Arizona State of the State Address

I heard a little bit of Janet Napolitano’s State of the State address on the radio.  I missed most of it, but will look for a transcript and update the post later.

What grabbed my attention was her 4 part plan to address illegal immigration.  She says she will propose $100 million to fund these initiatives:

• Address criminal activity by illegal immigrants and criminal syndicates
• Strengthen border security and increase DPS funding.  She has asked Secretary Rumsfeld to invoke some statute that would allow for federal funding for National Guard troops to be stationed at the border.
• She wants us to “get real” about the root cause of illegal immigration.  She referred to an executive order issued last year on the subject of prohibiting state business with employers that hire illegal immigrants.  (Not sure how this is enforced)  She is proposing “substantial” fines and penalties for all employers that hire illegals.
• My phone rang during point #4, but it had something to do with encouraging immigration reform at the federal level.

At first blush, these seem like fairly conservative ideas.  My only other reaction so far is, it sure beats the defeatism of the 51 foot ladder:

 ”You show me a 50-foot wall and I’ll show you a 51-foot ladder at the border. That’s the way the border works,” Napolitano told the Associated Press.

Will have to get the transcript later.  AZCentral.com already has a brief recap here.

 

Border Fence

Good old-fashioned ingenuity in Iraq solving real problems:

SINIYAH, Iraq (AP) – Villagers watched from rooftops as U.S. military bulldozers heaved a wall of sand into snaking lines around their homes Saturday in an attempt to trap insurgents believed to be hiding among them.

The drastic tactic in Siniyah came after weeks of increasingly bold insurgent attacks, including almost daily roadside bombs targeting 101st Airborne Division soldiers patrolling the village, 250 kilometres north of Baghdad.

“This is not in any of the courses they teach in the army,” said Maj. Shawn Daniel, who oversees operations for the 3rd Brigade’s 33rd Cavalry Regiment. “But if bad people are coming to Siniyah to attack coalition forces, let’s catch them at the gate.”

Spanning 10 kilometres and broken by watchtowers to be manned by Iraqi security forces, the three-metre tall crude barrier is the army’s latest tool to rout out insurgents.

Construction was expected to last several days. (emphasis mine)  Once complete, all vehicles leaving or entering the village will be stopped as soldiers look for known insurgents, bomb-making materials and illegal weapons.

So, the army can erect a crude barrier in a matter of days to keep terrorists out of an Iraqi town, using nothing but what they already have on hand in Iraq.  The estimates for a fence on the southern US border with Mexico run $1.5 to $2 million PER MILE:

WASHINGTON – The House voted last night to build nearly 700 miles of fence along the U.S.-Mexico border as it began the first major floor debate in years on enforcing immigration laws.
    
    The vote, 260-159, came on an amendment to a border-security and employer-verification bill that is scheduled for a final vote today.

Mr. Hunter’s plan calls for 698 miles of fence at five locations along the 1,940-mile border. The barrier would be modeled from the San Diego fence, a two-layered reinforced fence with roads, surveillance cameras and sensors. Cost estimates run from $1.5 million to $2 million per mile.

So, some quick math leads me to believe it would cost $1 billion to $1.4 billion for just the 698 miles proposed in the bill on December 15th.  To cover the whole border with Mexico, it would cost between $2.9 and $3.9 billion.

If the military can use their initiative to solve a problem like this in short period of time with just the tools they have available, why can’t the Congress and the Dept of Homeland Security do the same thing at home?

The answer:  the political will to do it.

Tom Delay Out as Majority Leader

So, I saw this as breaking news on Fox as I left the house this morning and haven’t had much time to research the story.  One nugget I heard yesterday had to do with this, but I didn’t find the details until just now:

WASHINGTON – Arizona’s Rep. Jeff Flake on Friday was among Republican lawmakers leading efforts to permanently replace Rep. Tom DeLay as majority leader amid the growing corruption scandal tied to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Flake and Rep. Charles Bass, R-N.H., began circulating a petition to House colleagues calling for a special election when the House returns to Washington later this month to pick “permanent representatives for any vacant leadership position.”

“Congressman Flake is not pleased with the current direction of the Republican Party and he feels that a leadership election would spur some competing visions for reform,” Flake spokesman Matthew Specht said. “He believes that the party needs a course correction and that starts with an election for a permanent majority leader.”

Now, Representative Flake is my congressman.  I generally agree with most of what he stands for, although I frequently find myself wondering about his effectiveness in Congress.  He seems to be against things more than he is for things, which in a weird sort of way, reminds me of the democrats.  He is very conservative (which I like), especially on spending (which I really like), but he has a reputation for being hard to work with in Congress so I wonder how well he is representing my district.  Those 320-10 votes – he’s usually one of the 10, voting against a bill on principle because of a spending issue.  I LOVE the principle, but I think he goes about it the wrong way.

Which brings me back to circulating petitions to oust the majority leader.  Tom Delay has been, on balance, a good majority leader for the party.  He’s brought a hell of a lot of bad publicity, and the target on his back is largely of his own doing.  I love the fact that he smiled in his booking photo after being arrested to deny the MSM the opportunity to photoshop his picture for the next weekly news magazine, a la OJ Simpson.  But that kind of thing sends the lefty fringe over the edge, and that brings more attention.  Bottom line, Delay pushed the edge and surrounded himself with unethical people, but I doubt he broke any laws.  If he did he deserves whatever punishment he gets, but my sense is this whole sordid affair (regarding Delay’s involvement, not Abramoff) has been largely manufactured by the Dems and their MSM lackeys.

So, Delay showed bad judgment in getting caught in the appearance of impropriety.  Just the appearance, given the current political climate, should be enough to make him take one for the team and resign.  What he didn’t need to do is resign under pressure, with a knife in his back from my congressman.

Now that he has decided to resign, who will take his place?  Most media reports I’ve seen agree that current majority whip and acting leader Roy Blunt (MO) is the frontrunner, and John Boehner (OH) confirmed as challenging him. 

Yawn.

There’s something to be said for having someone in the leadership that has zero name recogntion.  Speaker Dennis Hastert hasn’t been villainized by the opposition because no one knows who he is, and he doesn’t do anything controversial (that I’ve heard of).  That’s one approach.

Another approach would be to go with one of the dark horse candidates, specifically Mike Pence of Indiana.  Representative Pence is known as the fiscal conservative who dared to suggest that Hurricane Katrina relief be paid for by offsetting cuts in earmarked appropriations (i.e. PORK) in other districts.  I could find the links on Instapundit, but this post is so long already I think I need to stop.

So what was the point of all this rambling?

• Tom Delay out – not a bad outcome
• Jeff Flake – love the positions, hate the methods
• Mike Pence – more interesting than the favored candidates

Brevity is the soul of wit, and I shall endeavor to remember that for the next post.