Conserve Arizona Campaign

Thomas Hulen of the Arizona League of Conservation Voters joins us to discuss the new non-partisan organization that works to elect pro-conservation candidates.

Transcript:

Richard Ruelas:
Tonight on "Horizon" a nonpartisan organization wants to elect pro-conservation candidates. Republicans say they know how to deal with the current state budget shortfall and a conversation with a man who what start what had would become the Watergate Plumbers next on "Horizon."

Richard Ruelas:
Good evening. Thank you for joining us tonight on "Horizon." I'm Richard Ruelas. The Arizona League of Conservation voters kicked off its conserve Arizona campaign. The goal is simply stated, elect pro-conservation majoritys in the state legislature and the corporation commission. Joining me to talk about the strategy is the League Executive Director, Thomas Hulen. Thank you for joining us this evening.

Thomas Hulen:
Thank you for having me on.

Richard Ruelas:
I guess the campaign conservative Arizona is simply stated. What kind of attributes are you looking for in a pro-conservation candidate?

Thomas Hulen:
What we're going to do in 2008 is elect pro-conservation legislators and corporation commissioners that really have the best interest of the state's environment in mind. We're looking at water, land and air and the quality of life issues that so many of us that are moved here or want to live in Arizona for.

Richard Ruelas:
What you talk about land, I guess that's the idea of planning or state trust issues?

Thomas Hulen:
There's something to do with the state trust land, but, you know, planning is very important. One of the things we're very interested in is having a legislature that's there working with other parts of our society and actually leading the way to do good planning so that our state is a beautiful -- continues to be a beautiful place to live.

Richard Ruelas:
How are you going to determine who is with you and against you?

Thomas Hulen:
What we do for people who's not run before, we have a questionnaire that we have sent to them and they fill it out and they send it back to us and then we score it. And those folks that we feel match the same values that we have with the league, then we endorse them.

Richard Ruelas:
Those are those that already been in office?

Thomas Hulen:
Well, we have a score card. In fact, in 2007, we released one in the summer where we actually ended up giving grades to many of the legislatures at the Arizona legislature.

Richard Ruelas: I know you're a nonpartisan group, but did this issue tilt towards one party or the other? Are there more Democrats whom you end up endorsing more than the republicans?


Thomas Hulen:
There tend to be more Democrats. The republicans that do get the endorsement usually have high scores on the score card. For instance, Tom from LD1, he routinely gets 100%. Pete Hershberger from Tucson does very well. Carolynn Allen in Scottsdale, Paradise Valley area, does very well.

Richard Ruelas:
I know there's a lot of groups where they kind of count as advocacy groups and single issue voters, is conservation a single issue type of voter or do they look at other things besides just conservation?

Thomas Hulen:
We're a membership organization. We have over 4,500 members that belong to the league of conservation voters. And the conservation certainly is a high priority for them. But there are other issues they're interested in besides conservation. There's a lot of social justice issues where people are concerned about voters' rights, making sure that all voters have access to the polling places come election time.

Richard Ruelas:
That comes not as part of your group's mission but people seem to be aligned with both issues?

Thomas Hulen:
The league of conservation voters is two groups. We have a c-4, which is our political arm, and then there's the education fund and that's the c-3 fund section. And they're really primarily interested, the c-3 in voter education. Providing information to the public about issues. The c-3 doesn't do endorsement.

Richard Ruelas:
With Al Gore's movie and it seems like global warming is a big topic now,, do you see your campaign -- your campaign will obviously hitch on that star to make this a more bigger issue in the elections?

Thomas Hulen:
That's true. Since he came out with his movie and other things that have come up, um, it's really on the minds of lots of people. In fact, you can hardly go a day reading the "Arizona Republic" where you don't see something like that.

Richard Ruelas:
Thank you very much for joining.

Thomas Hulen:
Thank you, Richard.

Richard Ruelas:
State republican legislators say since learning of the budget shortfall, they've been working on a solution. Republicans would split the problem between agency adjustments and tapping into the rainy day fund. Late last week, I spoke with the Speaker Pro Tempore of the House. Here is the interview.

Richard Ruelas:
Representative Bob Robson, thank you for joining us this evening. Republican leaders faced with the budget issue, the budget deficit, what are their initial plans?

Bob Robson:
Basically, we've been talking to the members over the past several months. Obviously, it's coming into the year with a proposed crisis looming over us. Um, we got a letter from the governor telling us what she was trying to solve and how she was trying to deal with it. We have been talking to our members over a period of months now. We came out with what we consider to be a 50/50 budgetary adjustments in agencies using the rainy day funds and really not trying to affect overall core delivery of state services at this point in trying to be measured and reasonable in our approach.

Richard Ruelas:
I guess the issue -- the number, I guess, that sort has been tossed around is 600 million. That's a working figure. Your 50/50 plan would get $300 million from one place and $300 million from a rainy day fund?

Bob Robson:
Basically, I don't like to use cuts. Maybe more adjustments. It could be revertments. It could be possibly not taking on big projects and pushing them out a little bit further. Trying to take a really reasonable approach to where it is. Not necessarily going after bonding. We have rainy day funds. A composition of that money will come from rainy day funds in the '08 process. What we're really, really deeply concerned about is what will happen in '09. If you don't do agency adjustments in '08, that has a major compounding effect in the '09 situation so --

Richard Ruelas:
I guess take the basic viewer and myself -- because I don't really know what the budgetary process is like and do an expected budget?

Bob Robson:
Basically the whole budget is forecasted. We forecasted this budget at an 8% rate. It's now at a 2% rate if you look at every percentage it. Basically runs anywhere from 120 million to 130 million dollars. That's why you're starting to see the deficit happening as we move through the process, because, um, every percentage that's below the 8% is about $130 million.

Richard Ruelas:
In -- but I guess -- you say it's different from cuts. I guess when people hear about agency cuts, they think it'll affect their life. Do you think agency adjustments, as you call them, would affect the average Arizonians life?

Bob Robson:
No, I don't think so. I think it could be through avertment through major building projects that may be going on. Maybe you can stall those for a period of time so that those moneys could be used to help mitigate the overall problem that we're having.

Richard Ruelas:
The governor is looking at 100 million in cuts. And 300 million basically through looking at bonding, looking at basically borrowing. What's wrong? What is your philosophical opposition to borrowing in this case?

Bob Robson:
Let me take it a step further. We really don't know what the governor wants. We're trying to get established where our adjustments are going to come from. To this date, we're not getting those. I think she mentioned just recently in a press conference, it wasn't going to be forthcoming until January. Legislatively, we're going to move forward and ask [ indiscernible ] to give us a whole platter of potential areas. It's dangerous. I mean, because everyone is going to say, oh, you're going to hit May and do this. That's not the case. It's really just opening up the process that everything is basically on the table.

Richard Ruelas:
But I guess once that list comes out, people are going to be looking at you as if you're meaning to cut programs that you're merely looking at.

Bob Robson:
We're just looking at -- if I can put that caution across on your show, I'd love to do that we're just looking. If you look at the 50/50 model we're looking at, it's very reasonable. We recognize that we're right smack in the middle of a budgetary year come January. How do you undo what you've already done? It's a process of saying let's reasonably look at what we can do and how -- and -- and -- and -- and basically not affect the core responsibilities of government.

Richard Ruelas:
But borrowing, you think, is just way too expensive to essentially mortgage the state's future?

Bob Robson:
I think at this point if you have some cash in the bank, you need to utilize it to its best degree, but to go out there and start borrowing, I think not knowing what '09 will bring and what 2010 will bring, I think it's a little bit premature.

Richard Ruelas:
I guess, I mean, people talk about the state budget almost like a household income. I know if you refinance your house, they give that you mortgage paperwork that shows where over time what the actual amount of the loan will be, what the interest -- do you have any notion about what kind of interest figure we're talking about?

Bob Robson:
If you look at where we are today, a lot of people - at where we are today, a lot of people did that. Took money out of their homes. It's now having a major effect. Their loan costs have actually sky rocketed. We shouldn't have that on a state side. What we should do is be as prepared as possible but not affect necessarily as we call it the core services of the state but at the same time any agencies that are growing because of caseload or because of a case, let's say the universities, at least in my mind, that'd be a foolish thing to do, because they're taking on new clients and new students and other kinds of things. Let's look at the overall budget and see if we can basically -- I hate to use the word "tweak it" but that's what we have to do.

Richard Ruelas:
So much of the budget seems to be mandated through law or voter approved propositions. Where is the tweaking?

Bob Robson:
That's a major problem. A caution to any voter is before you do that realize that you take away exercise and flexibility that the legislature would have in being able to mitigate an overall -- you can't say let's take a 3% cut across the board, because it can't happen. So you know -- so you now lump it onto whatever agencies that we would do. In that case it would affect corrections and education, some of the major areas. They'd be hit really deeply. That's what we're trying to avoid as a republican caucus.

Richard Ruelas:
I don't think transportation would be one of those? Highway state spending?

Bob Robson:
Transportation is leveraged with dedicated stream money. We put what? Close to $500 million in the previous year to move projects forward, because that helps to drive the state's economy. Lot road projects help to drive the industry as well as growth, but growth is where our investment dollars are today, so to speak, as a state.

Richard Ruelas:
I guess as we get to where you guys are going to come to a consensus, how opposed is the republican leadership to any borrower?

Bob Robson:
I think -- I think the best thing is to not look at borrowing in the '08 cycle, because that's an immediate issue we need to deal with, but, you know, start rolling -- you can never say never in the political real world. You can never say never because there may be something that happens. I think we'd be somewhat resistant to it at this point.

Richard Ruelas:
Representative Robson, Pro Tempore Speaker of the House. Thank you.

Bob Robson:
Thank you for having me.

Richard Ruelas:
He was one of the President's men. Bud Krogh was handed the responsibility of the special investigations unit otherwise known as the plumbers. The unit was to investigate the leaks of top-secret government documents to the press, particularly the pentagon papers. Two years later he pleaded guilty to conspiracy and spent almost 5 months in prison. Krogh's latest book is "Integrity, Good People, Bad Choices and Life Lessons from the White House." Larry Lemmons spoke with the author about his book.

Larry Lemmons:
Your book, your new book, "Integrity, Good people, Bad Choices and Life Lessons from the White House." Um, wanted to clear up some things. I think some people are confused that even though you were a part of the special investigations unit with E. Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Libby, you had nothing do with Watergate?

Bud Krogh:
That's correct.

Larry Lemmons:
You did order the break-in into the psychiatrist for Daniel Ellsberg -- what was his name? Fielding?

Bud Krogh:
Dr. Lewis Fielding.

Larry Lemmons:
Lewis Fielding. Ok.

Bud Krogh:
That's correct.

Larry Lemmons:
This book was a way of looking at those times and applying them generally to the times today and the questions we have about ethics and integrity?

Bud Krogh:
That's right, Larry. It's really -- it was to try to go into our mind-set back in 1971 where we thought national security was at stake. And that we could set aside the law if we felt that would serve a national security purpose. And we did believe that in 1971 in the wake of the Pentagon Papers a top-secret history of the U.S. involvement in Vietnam being released to the "New York Times." The President was deeply upset about that and labeled it a national security crisis. It was in that context that a recommendation was made to me to carry out a covert operation. Into the office of Dr. Lewis Fielding, the psychiatrist of Dr. Elseburg who was identified as the person that released the papers to the "New York Times." A covert operation was undertaken. Nothing was found. We shut it down right afterwards because they trashed up the office. They didn't find anything. G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt were the principal leaders of that operation.

Larry Lemmons:
The Plumbers?

Bud Krogh:
It's called the Plumbers. We got that name because David Young, my co-director, asked him what he was working on he said, well, mom, we're plugging leaks. She said, oh, how nice, we have a carpenter in the family. Now we have a plumber. Not probably the most helpful term to be called, because it's gone into the political history, but one of the things in my book is the conduct in 1971 where the White House, myself, John Ehrlichman who approved a covert operation led inexorably to Watergate in 1972. Because both G. Gordon Liddy and Howard Hunt knew that the White House under certain circumstances would accept a covert operation. I didn't know about Watergate. I was in St. Louis at the time when it happened. But I saw the headline and I read the story. I knew what had taken place. It was devastating to me.

Larry Lemmons:
Can you give us an idea of the times, however? Because I know because the Vietnam War was going on, there really was a lot of unrest in the country. Was there a certain amount of paranoia in the white house that sort of facilitated that kind of thinking?

Bud Krogh:
Yes, we have to understand in those times, 1971, we're in a hot war in Vietnam. We haven't withdrawn all of our troops. I think there was still a quarter of a million troops in Vietnam. We have not resolved the cold war with the Soviets. I mean, we're dealing with major national security crises. When I met with the President right after the fallback position of the United States in the strategic arms to Helsinki being released to the "New York Times", the president was furious with that leak, because he felt if we couldn't control our secrets, the countries he needed to negotiate with wouldn't talk to him. He told me that. He said my ability to negotiate a deal with the soviets are the missiles and right at the time all was happening, he had agreed to go to China. Now the China initiative where Dr. Kissinger went to China --

Larry Lemmons:
Very successful.

Bud Krogh:
Very successful and got the invitation and Joe and I and brought it back to the president, all done secretly. I'm persuaded, I think most people that look at history realize that you couldn't have carried out that diplomacy in the public light. You have to be able to negotiate secretly. And if documents are being released that bear upon some of those things, he's impaired. The president felt that strongly. Now, while I feel there was national security interests at stake at that time, they couldn't justify the invasion of Dr. Fielding's rights that occurred in 1971. I believed it in 1971. It took me two years before I finally realized that it couldn't justify violating Dr. Fielding's rights.

Larry Lemmons:
How does that weigh into the pursuit for national security?

Bud Krogh: National security is obviously a fundamental and critical value for our country. Every president has to be really focused on that. But national security can cover a lot of activities. And if you're going to set aside the law, you have to be sure it's absolutely essential to avoid an eminent overwhelming blow to this country, even to the survival of the nation. You don't set aside the law for political security interests or if this person remains a hero, somehow that's going to make it more difficult for me to negotiate an end to the war. Those are political security issues and deal with those in the media and in congress. Don't set aside the law to try to achieve those objectives. I mean today, we're facing a national security threat. We all know that. But there are ways that we can respond to those threats within the bounds of the law. For example, the eavesdropping program.

Larry Lemmons:
The N.S.A. program?

Bud Krogh:
The N.S.A. program which I mentioned in my book. We obviously want to overhear Al Qaeda representatives talking to people in this country. But if we need that authority and can't get it through the foreign intelligence surveillance court, go to the congress to get that authority. I'm absolutely persuaded after 9/11 if they wanted that authority, they could have gone and got 10.

Larry Lemmons:
Why do you think they didn't?

Bud Krogh:
I think there's a strain of thinking in some quarters in this administration, in some fields that the president in chief, the authority authorizes him to be able to set aside the law and do what he feels must be done to protect the country's security.

Larry Lemmons:
Is there a parallel with Richard Nixon?

Bud Krogh:
Absolutely! Richard Nixon sort of coined the ultimate phrase when we had this discussion with David Frost where he said, when the President does it, that means it's not illegal. And he was thinking that some presidents have set aside the law and decided Abraham Lincoln when he set aside the writ of habeas corpus. We had exclusionary orders in World War II, 9066 where they set up these camps where American citizens of Japanese extraction were sent during WWII, when they took the steps that violated our constitutional principles in the name of national security. I think you need to be so careful to calibrate the nature of the threat with the response you're going to take. I never went through that analysis in 1971, Larry. That's why I wrote the book in a way to show the kind of pressures that people can be under to set aside the law.

Larry Lemmons:
You were a young man as well. I mean, here you are, I suspect in the presence of the president of the united states in a very powerful and important position. If the president tells you to do something, and there tacit is approval, I would suspect would you do it. It's patriotic.

Bud Krogh:
It's patriotic. I felt I was doing my duty. But I owed him better. I owed him the kind analysis where I would say, wait a second, I understand he thinks national security is at stake. What's the degree of that threat? What can we do within the through respond to that threat. Let's go to the court and get a writ where we can actually go in and find out what is in that office but do it legally. Do it within the bounds of the law. We didn't even ask the question whether a covert operation was legal or not or ethical or not. We just said we have to get this information. Let's go get it. I think what happens sometimes when you're in the presence of the President, it's very difficult for people to take issue with his authorities. I couldn't do it. I knew there were situations where I knew he was angry. I didn't want to say anything that would anger him further. But presidents deserve, I think, to hear what their staff feel is right or not. And I know many of my colleagues had the same experience that I did. It's very difficult to use the term to tell truth to power sometimes. Often people would tell the president what they thought he wanted to hear rather than what he should hear. And it's very difficult in that environment, particularly when so much is at stake.

Larry Lemmons:
That's the criticism sometimes leveled against the Bush administration as well that people tend to tell him what they think he wants to hear.

Bud Krogh:
Yeah. I -- I -- I think it's probably endemic in every White House. And -- Larry, there's a great story about Lincoln. It's written out of this book "team of rivals" where Lincoln purposefully surrounded himself with people he knew would oppose him or would challenge him, because he was so secure, but he wanted to know what their thoughts were. And then he's getting the unvarnished truth from people who are not there just to give him high-fives and tell him how brilliant he is all the time but maybe how stupid he might be. There's a great story about Lincoln sending an order to Stanton, his Secretary of War. He went over there -- his staff person went and over told Stanton saying, the president wants to you do this. Stanton said, that's stupid. He went back to the President. He said, Stanton disagreed with you. He said, what did Stanton say? He said, Stanton said that's not a good idea. That's the kind of security you hope someone would have in that office where you can hear someone that disagrees with your point of view and not overreact to it.

Larry Lemmons:
What do you hope people will take away from this book in the end?

Bud Krogh:
I hope they'll understand you can never check your personal integrity at the door when you go to a job. It's not just in the white house staff. This is true in business. This is true in academia. It's true in the media and in sports. Your personal integrity is what keeps you safe. That's what I put out in the end of this book. Three questions at the end of this book, is it whole and complete? Have I thought through the consequences? Is it right? Is it good? If you can get the answer yes to the three questions, you have a pretty good chance that you'll be safe and successful. That's the message. I wished I'd understood this better, Larry in 1971. This is the book I wished I could have read before I raised my hand to be sworn into the White House staff.

Larry Lemmons:
Egil Bud Krogh, thank you for coming to talk to us.

Bud Krogh:
Thank you for having me.

Merry Lucero:
You are probably hearing a lot about the antibiotic-resistant Staph infection known as MRSA. Doctors explain about why it's so prevalent and what could be done about it plus we talk with the economic development organization, the East Valley Partnership on its 25th anniversary. Those stories Tuesday on "Horizon."

Richard Ruelas:
Wednesday, we'll see highlights of the Arizona town hall about land use planning. Thursday, we'll talk about research that could revolutionize digital memory. Friday, join us for the Journalists' Roundtable where we'll wrap up the week's events which will no doubt include election results on Tuesday. Tomorrow is Election Day. If there are races in your area, we would like you to exercise your civic duty and go out and vote. I'm Richard Ruelas. For all of us here on "Horizon," have a good night. Make it a good Monday.