have elections that are fully publicly funded only..... elections where private spending on campaigns is prohibited.... elections where the local TV news networks are required to provide the public with real debates among all candidates during primetime viewing, and where all candidates are provided the exact same amount of money for ads that address only the issues and voting records of candidates.... not mudslinging about personal issues.

Until we have that, things are not going to get better for Tucson. The only thing that will continue to improve is the growth of short-term profits by the already wealthiest corporations and individuals in and around Tucson.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has completely blocked any city or town or state from being able to pass publicly funded elections, by claiming that a corporations is a person, and therefore has all the rights of a person, including freedom of speech, and that same Supreme Court defined money as speech. So any attempt to regulate or prohibit money buying our elections is against the law!

This means that the only chance Tucson and any other city in our nation has, for improving the lives of average citizens, is passage of an amendment to the US Constitution, which entirely eliminates corporate personhood and the false definition of money as speech, and makes it clear that campaign funding and spending can be regulated and even prohibited by government of the people. So far only one of the amendments proposed will do this.... the Move To Amend amendment.... the "We the People Amendment". for more details and to sign the petition for passage of this amendment go to

5 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by simplee on 01/01/2015 at 10:56 AM

Re: “The Skinny

Dear Jim Nintzel,

Your recent column “All Quiet On the Campaign Front: What if they gave an election and nobody ran?” wishes Tucson had candidates in local political races to debate big ideas. You recap what a laughable hullabaloo the two major parties had in fielding mayoral candidates in 2011.

But you neglected to mention that the Green Party offered their party members the only chance to vote in a contested primary race for Mayor in 2011. And, once a Green winner emerged, she invited her primary opponent to serve as her campaign manager, showing politics doesn’t always have to be divisive and ugly.

The 2011 Green Party mayoral candidate qualified for the City’s matching funds by raising many small individual contributions. The Green Party does not accept corporate donations. At the end of the campaign, unspent money was returned to the City. All the financial records were submitted promptly, and the amount spent per vote gained was a fraction of what it cost the Democrat and Republican campaigns.

The Green Party got international media coverage for conducting the Tucson Mayoral campaign out of a tent amid the Occupy Tucson encampment in the Veinte de Agosto Park. The Tucson Weekly’s cover story on 2011 Mayoral candidates featured Mr. Rothschild and Mr. Grinnell on the front cover, but stuck the Green candidate’s picture in the middle of the magazine. And the TW reporter was 20 minutes late to the scheduled interview appointment.

The Green Party needed to earn 5% of the total ballots cast for the Party to qualify to run candidates in the 2015 Mayoral race. But 2011 Green Party mayoral candidate Mary DeCamp received only 4.94%, so the Green Party does not merit a place on the ballot this year.

Jim, I tried to be a good candidate. I was knowledgeable, earnest, engaged, and showed up for all the debates. I had a sense of humor. I didn’t slander or malign. And I don’t even get an acknowledgment in your column that I stepped up and offered myself as a candidate? Maybe the lack of local candidates has something to do with how the local media generally treat third-party alternatives?

My 2015 wish is that people will exercise the courage of their convictions instead of surrendering to the status quo. There are great ideas, and many of them are afoot here in Tucson. Groups, neighborhoods, faith communities, and all sorts of social networks are forming compassionate bonds and getting good work done. Let us hope that the officials who are elected, despite the paucity of candidates, listen to Tucsonans who have ideas on how to make the Old Pueblo a good home.

Love & Peace,

9 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by Minty Mary on 01/01/2015 at 10:04 AM

Re: “The Skinny

Right, Rat. You are talking about Bush/Cheney/Rumsfield, aren't you?

8 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by Cascabel on 01/01/2015 at 8:35 AM

Re: “The Skinny

This is how they operate. If we don't like their lawlessness, we are supposed to leave.

Sorry, ain't going to happen. Pressure up for 2015. Hold the criminals accountable, with or without the media.

7 likes, 7 dislikes
Posted by Rat T on 12/31/2014 at 6:32 AM

Re: “The Skinny

Um, what is the difference between the "serious" issue of fixing our streets and what the Skinny belittles as attention to potholes? Why is a discussion of budget issues not related to Rio Nuevo? And how is the important issue of selling our parks not related to the sale of El Rio to Grand Canyon University?
What is most amazing is how the Weekly (and the Star) have ignored one of the most important issues regarding El Rio and G.C.U., and that is the city's illegal actions to prevent public disclosure of public documents. You would think that this might be an important issue for the press. I guess you would be wrong if you did!

9 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Bog Mann on 12/31/2014 at 4:49 AM

© 2015 Tucson Weekly | 7225 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 | (520) 797-4384 | Powered by Foundation