I didn’t always appreciate the politics of Arizona while I lived here, and in my time publishing small town newspapers, I used a lot of ink pointing out that too many of our politicians on the local, state, and national level were two IQ points short of swinging from vines and eating bananas. But I’m beginning to like the current thinking in the Grand Canyon State more and more.

I’ve always been a fan of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his no nonsense way of enforcing the law. The good Sheriff doesn’t care if you are black, brown, white, or green, if you break the law in his county, you go to jail. And once you’re in his jail, he makes sure you don’t come away thinking you just had a vacation.

As it turns out, Sheriff Joe isn’t the only elected official in the state who is not suffering from cranial-rectal inversion. State Senator Russell Pearce recently introduced SB1070, which would require Arizona police officers to make a “reasonable attempt” to determine the immigration status of anyone they come into contact with during an investigation, and empowers them to stop and arrest anyone they believe is in this country illegally. The bill also would make the mere presence of an illegal immigrant anywhere in Arizona a violation of state trespass laws.

Among the other points, the bill would prohibit illegal immigrants from soliciting work in public places (parking lots of building supply stores, for example) and make it a crime for illegal immigrants to do any kind of work in Arizona; make it illegal to stop on a street to hire temporary workers; bar state government agencies from having policies that prohibit or punish workers for informing federal officials if someone seeking a permit, license, or government benefits is an illegal immigrant; and calling for the arrest of people for transporting, concealing or harboring anyone who is in this country illegally. The new bill would also toughen penalties for employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants.

Now, you might say that in today’s “enlightened” society, such a bill would never make it, but SB1070 was approved 17-13 by the State Senate Monday, without debate, and will now move to the State House of Representatives for a vote.

Meanwhile, State Representative Frank Antenori has introduced HB 2770, which prohibits welfare recipients in Arizona from owning expensive cars, and consuming or purchasing alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, or illegal drugs. Antenori’s bill would limit the amount of money a welfare recipient could spend on a car to $5,000, and limit him or her to only subscribing to basic cable television, and only having a cell phone if it is the recipient’s only telephone.

Antenori said he is tired of seeing people buy soda and junk food with food stamps that taxpayers are paying for, and then pull out $40 in cash to buy booze and cigarettes. He doesn’t think people on welfare should have such luxuries as HBO and Pay Per View. His bill would also encourage citizens who see welfare recipients buying the restricted items, or who know of those who ignore the law, to turn them in to state officials.

I don’t know about you, but I think we need a few thousand more elected officials like Joe Arpaio, Russell Pearce, and Frank Antenori nationwide, and in Washington, D.C. Maybe if we did, the will of the people might be enacted into law, instead of the will of the do-gooders, bleeding hearts, and special interest groups who have allowed our nation to be overrun with welfare rats and illegal aliens whose only contributions to society are to break the law and suck up benefits they don’t deserve.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

27 Comments on I Like Arizona!

  1. Kathe K says:

    Though supporting welfare for losers pisses me off as much as the next person, the proposed law cited above is way too Big Brotheresque for me. 1984 here we come again!!!

  2. Jim says:

    Ironic that a stupid ad about “Sheriff Joe’s Abuses” would find itself in the middle of Bad Nick’s very, very good blog this morning. Keep it up Bad Nick. We may overcome someday.

  3. MichaelG says:

    I love the smell of Hate in the morning … Smells like Victory!

    Maybe Sheriff Joe should start announcing body counts.

  4. Martin says:

    I don’t believe illegals should be here or that welfare scammers should florish but it your solutions are the answer and I’m not sure this is the type of country I want to live in. Enforcement of laws is one thing. Monitoring what people are eating and neighbors spying on others – wow. When we are doing all this spying, observation of others and reporting to the authorities just how do we authenticate the accuracy of our conclusions. I think many of your suggestions are not the answer to the problems.. A quasi police state to set things proper – I think not.

  5. Jesse Haman says:

    Perhaps if the put some of those welfare recipients to work in the state parks they would not have to close them.

  6. Peter Genereaux says:

    Go Nick, GO!!

  7. Dennise says:

    Nick, you are spot on with the problems that we have…welfare cheats, illegals, etc. I don’t however, agree with the methods described above. Granted, basic transportation, a basic emergency only cell service (or for answering help wanted ads!)and a digital tv converter shold be the “norm” for anyone receiving public assistance. (I know…we didn’t have cable when I was a kid, and yes we walked everywhere and we also had a basic phone and never were allowed to use it. I also know we needed that basic phone to accomplish everyday life’s needs, and I certainly think I am a better person for watching the family themed TV shows available back then…those that at least had a moral story to tell.) And those found here with out the proper ID should be sent back home to wherever. I just don’t have a good feeling about how some people choose to “create or enforce the law”. How do we keep welfare or public assistance recipients from using our tax dollars from shooting up or gambling the $ away? The only way to enforce such standards is to create some type of enforcement system, which unfortunately is very costly endeavor. If you don’t want YOUR taxes raised to catch welfare cheats, or to fund gov’t posses to round up the illegals then maybe one shouldn’t comtemplate such harsh measures. And what about the corporate tax cheats, the income tax evaders, the Bernie Maddofs of the world…will we ever punish them?

  8. Jim@HiTek says:

    “The new bill would also toughen penalties for employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants.”

    Toughen penalties? Surrrre, that will happen to a giant agri-business that pours millions into the back pocket of our for sale politicians. Even though 85% of all illegals are working for them. The government will come down HARD on any small family farm using illegals, but the big farms won’t feel a thing.

  9. Mary Fox says:

    Nick: back in about the 90’s I received, from my sister in Arizona ,a pair of pink mens boxers with the sheriffs autographed name on them. He made the prisoners wear them (and only them) from a tent in the desert where he gave them peanut butter sandwiches, with no coffee and the prisoners were very upset.=if they went anywhere they were required to wear only the pink shorts. The shorts were sold to the public for 10.00 each.==we had a good laugh over them but mine have since disappeared somewhere. more power to the Sheriff!!

  10. Three cheers for Bad Nick…He should be made the Editor of the year for his up front honest Editorials. They really tell it like it is !!!

  11. Jerry says:

    Nick, I wish the guys from Arizona would come to Texas and share their views with our politicians! All of ours are to damn worried about being “politically correct”.

  12. Rick and Linda Newkirk says:

    Good idea Nick. And while we’re kicking those poor welfare folks around, maybe we could bring back debtors prisons too!

  13. J.Keilman says:

    Bad Nick,
    This sounds like Good Nick to me,I agree 100% but don’t
    know how some of those things would be policed or enforced
    also I’ve always thought that people on welfare should be required to work a 40 hour week for their hand-out(cleaning parks,streams,roadways,rec.areas etc.)
    I love your comments. Jay Keilman, Phoenix

  14. ken says:

    I think someone should check again,They don’t use food stamps any more! That was just too degrading .Now they are issued a card
    that looks just like a credit card! How cool is that? better yet
    they only have to use a % of the value on the card for food,now get this!!!!!! they can take it to a ATM and finnish off the rest of it in cash! See where this is going,Tabaco, Booz and I swear I saw a guy purchase a string of lottery tickets with one
    of those cards yesterday!!!!! We the people made this happen and
    put up with it! The truth will set you free ? Ken can man.

  15. LR says:

    I’ve been a fan of Sheriff Arpaio for some time. Every law enforcement unit should take the laws seriously & literally and do their jobs like Arpaio does.

    I don’t think any able bodied person should get public assistance without having to work for it, period. Maintaining the state and national parks would be good honest work for them….and that includes picking up trash and cleaning restrooms. Picking up the trash along highways would be another good job. Scooping snow & doing yardwork for the elderly or disabled. Cleaning up graffiti. I’m sure there are countless other things that need doing for the public good. The hard working taxpayers should NOT have to support those able bodied people who only sit on their butts and wait for their check or EBT card—which by the way should only be good for staples such as meats, fruit & veggies, dairy products, flour & other baking supplies….no junk food, pop, packaged stuff. Doing nothing but sitting on their butts they have plenty of time to cook from scratch & will be healthier for it, reducing the amount the taxpayers get socked for medical care for deadbeats.

  16. Ron Teel says:

    Nick, you are on target regarding Sheriff Arpaio, but Frank Antenori is off-base. The fact is that most food stamps have been going to the working poor, many of whom are military families. That $40 spent on booze and cigarettes may very well have come from a paycheck, not a welfare check. And, while we all gripe over welfare, the fact is that the bipartisan welfare reform passed in the 1990’s (that the current Democrat Congress is trying to reverse), dramatically reduced the welfare rolls, and resulted in most persons leaving welfare within a few months after application. Yes, there are some who abuse the system, maybe even more now than before. But, do we really want Government intruding into the lives of the working poor whose earnings are so low as to qualify them for food stamps? And, in today’s economy where high unemployment has forced many middle-class families onto welfare, do we want Government workers (or Acorn-type contractors) crawling around in their homes and running their personal lives? If we are going to grumble about those who are on welfare, at least let’s focus on those who have been it on a long, long time.

  17. Roger Neilson says:

    Ron Teel and others have made some good points. However, I have to disagree, based upon my observations in my own family. I have three siblings, all able bodied and all who have been on welfare or some form of public assistance for over 20 years. My brother rides his jet ski every warm day of the year, and his snowmobile every snowy day. But he is “handicapped” due to a back injury and cannot work, he gets SSI disability, food stamps via en EBT card, and does not pay taxes on his 3 acres located on a lake in Wisconsin where he has a nicer house than my wife and I can afford.

    My older sister has three kids, all by different men and all over age 21, and neither she nor they have ever held a job. She has been on public assistance ever since she got pregnant and dropped out of high school. Her three daughters all have illegitimate children, and all get welfare. My wife offered all three of her girls jobs, and all three were offended because we offered them “family charity jobs.”

    My twin sister and her husband have been getting assistance ever since they were in an accident years ago. They got a big issuance settlement, blew through it in a year or two, and then went on welfare. They are both too handicapped to work, but they spend every penny they get at the Indiana casino, they both smoke a pack of cigarettes a day, and both have had DUI tickets. My sister’s husband spends hours a day playing games on the computer, but when his caseworker tried to get him a job in a state office doing computer work, his spinal injury prevented him from sitting in one place for more than 30 minutes at a time, and he didn’t take the job.

    So yes, there are working poor who need assistance, there are folks down on their luck who need help, and a lot of senior citizens we need to support. But there are also many, many people like my family members who are just leeches.

    By the way, my family doesn’t talk to my wife and me any more, because we are rich and stuck up. I work two jobs, my wife runs her own business, and we have taught our kids to work for what they want.

  18. Connie Braidh says:

    People on welfare should work. One group watches the kids, another groups picks up trash, cleans up city, state, or national parks, etc. Wonder how long they would stay at this “demeaning” level?
    Illegal immigrants should be sent home. ASAP. Companies who hire them fined. Get them out of our system. PERIOD People who want to come into the USA need to do so LEGALLY!!!!!
    Glad to see some public officials are living in the real world and not La La Land.

  19. Betty Arnold says:

    My sister sent me a link to your blog after I spent 45 minutes on the phone with ranting about the sad state of affairs in Washington and everywhere else in America. Your rants outrant me! I am a retired English teacher and I worked for the Florida welfare department for eight years. Welfare should be outlawed! Corporal punishment should be allowed in schools along with prayer (and I am an agnostic). Prayer might teach them respect. Kids who habitually disrupt the learning environment in the classroom should be thrown out of schools and left to either get a job or starve. I wish Sheriff Arpaio would move to Florida. I fervently wish voters will go to the polls in the next local, state and federal elections and vote every bum office-holder out. I fervently hope some of your followers and you, as well, run for office. Time for a revolution!

  20. Art Scheafer says:

    Now I want to move to arizona too! Its about time that somebody in office starts passing laws like these that make sense. Nothing wrong with either of these 2 laws in my opinion.

  21. Patrick Durhan says:

    I would love to see the welfare abusers caught like this law suggests, but don’t see how it can happen logistically. But it darned sure should happen! As for the illegal aliens, the cops could reduce crime by a large percentage by sending them back, and save the taxpayers billions in the process. I live in Surprise just outside Phoenix proper and every night the newscasts tell about robbers, carjacking, drive by shooting, murders, and on and on. And guess what? A huge proportion of the names of those arrested are Mexicans. My granddaughter and I got in a big fight over that and she called me a racist. Then, to prove me wrong, she spent two weeks carefully watching the different local stations news and reading the newspaper. At the end of that time, she had to admit to me that I was right. By the careful notes she took, over 65% of those arrested or being sought for crimes were Mexicans. Now how many are illegals and how many are citizens I couldn’t tell you. But you draw your own conclusions.

  22. george sharrer says:

    Right on Nick! Right on

  23. And the wingnuts say the Democrats are “socialists and big government meddlers”. How about the Arizona Republican State Representative that wants to mandate counseling and a waiting period for divorces? More big brother from the “Party of less government”!

  24. Jim says:

    Just finished reading an interesting book about Arizona … “The Reaper’s Line, Life and Death on the Border” by Lee Elliott II

    It’s written just like the man talks ….. vulgar sometimes but a very deep look at what goes on there on the border and in our government offices.

    Douglas, AZ would be a place I’d by-pass if I were traveling through the southern part of the state.

  25. Tony says:

    You guys better think about the laws you want these politicians to pass. The one suggested for welfare has no enforcement with it other than turning in your neighbor. This sounds like Germany in the 30s and the USSR under Lenin and Stalin. I thought many of the people who read Nick wanted less government instead of more.

    If you really want to discourage illegal immigration, punish the employer. This would remove the incentive from moving to the U.S.

  26. Carlo says:

    Those of you alarmed about “enforcement”, “big government”, “spying”, etc. can relax. . There is nothing in the Constitutions of the U.S. or Arizona that guarantees cigarettes, booze or HBO. The feature of HB 2770 (sponsored by Antenori to eliminate wasteful welfare spending) pertaining to smoking can be enforced legally and constitutionally right now in Arizona and must be matched in Congress with an amendment to the Food and Nutrition Act.
    Enforcement by the state of Arizona will be accomplished without informants or the cost of any new bureaucracy or red tape by a “yes” or “no” answer to the new question “Do you smoke?” on this form already in use:
    “Arizona Department of Economic Security Application for
    AHCCCS Health Insurance, SNAP Food Stamp Benefits, and General Assistance”
    Anyone giving a false answer will, as they do now, receive the following penalties:
    “If you, your representative or any household member knowingly withholds information or gives false information with the intent to get or continue to get Food Stamps SNAP, AHCCCS Health Insurance or General Assistance benefits, that person will be subject to criminal prosecution, fines, imprisonment or other penalties provided for by state and federal laws.
    If you get SNAP Food Stamp benefits, or AHCCCS Health Insurance, you must follow the rules for telling us about changes, and the rules below:
    * Do not make false statements or hide information. This is an Intentional Program Violation (IPV). If you are not truthful, the Department can take back money overpaid to you, and you may be taken to court.
    * Do not do anything dishonest to get SNAP Food Stamp or AHCCCS Health Insurance benefits that you are not supposed to get.
    * Do not give or sell your AHCCCS ID card to anyone.
    * Do not alter or use someone else’s EBT card for your household.
    * Do not use your Food Stamp benefits to buy non-food items such as ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO.
    * If you knowingly hold back or give false information so you can receive or continue receiving AHCCCS Health Insurance, or if something you tell us on this application is incorrect, we may deny or stop AHCCCS Health Insurance. If you and/or your representative knowingly provide false information, you and/or your representative will be subject to criminal prosecution, which could result in fines, imprisonment and/or other penalties under state or federal laws. You may also be required to pay AHCCCS for AHCCCS Health Insurance you received while you were not eligible.
    * If you knowingly break the rules and get SNAP Food Stamp benefits, you will be disqualified from receiving SNAP Food Stamp benefits for:
    * 12 months for the first violation
    * 24 months for the second violation
    * Permanently for the third or any other violations
    * The following additional penalties apply to the Food Stamp Program:
    * An additional disqualification, of up to 18 months, may be ordered by a court.
    * Any participant or family member who commits an Intentional Program Violation (IPV) can be fined up to $250,000.00, imprisoned up to 20 years, or both.
    * An individual may be subject to further prosecution under federal laws.”
    In addition, anyone using AHCCCS for medical services which include drawing blood will also be required to have the same blood sample tested for nicotine metabolites (little or no extra expense) and those who test positive will receive the penalties listed above.
    Notice that purchase of ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO with food stamps is already prohibited. The current state and federal budget deficits are so severe and intractable that it is now imperative to tighten eligibility rules by ending SNAP payments to smokers. Enforcement must be sustained and vigorous.
    Also, Congress must amend the Food and Nutrition Act (FNA) to end Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps) benefits for smokers.
    Taxpayers are simultaneously subsidizing the living expenses and supporting the addiction of people who are practically burning money in the form of tobacco. Anyone who has money to spend on smoking neither needs nor deserves tax dollars for free food. The governor of Arizona already sent a state official to the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture and Dept. of Health and Human Services in Washington DC to prohibit purchase of soda, candy bars, etc. with food stamps. The logic is impeccable and compelling: Food stamps are for nutrition not junk food, so if cigarette smokers have money for their nicotine addiction then they don’t need food stamps.
    Instead of crippling essential services such as public safety, instead of depriving children of decent K-12 education, we must now stop indulging selfish and extravagant welfare recipients who smoke. If anyone asks, the same goes for alcohol as tobacco but not pensions, Social Security, Medicare and unemployment benefits because those recipients earned those benefits by being employed.
    These are efficient, fair, unbiased and humane ways to make domestic budget cuts, ones that still recognize and aid the truly needy, but these legislative changes are not anti-smoker, rather they are anti-waste.
    They are by no stretch fascist or totalitarian but they are paternalistic, and justifiably so. People who are unwilling or unable to feed themselves must accept the government control that inevitably and necessarily accompanies government aid they receive. Those on the public dole are in no position to take the posture of libertarians.

  27. Charlie says:

    I agree all the way with the poster wanting to get the govt. off our back and get rid of welfare. Even though that would mean that my parents social security would be canceled,as well as half the population of Arizona, my brothers V.A. benefits from his “disability” (to stop being a drunk and lose weight) and all of corporate “welfare” A.I.G. Fannie Mae and Mac, and a host of Wal-Street Banks not to mention the farmers, sheepherders, cattlemen, and dairy and chicken raisers who enjoy the govt. subsidy. The only problem I see is who gets to make the choice of who gets money and who dont. That is usually the wrench in the machinery.

Leave a Reply