Blog For Arizona

Apparently spite is now a public service principle for Arizona's Republicans

Posted by Craig McDermott

Wow.

The latest gem from Frank Antenori (R-Don't say I'm from Tucson though that is where I live) is HB2770.

It contains a list of prohibited acts for people receiving public assistance (aka - welfare).

From the bill -

A. A person shall not receive assistance or cash assistance under this Title if the person is found:

1. In possession of, consuming or purchasing alcoholic beverages, tobacco products or illegal drugs.

2. With a cellular phone if the cellular phone is not the only phone in the person's home.

3. With a cellular phone contract that includes more than basic phone service.

4. Purchasing an automobile that is worth more than five thousand dollars.

5. Purchasing a television that is worth more than three hundred dollars.

6. With a cable television contract that provides more than basic cable television service.

Yes, it is just sloppily-written election year posturing but this is still a chunk of jaw-droppingly spiteful legisation targeting Arizona's poorest residents.

I wonder what Rep. Antenori's first reaction would be if someone proposed a list of similar restrictions but for the presidents of bailed-out banks or companies that stand before the cities, counties, and state with hat in hand, asking for specific tax breaks?

Just freakin' WOW.

Anyway, it's nice to see that Maricopa County doesn't have a monopoly on the worst of the worst Rs - besides original sponsor Antenori, southern AZ legislators Gowan, Stevens, and Melvin are on the list of cosponsors for this bill.   

Maricopa Rs like Russell Pearce, Jack Harper, and John Kavanagh have been long-established leaders of the winger caucus, making the Rs proud and the state a national embarrassment; I'm sure the state GOP is ecstatic that they've developed such a reliably nasty farm team.

Meghan McCain: Tea Party represents ‘innate racism’

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

In an appearance on ABC's The View, Meghan McCain, the daughter of former presidential candidate John McCain has sharply criticized the Tea Party movement, accusing it of "innate racism." She also took issue with a number of recent statements from Sarah Palin, criticizing the former Alaska governor for defending Rush Limbaugh's use of the word "retard" and for suggesting that President Obama launch a war against Iran in order to win a second term. Meghan McCain: Tea Party represents ‘innate racism’ | Raw Story: 

McCain described Former Republican congressman Tom Tancredo's call for a literacy test for voters as "innate racism."

In his opening speech to the Tea Party convention last week, Tancredo urged the creation literacy tests for voters, a move some observers likened to a return to the Jim Crowe laws of the pre-Civil Rights Act era.

“People who would not even spell the word vote or say it in English put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House... named Barack Hussein Obama," Tancredo told the Tea Party crowd.

"It's innate racism, and I think it's why young people are turned off by this movement," McCain retorted on The View.

"I'm sorry, but revolutions start with young people, not 65 year old people talking about literacy tests and people who can't say the word 'vote' in English," McCain added.

McCain, a self-described "progressive Republican," criticized Palin's assertion that President Obama could get himself re-elected to a second term if he launched a war against Iran.

"You should never go to war unless its the absolute last circumstance," McCain said.

* * *

McCain added that the rhetoric coming from the Tea Party movement and from Republicans like Palin "will continue to turn off young voters, and anybody who says different is smoking something."

The following video was broadcast on ABC's The View, Feb. 8, 2010.

Pay attention media villagers, a brief history of populism for you

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

In an earlier post Republican enablers of the new corporatocracy I briefly touched upon this point:

Note to the media: "conservative populist" is an oxymoron. Conservatives are all about maintaining the wealth and privilege of the wealthy and privileged. Historically, populists have always been farmers and laborers in progressive movements seeking to challenge the economic status quo and to get a piece of the wealth and privilege from the wealthy and privileged. Read a history book sometime.

Peter Beinart of The Daily Beast was kind enough to write a brief history of the populist movement so that you retarded media villagers (and yes I mean that in the pejorative sense after having watched your coverage of the Tea Party Convention this past weekend) do not have to read a whole book. We wouldn't want you to hurt your pretty little empty heads, now would we? The Tea Partiers' Phony Populism - The Daily Beast:

If there’s one thing the media knows about the Tea Partiers, it is that they are populists. They hate Washington; they hate Wall Street; they wouldn’t be caught dead on Martha’s Vineyard; the mere sight of tofu turns their stomach.

But what if they’re not?

A populist is someone who champions ordinary folks against the privileged few. For the original Populists—the people who created the Populist Party in the late 19th century—the ordinary folks were farmers and workers and the privileged few were bankers and railroad owners. The goal was to redistribute power from the latter to the former. The Populists wanted a currency based upon silver, not gold, which would make it cheaper for farmers to borrow and less profitable for bankers to lend. They wanted to nationalize the railroads, telegraphs and telephones so corporations couldn’t charge ordinary folks extortionate rates. They wanted a progressive income tax, an eight-hour workday, and laws making it easier to join labor unions, so workers would have greater protections and greater pay. And they wanted guaranteed pensions for sailors and soldiers, a kind of precursor to Social Security.

And what was the mechanism for this redistribution of power from the privileged few to ordinary folks? The mechanism was government. It was government that would coin silver, nationalize the railroads, and institute the income tax, pensions and the eight-hour shift. As the Populist Party declared in its first platform, in 1892, “We believe that the power of government—in other words, of the people—should be expanded…as rapidly and as far as the good sense of an intelligent people and the teachings of experience shall justify, to the end that oppression, injustice and poverty shall eventually cease in the land.”

That first phrase is key: “the power of government—in other words, of the people.” For the original Populists, government action was the best way to empower ordinary folks, but only if those ordinary folks actually ran the government. That’s why at the same time the Populists tried to strengthen government they also tried to democratize it, by championing the direct election of senators and other reforms. In practice, the Populists were often fervently anti-Washington because Washington was controlled by the privileged few. But their anger at Washington and their anger at Wall Street were different. They believed Washington could represent the people in a way Wall Street never could. They cursed Wall Street because it was too powerful. They cursed Washington because it wasn’t powerful enough.

Compare that to the Tea Partiers. The Tea Partiers also say they want to empower ordinary folk against the privileged few. But who do they mean by “privileged few?” Unlike the original Populists, the Tea Partiers don’t mean moneyed interests. After all, while they oppose bailing out banks, they also oppose more aggressively regulating them. In fact, the Tea Party crowd wants less government oversight over Wall Street. As Tea Party Convention keynote speaker Sarah Palin declared a while back, “We got into this mess because of government interference in the first place.”

By privileged few, in fact, the Tea Party crowd means government. The ordinary folks are the voters and the privileged few are the people who run Washington in disregard of their wishes. For the original Populists, the answer to this problem was more democracy: reforms that made Washington more responsive to voters and less responsive to moneyed interests. But the Tea Partiers have no interest in such reforms. They simply take it as a fact that Washington is unresponsive and self-interested. While the Populists wanted to empower government as they democratized it, the Tea Partiers want to disempower government because they don’t believe it can be democratized. And by disempowering government—by reducing its oversight of Wall Street, as Palin demanded at the Tea Party convention—the Tea Partiers actually strengthen the very moneyed interests that the Populists wanted to restrain.

The Tea Partiers, in other words, have flipped Populism on its head. They’re less Populists than anti-Populists. It’s time the media called them by their rightful name.

Got that media villagers? I never want to see or hear the oxymoron "conservative populist" used ever again.

Rep. David Stevens: a throwback to the 19th Century

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The disturbing pattern of authoritarianism from our Southern Arizona Republican legislators Update re: Southern Arizona legislator questionnaires in the Daily Star continues unabated today with this elitist proposal from Rep. David Stevens (R-LD25): he wants to disregard the 17th Amendment providing for the popular election of U.S. Senators and return to the practice of state legislatures selecting senators. Plan: lawmakers pick US Senate candidates:

A freshman Southern Arizona lawmaker is leading the effort to strip Arizona voters of the right to decide who should be a candidate for the U.S. Senate.

* * *

Stevens, a Republican from Sierra Vista, wants legislators from each party to pick their party nominees, whose names would then be submitted to voters at the November general election.

He said his measure would be a partial return to the way things were before the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was adopted.

Until then, each state legislature selected its U.S. senators. Voters selected only the folks going to the House of Representatives. The 1913 amendment requires direct election of all members of Congress.

Stevens said that amendment was a mistake. He said the old system ensured that senators were responsive to the desires of state lawmakers.

"The state is supreme over the federal government," he said. "And when they weren't doing what we thought they should be doing, we could recall them at any time."

I would not trust any Republican serving in the Arizona Legislature to watch my dog while I ducked into the store for just a few minutes. I sure as hell am not going to trust them to select my senators.

The elitism of Steven's comments are stunning. We can't trust the voters of this state. We want our senators to be responsive to the desire of a handful of state lawmakers who will tell them how to vote in the U. S. Senate. Un-freakin'-believable! Is this guy a throwback to the 19th Century?

Stevens has an ulterior motive for his elitism:

Stevens said that if his plan already were law, there might be an entirely different political dynamic in the Republican primary race between incumbent John McCain and challengers J.D. Hayworth and Chris Simcox. The trio would the have to fight it out for the support of the 35 House Republicans and 18 GOP senators instead of the support of voters.

Such a system might favor candidates with less money, such as Hayworth, because they could personally meet with every voter.

Stevens loves him some J.D. Hayworth. Maybe he should have checked with J.D. first. Hayworth doesn't back it, although he's sympathetic to what Stevens is trying to do. "I believe in states' rights," he said, but "right now I just think it's important for the people to decide."

Maybe Stevens would like to return to the original intent of the Constitution when only white men of property who were free of debt could vote, women were chattel property, and people of color were either slaves or indentured servants. We can't have women and the poor and minorities deciding our elections - that is the province of privileged white males.

If you want to save our state, it is time to throw out all of these Republican legislators who after forty years (plus) of failed leadership somehow believe they are entitled and privileged to lord over us as they please. Throw these authoritarian elitists out on the street.

Marshall Vest: A needed increase in taxes won't hurt Arizona's economy

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Economist Marshall Vest has compiled much of the economic research I have written about here over the past year or so into an op/ed published today in the Arizona Daily Star. If you don't believe me, then at least listen to Marshall Vest. Democratic politicians should keep a copy of this op/ed in their pocket as a talking points memo to refute the faith based supply-side Republican economics fraud that has crippled our state and destroyed our national economy over the past 30 years.

Alberta H. Charney and Marshall J. Vest write A needed increase in taxes won't hurt Arizona's economy:

The state is facing a huge deficit as far as the eye can see. (It's between $3 billion and $4 billion, or 30 percent to 40 percent of Arizona's 2007 general-fund budget.) This deficit is structural and cannot be solved solely by spending cuts. Taxes must be increased, and spending must be reduced as well.

There is a populist belief that taxes should be cut to stimulate the economy or, conversely, taxes can never be raised without hurting the economy. Not true. The Legislature has made 42 tax cuts to the three major general-fund revenue sources (sales, income and corporate income taxes) since 1992, and it has also eliminated statewide property taxes that accrued to the general fund. Tax cuts imposed since the mid-1990s are the equivalent of cutting $2.6 billion annually from today's revenues, after adjusting for the cost of living and population growth.

The series of tax cuts did not make the economy stronger. Rather, the surpluses that were created during Arizona's cyclical upswings allowed the Legislature to cut taxes - precisely the reverse of populist thinking about cause and effect.

Rather than cutting taxes, the responsible thing would have been to recognize the extreme cyclical nature of Arizona's revenues and generously fund the Budget Stabilization Fund.

Raising taxes will not hurt Arizona's economy. Proceeds are not burned, buried or flushed; they are re-spent in the state employing people, paying vendors and providing needed services to Arizonans. Those dollars are put right back into the economy.

There are additional reasons to support higher taxes. First, a portion of Arizona's taxes are "exported" to non-Arizonans, such as sales taxes paid by visitors. Further, state income taxes, state and local property taxes, and to a lesser extent sales taxes, are deductible from our federal income taxes, resulting in portions of our taxes being "exported" or "shifted" to the federal government.

Second, Arizona imposes a very low tax burden on its residents, so taxes can increase without hurting Arizona's competitiveness; Arizona ranked 41st in 2008, according to the Tax Foundation, a Washington, D.C., think tank.

Third, low taxes are not the only factor businesses consider when selecting locations. They require a quality work force, which is largely dependent on the health and education systems of the state, and infrastructure, much of which is provided by the public sector.

Raising the sales tax by 1 cent per dollar is a step in the right direction, but it will raise only $1 billion per year.

The state also should roll back some of the prior cuts to the individual income tax and impose a state property tax. This would improve the balance of the state's revenue sources and bring the system into better alignment with the three-legged-stool ideal of public finance (based on income, wealth, and consumption).

The people we elected to the Legislature won't vote for a tax increase because they are afraid they won't get re-elected.

That leaves it up to voters to approve tax increases. Let's hope they do, for Arizona's future standard of living is at stake.

Ted Downing files to run for State Senate LD28

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Former state representative Ted Downing (D-LD28), who had been rumored to be exploring a run to return to his House seat, instead on Monday filed to run for the Senate seat in LD 28. Incumbent state senator Paula Aboud (D-LD28) has not yet filed any campaign committee for 2010. Sen. Aboud has been working closely with the Terry Goddard gubernatorial campaign.

Should Sen. Aboud file a committee for reelection in 2010 it would set up a rematch of a particularly bruising primary battle in 2006 that divided the party and left some lingering ill will over the use of independent expenditure committees that got involved in the primary race on Aboud's behalf.

Since Ted Downing lost that primary race to Paula Aboud he has continued to be active in the state Legislature working with other state legislators. Downing was the principal architect of two major pieces of election law reforms that passed the state legislature with near unanimous support over the objection of then Secretary of State Jan Brewer who had tried to derail the election reform bills.

Ted Downing also serves as chair of the Arizona Democratic Party's Election Integrity Committee, one of the first such party organizations in the nation. Downing has worked with other state parties to establish their Election Integrity Committee.

Most recently, Downing has been working with Secretary of State Ken Bennett on revisions to the Secretary of State Election Manual and a revised voter registration application form. He has also obtained bipartisan sponsorship for some eminent domain legislation he is pursuing in this legislative term.

Ted Downing has demonstrated that a Democrat in the minority party can still be an effective legislator whether serving in or out of the state Legislature. He is a fascinating study.

Ted Downing is an anthropologist and a research professor of social development at the Arizona research laboratories, University of Arizona. Downing also serves as a consultant to the World Bank. He is president of International Network on Displacement and Resettlement.

First "Corporate Person" Runs for Political Office

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

It was bound to happen. The logical extension of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC is the First "Corporate Person" Runs for Political Office — YES! Magazine:

Taking the implications of Citizens United to their logical extreme, a Washington, D.C.-based firm, Murray Hill Incorporated, has announced that it is running for Congress in Maryland’s 8th Congressional District.

“Until now,” the company said in a statement, “corporate interests had to rely on campaign contributions and influence peddling to achieve their goals in Washington. But thanks to an enlightened Supreme Court, now we can eliminate the middle-man and run for office ourselves.”

In a campaign video posted on YouTube, Murray Hill Inc. tries out campaign slogans like, “The best democracy money can buy,” “Democracy’s next step,” and “The way we see it, corporate America has been the driving force behind Congress for years. But now it’s time we got behind the wheel ourselves.”

Eric Hensal, a former union organizer and current managing partner with Murray Hill Inc. (which, when not running for office, offers consulting services to organizations like the National Resources Defense Council and the Association of Construction Professionals) has volunteered to be the campaign’s “designated human.” Since corporations can’t sign paperwork or register to vote, Hensal will perform what the company calls “antiquated ‘human only’ procedures.”

“We want to get in on the ground floor of the democracy market before the whole store is bought by China,” said Hensal in a statement released by the "campaign."

William Klein, a political consultant and writer whose headlines on Huffington Post read like they ought to be on the Onion ("The Only Solution to Airport Security—Fly Naked!"), is the campaign's manager. Klein says he plans to use robo-calls and Astroturf methods to spread the campaign's message: that Murray Hill Inc., as a fair-minded corporate representative, pledges to always "put people second."

AZ Repubs spend Obama Ed Stim money like drunken sailors

by David Safier

Republican politicians hate the stimulus money. I know, because they tell me so whenever they get a chance. Terrible idea. Typical reckless Democrats spending us further into debt.

Then they turn around and use the money to save their own hides, and their states' budgets. Many of the Republican stim-haters have presided over media events with big Santa Claus grins on their faces as they hold  gigantic 6 foot checks displaying big dollars funding big state projects. The checks are written with evil Obama money, but I guess when Republican hands touch it, all Democratic sins are wiped away. Hallelujah! It's a miracle!

Arizona has cut big bucks from education this year, but without Obama's education stimulus dollars, the cuts would have been far worse -- unsustainable, in fact.

How much of Obama's education stimulus money has Arizona spent? Remember, this is a one time deal, not something the Feds plan to repeat yearly.

The answer, according to the NY Times is, Arizona has spent all of it this year.

[Six states] — Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, New Jersey and Washington — [have] allotted all of their education stabilization money to schools for this school year and last, leaving zero to spend on the school term beginning this fall.

As bad shape as we're in this year, things will be much, much worse next year when the evil Obama administration won't be there to bail out Arizona Republicans. Where will they find the money to replace it?

Their growing budget problems should be very bad news for Republicans this November, when their bankrupt promises are shown for what they are. Unless, of course, they push all the painful decisions past the election into December and January. And unless Democrats let Republicans control the agenda and the talking points.

Rahm Emanuel apologizes for retarded faux scandal

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal created a P.C. Police faux scandal over Rahm Emanuel calling progressive Democrats "retarded" in a closed meeting recently. Seriously? That was probably the least offensive thing Emanuel had to say (he is a master of blue language). I doubt anyone in the room gave it a second thought.

Of course, Rupert Murdoch's newest hire over at Faux News, Sarah Palin, jumped in trying to make this faux scandal all about her and her youngest child. Sarah Palin has a disturbing habit of using her children as campaign props (remember her carrying around her baby in that ridiculous elephant costume like he was a piece of luggage?) and using her children to shield herself from any criticism for her scandals in office and those of the "shadow governor" of Alaska, "First Dude" Todd Palin. Internal Emails Show Robust Role For 'Shadow Governor' Todd Palin The timing of the e-mail disclosures and the Rahm Emanuel faux scandal coincided. What a surprise. 

It is Sarah Palin who pushes her children into the public spotlight and then complains that her family is being attacked in the media. She should be ashamed.

Saturday Night Live has Rahm Emanuel offer an even-tempered apology for his politically incorrect comment. (ad at the beginning of the video).

The Constitutional Convention Option

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Eli Blake posted a comment to Living in the State of Delusion: Special Election Edition that got me to thinking about what we can do to fix our broken government in Arizona. Our state Constitution has been corrupted in many ways by the abuse of the initiative and referendum process over the years.

Other constitutional provisions have been rendered almost meaningless by Arizona Supreme Court interpretations resulting from the "political question" doctrine and the separation of powers doctrine. For example, the constitutional provisions mandating that the Legislature pass a balanced budget by the start of the fiscal year on July 1 and to raise taxes if necessary to accomplish this task. Or other constitutional provisions mandating that the state provide a public education "as nearly free as possible." The Court is powerless to enforce these constitutional mandates, leading to abuses by the Legislature.

There is a "nuclear option" available in the Arizona Constitution, one fraught with the peril of mischief and special interests in this age of corporate funded think tanks and unlimited corporate political spending: the Constitutional Convention. This is considered a last resort for these cautionary reasons, and generally to be avoided.

The Arizona Constitution, Article 21, Section 2 provides:

2. Convention

Section 2. No Convention shall be called by the Legislature to propose alterations, revisions, or amendments to this Constitution, or to propose a new Constitution, unless laws providing for such Convention shall first be approved by the people on a Referendum vote at a regular or special election, and any amendments, alterations, revisions, or new Constitution proposed by such Convention shall be submitted to the electors of the State at a general or special election and be approved by the majority of the electors voting thereon before the same shall become effective.

There is already an organization in California collecting signatures to call for a Constitutional Convention in that state to fix a state constitution more broken than our own due to the mischief of initiatives and referendums over the years www.repaircalifornia.org. But see A California constitutional convention - Los Angeles Times

The Arizona Republic is running a series called "Arizona 2020" about reforming our state government that I find an interesting discussion. There are a growing number of organizations - including O'Connor House, Morrison Institute, Arizona Town Hall and the Center for Arizona's Future - stepping forward with ambitious proposals to change the way Arizona works.

The Arizona Republic published this editorial today As Arizona nears 100, government needs an overhaul (excerpt):

Arizona is approaching its second century with a creaking, corroded state government. Its machinery is partisan, opaque, rancorous and often simply stuck. You can almost hear the gears grind.

Patch jobs over the years have often made things worse, not better. It's time for a major overhaul.

* * *

Last year's endless Legislature, with special sessions spilling into December, was a picture of dysfunction. For the first time ever, Arizona failed the constitutional requirement to enter the fiscal year on July 1 with a balanced budget.

The Legislature plays fast and loose with its own rules, leaving the public and even its own members in the dark about what's happening. Average Arizonans get short shrift. Last month, a controversial bill to revive the payday-loan industry's exemption from interest-rate caps was yanked off the agenda at the last minute, despite a crowd of people who had taken time off from work and traveled to the Capitol to testify.

Well-intentioned reforms have gummed up the Legislature so much we should just undo them. Term limits are booting out experienced lawmakers just when the state needs their perspective and depth of knowledge. Clean Elections, with public financing for candidates, has such a skewed system of matching money that a judge overturned it.

* * *

No wonder frustrated voters are so receptive to initiatives. But what began as a grass-roots tool in the Progressive era has turned into an obstacle to good government. Special interests, often from out of state, pour millions of dollars into getting their pet ideas on the ballot. Signature gathering has become a business, commanding $5 and more per signature as the filing deadline approaches.

Still, many Arizonans see initiatives as a flawed but indispensable counterweight to the Legislature, a way to get things done that lawmakers won't tackle. It's time to fix some of the most glaring problems and continue looking for improvements.

In the long run, Arizonans should have a serious, wide-ranging discussion about the best way to run government in our second century, which begins in just two years. That discussion might consider an "open primary," in which voters pick from all the candidates regardless of party, and the top two vote-getters compete in the general election. Or a change as radical as a nonpartisan, unicameral legislature, like Nebraska has.

Arizona... will ultimately need to reinvent itself.

Before anyone runs off half-cocked demanding a Constitutional Convention, what is needed is a series of public discussion forums to collect various ideas for reform and to debate those ideas in a thoughtful process to come to some general consensus on the way forward. That process has already begun in Arizona. However, we are a long way from being ready for a Constitutional Convention.

G.I. to jump into legislature?

by David Safier

ANOTHER OOPS UPDATE: Looks like I have another correction to make, again relating to the Goldwater Institute. According to Craig, Clint's wife, Shawna Bolick, is the one running, and Clint is her treasurer. Once again, I regret the error.

For some reason, Craig didn't cross-post this from Random Musings, so I'll do it for him.

Goldwater Institute, not satisfied with playing the Arizona legislature like a cheap violin, is making plans to work from the inside with the candidacy of G.I.'s Clint Bolick.

Here is Craig's post:

Goldwater Institute: just cutting out the middle man

Apparently, using most of the Republican caucus of the legislature as surrogates is too slow - now they're going for direct control (can't call it a "hostile" takeover since GI's operatives are so warmly welcomed there now).

On February 5, 2010, one Clint Bolick registered a campaign committee (filer ID 201000453) to enter the Republican primary for State Representative in LD11. He joins Jon Altmann, Bev Kraft, Dusti Morris, and Kate McGee in that race. The incumbents are Dr. Eric Meyer (D) and Adam Driggs (R). Meyer has a reelection committee opened; Driggs is "exploring" a run for the Senate seat from LD11 and has been rumored to be eyeing the CD3 race.

Bolick is a senior member of GI, heading up their "constitutional litigation" arm, which basically means suing various levels of governments until they give him what he wants (school tuition tax credits) or stop what he doesn't want (Clean Elections - too numerous to link to just one. Google "Bolick" and "Clean Elections"). He also leads the charge against any government regulations of business that he considers unfairly burdensome.

Which is pretty much *all* regulation.

In short, he is already a member of the GOP caucus of the lege in everything but title. Winning an election will just be a formality, and losing one won't change the reality of the situation.


If Bolick's run is successful, look for more GI operatives to try to take over government positions (i.e. - Matthew Ladner as State Superintendent of Public Instruction, etc.).

Frying pan, get ready to meet fire.

The Coming Week - Legislative Edition

Posted by Craig McDermott and cross-posted from Random Musings.

As usual, all info gathered from the website of the Arizona legislature, except where noted, and subject to change without notice...

A busy week ahead, marked by proposed encroachments on the availability of safe and legal abortion services, messing with teachers' ability to plan for their professional future, requiring the federal government to prove the constitutionality of its mandates before the state will accept them, a move to shield Joe Arpaio and Andy Thomas from any sort of fiscal oversight and accountability, and more.


In special session activity, there is a House COW calendar posted for Monday, as is a Third Read calendar. Neither calendar includes SB1002 or SB1003, so my guess is that there is still some arm-twisting going on by the House leadership to try to "encourage" Senate President Bob Burns to push thru their corporate tax cut bill before a balanced budget is passed.

In non-Capitol based lege activity this week, on Monday, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors is scheduled to appoint a replacement for the recently-resigned Sen. Pam Gorman (R-LD6). Not scheduled as yet but likely to come this week will be a meeting to appoint someone to fill the LD-7 Senate seat vacated by Jim Waring, who like Gorman has resigned to run for Congress. Monday evening, the Rep PCs of LD6 will be meeting to nominate three candidates to fill Sam Crump's seat in the House, who also vacated it in order to run for Congress. The supes could fill that seat this week or early next week.


On to the regular session of the lege -

In House committee activities this week...

- Rules will meet on Monday at 1 p.m. in HHR4. Long agenda, but they have the rubber stamp big enough to cover it.

- Ways and Means is meeting on Monday at 2 p.m. in HHR1. Highlights/lowlights: There are five bills on this agenda, all of which are significant - HB2160 (tax credit review committee recommendations, summary here); HB2496 (changing which tax year school tuition tax credits can be taken); HB2512 (barring municipalities from using third parties to collect municipal sales taxes); HB2663 (changing STOs' corporate tax credit requirements, summary here); and HB2664 (changing STOs/tax credit requirements in general, summary here.)

- Education is meeting on Monday at 2 p.m. in HHR3. The agenda is long, and every bill on it is written by a Republican. There may be some real gold mixed in with the iron pyrite, but most of the bills are like HB2227, cutting the amount of time teachers have to accept a contract for the next school year from 30 days to 10.

- Banking and Insurance will meet on Monday at 2 p.m. in HHR5. Looks quiet so far.

- Public Employees, Retirement, and Entitlement Reform will meet on Tuesday at 2 p.m. in HHR3. Quiet so far.

- Government is meeting on Tuesday at 2 p.m. in HHR4. Winger election year posturing alert: HB2538.

From the bill -

The legislature shall not enact any statute that appropriates state monies pursuant to a federal mandate or that complies with a federal mandate unless the federal mandate contains a report or document prescribing reasonable and logical arguments based on United States constitutional law that the federal mandate is a function of the federal government and will pass a constitutional challenge if contested in a court of law.

Yeah....



- Environment will meet on Tuesday at 2 p.m. in HHR5. Looks quiet so far.

- Military Affairs and Public Safety is meeting on Wednesday at 9 a.m. in HHR3. Looks pretty quiet so far, though HB2526, exempting from taxation trap and skeet shooting clubs that are "educational" in purpose and use, definitely has a whiff of "winger special" wafting from it.

- Health and Human Services is meeting on Wednesday at 9 a.m. in HHR4. This one has globs of ugly awaiting Arizona.

HB2649 seeks to inhibit the accessibility of legal abortions by burying medical providers under overly onerous reporting requirements.


HB2650 would enact a six-month waiting period for getting a divorce (current requirement: 60 days) and adds an unfunded mandate on the state's court system by requiring that the courts establish an "educational" program on the effects of divorce.

- Commerce will meet on Wednesday at 9 a.m. in HHR5. Looks quiet thus far, but I don't understand some of this stuff.

- Water and Energy is scheduled to meet on Thursday at 9 a.m. in HHR5. Quiet thus far.

- Transportation and Infrastructure will meet Thursday at 9 a.m. in HHR3. Also quiet thus far.

- Judiciary will meet on Thursday at 9 a.m. in HHR4. Looks quiet thus far, though a striker may be offered regarding "guardianship of foreign citizens." No text available yet.



Over on the Senate side...

- Rules will meet on Monday upon adjournment of the Senate's floor session in Caucus Room 1 (aka the old press room). Rubber stamp time.

- Natural Resources, Infrastructure, and Public Debt will meet on Monday at 1:30 p.m. in SHR109. Quiet thus far.

- Judiciary is meeting on Monday at 1:30 p.m. The agenda includes SB1362, increasing the fees that may be assessed by courts in eminent domain cases; and SB1365, expanding notification requirements in eminent domain condemnation cases and deleting a clause that specifies how juries assess damages that included consideration of the benefits to uncondemned property from the underlying project.


- Commerce and Economic Development is meeting on Tuesday at 1:30 p.m. in SHR1. The nugget of really ugly here is SB1242, enacting all sorts of restrictions on labor unions during work actions and giving special protections to employers during the same.

- Appropriations is meeting on Tuesday at 1:30 p.m. in SHR109. As might be expected, the agenda of this committee chaired by Russell Pearce is possibly the worst of the week. It has -

SB1017, requiring that county boards of supervisors appropriate budget money to other county officers in lump sums and removes any kind of fiscal oversight of those officers' operations. AKA the "don't mess with mah man Joe [Arpaio]" bill.

A striker to SCR1032 that would permanently micromanage school districts with a requirement that they spend 70% of their budgets on "classroom instruction." The word "permanently" fits here because as an SCR it would have to be approved by the voters and then couldn't be adjusted by future legislatures unless the Reps succeed in their efforts to overturn the Voter Protection Act.

And this agenda could have been worse - the original agenda had a striker to SB1104 that referred to "taxpayer bill of rights." Know this now - Pearce et. al. will try to spring TABOR on the state this year, probably after the latest budget mess simmers down.


- Public Safety and Human Services will meet on Wednesday at 9 a.m. This one has some bills on photo radar (procedures, banning the use on freeways, more procedures.)

- Healthcare and Medical Liability Reform will meet Wednesday at 9 a.m. in SHR1. This one has SCM1004, a letter to Congress demanding that the federal government pay for any health care programs that are required for the states.

- Veterans and Military Affairs will meet on Wednesday at 1:30 p.m. in SHR2. Quiet thus far.

- Finance meets on Wednesday at 1:30 p.m. in SHR3. One item of interest here is SB1402, Russell Pearce's limits on the secondary property taxes imposed by special taxing districts (including fire districts, library districts, county jail districts, and/or county public health services districts). *Exactly* how it does that is a little unclear to me.

This bill should be an exhibit in the case showing why lawyers should never be allowed to write laws; English majors or journalists should.

The latter groups, by training and disposition, prefer to write sentences that actually clearly communicate information and ideas. The former?

Not so much. :)

- Education Accountability and Reform will meet on Wednesday at 1:30 p.m. in SHR1. Whether it's through the huge gashes inflicted by the Reps' meat-cleaver approach during the budget process or through the nicks and papercuts inflicted by the bills on this agenda, the bleeding of the state's education system continues. Some of the agendized items include:

SB1175, expanding the membership of the Governing Board of the Maricopa County Community College District by adding two members who will be elected on a county-wide basis. Aka "the keep the MCCCD Board dominated by Republicans" bill.

SB1280, making sure that home-schooled students are notified of the scholarship requirements and criteria of the Arizona Board of Regents (actually, this one doesn't seem to be too bad, but I want to see what it looks like after going through the entire legislative process before being totally at ease with it).

SB1284, messing with school financing rules. One of the highlights: language that makes cuts to funding imposed during the year, such as those we've seen from the various special sessions of the lege this year, retroactive to the beginning of the fiscal year. In other words, cuts to state funding won't just impact school districts going forward, they'll force school districts to return money.

SB1286, changing the grading of schools from words like "excelling" and "highly performing" to letter grades (the traditional A thru F). Probably not a bad thing in itself, but the changes to the formula determining how that grade is arrived at may be. Somebody with more experience in this area should look at that (David Safier, that's you. :) )

- Government Institutions will meet on Thursday at 9:30 a.m. in SHR1.

Nuggets here include:

SB1143, creating the ability for counties to change their borders via "local initiative." Another bill I don't completely understand as yet, but it's from Jack Harper - it's presumed to be a bad one.

SB1348, Senate President Bob Burns' proposal to slow down new regulations of business, such as requirements that specific medical procedures/conditions be covered by health insurers, and to speed up the discard of older regulations. There are other similar clauses in this bill, enough for it to be named "The Bob Burns is setting up a run for Corporation Commission and wants to secure business financing for his run" bill.

...Check back on the lege's website later in the week for any changes to committee agendas.

Later!

The GOP Road to Ruin

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

For thirty years this country bought into the faith based supply-side economics of the Republican Party. Our manufacturing base disappeared, shipped overseas in the name of free trade corporate globalism. It made China an economic powerhouse and our largest creditor. China owns U.S. Meanwhile, American towns boarded up their Main Streets and in some cases entire towns disappeared. There is a blight upon the land.

We deregulated the financial services industry that immediately turned our economy into casino capitalism based upon betting on exotic investment schemes too complex for even Wall Street bankers to comprehend. These exotic investment schemes were non-recourse and not backed by any hard assets, i.e., they have no real value. An "irrational exuberance" of greed unleashed a series of market bubbles including a housing bubble - the average American's principle investment - that collapsed and nearly destroyed the world's financial system and economy in 2008.

Between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2009, not a single net new job was created in this country - nada, zip. Not since the Great Depression has there been an entire decade without net job growth.

George W. Bush inherited a budget surplus for which Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan expressed concern in January 2001 “that continuing to run surpluses beyond the point at which we reach zero or near-zero federal debt brings to center stage the critical longer-term fiscal policy issue of whether the federal government should accumulate large quantities of private (more technically nonfederal) assets.” Greenspan green-lighted the Bush tax cuts, the most massive tax cuts to corporations and the wealthy in our country's history.

The Bush tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy were not paid for. Neither were Americans asked to pay for two wars, one in Afghanistan and one an unnecessary war of choice in Iraq. Former deficit hawk Vice President Dick Cheney proclaimed that "deficits don't matter." The Republican Congress went on a spending spree, including a corporate subsidy to Big Pharma for prescription drugs that was not paid for.

Like Ronald Reagan before him who tripled the national debt during his term of office with tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy and military spending not paid for, George W. Bush doubled the national debt again during his term of office.

The take-away lesson from our recent history is that the faith based supply-side economics of the Republican Party is a fraud. It has been entirely disproved and discredited. Anyone still touting this fraud is unserious and unfit for public office.

Past is prelude to the future. Forewarned is forearmed. The Republican Party is plotting its political comeback on doubling down on this disproved and discredited faith based supply-side economic theory that destroyed the America we were. They now want to finish the job.

Returning to their 1994 campaign gimmick of the "Contract on America," the Republicans propose to complete the task of their unraveling of America that they failed to complete while in power.

Jon Perr writes at crooksandliars.com GOP Budget Proposes to Ration Medicare, Privatize Social Security:

Throughout the bitter debate over health care reform, talking points about "rationing" and "cuts to Medicare" have been the twin pillars of Republican fear mongering. For example, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in June warned of reform that "denies, delays, or rations health care," only to falsely charge weeks later that Democrats "are going to pay for this plan by cutting Medicare, that is cutting seniors." But with the publication of the Republican "shadow" budget by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), the GOP is now proposing exactly what just weeks ago it claimed to decry: rationing Medicare:

Last year, 137 House Republicans voted to convert the Medicare program that provides 46 million Americans with health insurance into a system of vouchers. (In September, Sarah Palin penned a Wall Street Journal op-ed which similarly called for "providing Medicare recipients with vouchers that allow them to purchase their own coverage.") Now, as Ezra Klein, Matthew Yglesias and TPM all noted, the GOP's Paul Ryan is making the privatization of Medicare the centerpiece of a new Republican deficit reduction gambit.

Of course, because the value of Ryan's vouchers fails to keep up with the out-of-control rise in premiums in the private health insurance market, America's elderly would be forced to pay more out of pocket or accept less coverage. The Washington Post's Klein described the inexorable Republican rationing of Medicare which would then ensue:

The proposal would shift risk from the federal government to seniors themselves. The money seniors would get to buy their own policies would grow more slowly than their health-care costs, and more slowly than their expected Medicare benefits, which means that they'd need to either cut back on how comprehensive their insurance is or how much health-care they purchase. Exacerbating the situation -- and this is important -- Medicare currently pays providers less and works more efficiently than private insurers, so seniors trying to purchase a plan equivalent to Medicare would pay more for it on the private market.

It's hard, given the constraints of our current debate, to call something "rationing" without being accused of slurring it. But this is rationing, and that's not a slur. This is the government capping its payments and moderating their growth in such a way that many seniors will not get the care they need.

On Tuesday, Ryan acknowledged as much.

Sadly for the Republican brain trust, he failed to follow the script that only Democratic reforms lead to "health care denied, delayed and rationed."

"Rationing happens today! The question is who will do it? The government? Or you, your doctor and your family?"

Of course, Ryan left out the real culprit - the private insurance market. But with 50 million uninsured, another 25 million underinsured, one in five American postponing needed care and medical costs driving over 60% of personal bankruptcies, Congressman Ryan is surely right that "rationing happens today."

But the Republican plan to "slash and privatize" hardly ends there. Despite insistence by the Republican leadership that the party is not officially advocating it, the Ryan alternative budget follows Rep. Jeb Hensarling's announced desire to privatize Medicare. As TPM documented:

Rep. Paul Ryan, (R-WI) the ranking Republican on the budget committee, recently detailed the Republican plan for Social Security that preserves the existing program for those 55 or older. For younger people the plan "offers the option of investing over one-third of their current Social Security taxes into personal retirement accounts, similar to the Thrift Savings Plan available to federal employees."

If that sounds vaguely familiar, it should. After all, George W. Bush's disastrous drive to privatize Social Security helped undermine his presidency. Now, in the wake of a Wall Street meltdown that evaporated the retirement savings for countless thousands of Americans, the Republican wunderkind Ryan is calling for an encore.

In Paul Ryan's defense, his so-called "A Roadmap for America's Future" was scored by the Congressional Budget Office as erasing the long-term deficit entirely, and produce surpluses by 2080 (!). While the Post's Klein stated, "I wouldn't balance the budget in anything like the way Ryan proposes," he also admitted:

"The audacity is breathtaking. But it is also impressive."

Audacious, indeed. After months of scaring the American people into believing that President Obama and the Democrats would ration health care and gut Medicare, Paul Ryan's Republican Party now proposes to do both.

[For more, visit the American Road Map web site at http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/]

Send Us Your Campaign News!

Blog for Arizona is pleased to announce a new feature for 2010. Because mainstream media do not cover local campaigns except within a narrow window of coverage shortly before a primary or general election, BforAZ will strive to provide our readers with in-depth election coverage throughout the year.

BforAZ aims to be "election central" for Democratic campaigns in Arizona. To accomplish this, however, will require the cooperation of Democratic candidates for office, as well as the assistance of our readers. Read more...

Businesses unite against the expensive recall campaign

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I received this press release:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE	CONTACTS
February 6, 2010	Pam Sutherland, 520-548-1451 June Webb-Vignery, 520-299-1257

 

 

BUSINESSES UNITE AGAINST THE EXPENSIVE RECALL CAMPAIGN

 

TUCSON—The bi-partisan “Oppose the Expensive Recall” committee launched this week to combat the proposed recall of Tucson Mayor Bob Walkup and City Councilors Regina Romero and Karin Uhlich.

 

“Times are tough and we are all in this together – let’s stop shooting at each other and instead work toward solutions to our economic crisis,” said Pam Sutherland, a local business attorney and partner in Downtown’s successful Ice House Lofts project.  “The misguided and harmful recall campaign needs to be terminated immediately,” Sutherland stated, “It’s dividing our community at a time when we need to be pulling together.”

 

Republican educator June Webb-Vignery focused on the waste of money and energy that the recall would require:  “We should be using our scarce funds for our core programs, not paying for another election.”  Cost estimates for the recall election vary from $400,000 - $800,000 – at a time when the City of Tucson is in a budget deficit of approximately $32,000,000.

 

The Mayor and City Councilors have been working to ease the pain for Tucson business owners and spur economic development for the city. 

 

All have held numerous town halls, roundtables, and other meetings with businesses across Tucson to maintain open communication and seek input;
Mayor and Council demanded changes to the Land use Code (LUC) with changes to sign codes and parking requirements (this effort has been on-going since last spring);
Councilmembers Regina Romero and Karin Uhlich spearheaded changes to the city’s procurement policies to favor locally-owned businesses; 
Romero has shepherded protected developer rights, saving developers fees and time;
Mayor Walkup has called for reform to the City Charter and annexation of unincorporated areas so that Tucson and Southern Arizona may have its share of the tax revenue generated from that area;  and
Under the current city council’s stewardship, the city has been awarded $22,000,000 in Neighborhood Stabilization Program II funds to purchase and renovate foreclosed-upon homes for low-income home buyers which will have the added effect of increasing jobs in the building sector.

 

What our economy needs right now is the best of ALL our efforts.  Political stability is vital to our economic recovery.  Campaign season is over.  The voters have spoken.  It is time to end the political shenanigans and focus on the work ahead.

 

 

###

Political Calendar: Week of February 7, 2010

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Political Calendar is posted on Sundays. Please send us notice of your political events prior to the Sunday before your event (7 days would be most helpful). See the calendar icon in the right-hand column of the blog page for easy access to the calendar.

Today is Superbowl XLIV. Those Roman numerals make me feel so much older. The New Orleans Saints have waited a long time. Go Saints! The Vancouver Winter Olympics get under way with the opening ceremonies on Friday.

Political Calendar For The Week of February 7, 2010

Sundays, 6:00 p.m.: Drinking Liberally, at The Shanty, 401 E. 9th Street (at 4th Avenue). An informal, inclusive progressive social group, and lively discussion.

Sunday, February 7, 5:30 p.m.: A Celebration of the life of Maurice Grossman (memorial service) at the Tucson Museum of Art, 140 N. Main Avenue. Come share your favorite story or fondest memory of this long-time community and political activist and artist in Tucson.

Monday, February 8, Noon: Democrats of Greater Tucson luncheon, Dragon's View Restaurant (400 N. Bonita, south of St. Mary's Road between the Freeway and Grande Avenue, turn south at Furr's Cafeteria), buffet lunch costs $8.50. Featured speakers this week are Jeff Rogers, Pima County Democratic Party Chair, and Tucson City Council Member Karin Uhlich.

Monday, February 8, 6:00 p.m.: Legislative District 29 meeting, at the Sam Lena Library, 1607 S. Sixth Avenue (South Tucson). For more information contact Laura Elías de la Torre, (520) 465-5390 or LD29Chair@gmail.com

Monday, February 8, 7:00 p.m.: Democrats of Oro Valley meeting, at the Oro Valley Library, 1305 W. Naranja Drive (Oro Valley). Featured speaker is Laura Penny, Executive Director of the Women's Foundation for Southern Arizona. The foundation advances women's leadership and philanthropy by raising, managing and granting money to meet the needs of women and girls in programs that support women as an economic development tool assuring self-sufficiency and contributing to the local economy. For more information contact Mike Dayton (520) 742-3774.

Tuesday, February 9, 5:30: Tucson Fiesta for Andrei Cherney, candidate for state Treasurer, at Sir Vezas Taco Garage (formerly El Charro), 4699 E. Speedway (at Swan Road). Fundraiser. Suggested contribution is $100. To learn more about Andrei and to contribute to his campaign, please visit www.andreiforarizona.com. For more information or to RSVP please contact: RSVP@andreiforarizona.com

Wednesday, February 10, 5:30 p.m.: 5th Annual Ms. Rosa Parks Living History Awards Celebration, at Rigo's Restaurant, 2527 S. 4th Avenue. Sponsored by the NAACP and LULAC, and dozens of other community partners. In the spirit of their activism, the honorees that will be recognized contributed to the Tucson community through advocacy, education, arts and environment, public government service, business, faith-based efforts and health. For more information or to RSVP, please call (520) 903-2838.

Thursday, February 11, 7:00 p.m.: "Fireside Chat" Fundraiser for Andrea Delassandro, candidate for LD 30 House, at the Green Valley Performing Arts Center, 1250 W. Continental Road (Green Valley). Tickets are $20. Please pay secure online at www.ANDREAforAZ.NET or make checks payable to "Andrea for AZ" and mail to P.O. Box 945, Green Valley, AZ 85622-094. For more information call Andrea Delassandro at (520) 648-2092.

Thursday, February 11, 5:30 p.m.: Pima County Nucleus Club meeting, at the Viscount Suite Hotel, 4855 E. Broadway. This month's featured speakers are Jeff Rogers, Pima County Democratic Party Chair, and Don Bivens, Arizona Democratic Party Chair. Admission free to Nucleus Club members, $20 for everyone else. Please pay dues secure online at http://www.ActBlue.com/page/Nucleus_Club. For more information and to RSVP (please) contact Ash Silverburg at (520) 326-3716.

Saturday, February 13, 8:00 a.m.: O'Odham Tash Days (and parade), at Peart Park (Casa Grande). Pinal County Democratic Party will be tabling for voter registration and PEVL. Contact Barbara Njos if you're interested in volunteering or riding in the parade at (520) 868-0072 or pinaldemocrat@gmail.com.

Saturday, February 13, 8:00 a.m.: Congressman Grijalva's Campaign Kickoff Breakfast, at 452 N. Stone Avenue (Tucson), followed by a canvass at 9:00 a.m. Please bring your family, friends, appetite and walking shoes so that we can start off the season on the right foot. Please RSVP to Brissia Perez, brissiap@gmail.com or call (520) 629-0050, or visit the Congressman's website.

Saturday, February 13, Noon: LD 26 Campaign Kickoff Party for Cheryl Cage and Rep. Nancy Young Wright, at Mason Audubon Center, 8751 N. Thornydale Road (at Hardy Street). Featured guest is Attorney General Terry Goddard. Enjoy live music by Bobby and Michael Ronstadt, refreshments, door prizes, and plenty of children's activities. For more information contact Carolyn Badger at (520) 818-1628. Please RSVP to Aspen Green at aspengreen900@comcast.net.

Saturday, February 13, 12:30 p.m.: Democratic Club of the Santa Rita Area hosts a "meet and greet" for Dr. Todd Camenisch, Democratic candidate for senate in LD 30, at Casa de Esperanza Community Center, 780 S. Park Centre Avenue (Green Valley). Dr. Camenisch is a tireless advocate for education and currently serves as a Board Member for the Catalina Foothills School District. The DCSRA is also collecting contributions for the Amado Food Bank, which serves over 500 families. Items currently needed include canned vegetables, fruit, soup, tomatoes, fish, meat, packaged cereal, macaroni and cheese, potatoes, pasta, bottled juices and CASH. Items NOT needed are beans and rice. For more information, please contact Jim Woodbrey at (520) 393-1310.

Saturday, February 13, 2:00 p.m.: District 10 Democrats Annual "Chocolate Extravaganza," at the home of David and Marilyn Curry, 226 W. Orchard (Phoenix). District 10 will be honoring Gloria Furman, Democratic activist and Doug Kilgore, Arizona Education Association Public Relations' Advisor. Silent auction. For more information and to RSVP please call (623) 979-9800.

Sunday, February 14, 1:00 p.m.: Saguaro Eastside Democrats' Sixth Annual "I Love Liberty Party," at the home of Bob and Shelley Schwartz, 3455 N. Winslow Drive (Tucson). Meet and greet candidates and elected officials and each other at our sixth annual party. Free. Please bring an appetizer or dessert. For more information and to RSVP contact Sharon McCormick (520) 296-9395.

Sunday, February 14, 3:00 p.m.: "Fireside Chat" Fundraiser for Andrea Delassandro, candidate for LD 30 House, at the Green Valley Performing Arts Center, 1250 W. Continental Road (Green Valley). Tickets are $20. Please pay secure online at www.ANDREAforAZ.NET or make checks payable to "Andrea for AZ" and mail to P.O. Box 945, Green Valley, AZ 85622-094. For more information call Andrea Delassandro at (520) 648-2092.

Special Announcements:

Center for Progressive Leadership Training Program

The Center for Progressive Leadership offers a comprehensive training program for progressive individuals planning or thinking about running for an elected office in the near or distant future, as well as those wishing to hone their skills as campaign managers. The Center is currently accepting applications for the session held on the weekends of April 10-11, May 1-2, and May 22-23 (all workshops are in Phoenix). The program fee is $100. Applications are due by March 22. For more information or to register, please contact Angelica Delgadillo at (602) 254-1495 or adelgadillo@progressiveleaders.org.

Arizona Democratic Party Legislative Salute Dinner

When: Wednesday, February, 24, 2010

5:30 p.m. General and VIP Receptions and registration

6:45 p.m. Dinner

Where: Wyndham Phoenix, 50 E. Adams Street, Phoenix, AZ

R.S.V.P. to RSVP@azdem.org or (602) 234-6801

Please join the Arizona Democratic Party as we salute our Democratic State Legislators, featuring Attorney General Terry Goddard, with a special tribute to Jack W. Lunsford, President & CEO of WESTMARC and former Coconino County Assessor.

SWAG Update

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Time once again to update candidate filings. Rep. Sam Crump resigned this week to run for Congress in CD 3. We are still waiting on Sen. Jonathan Paton to resign to run for Congress in CD 8. The dance card is filling up quickly. You can play along at home at http://www.azsos.gov/cfs/CommitteeSearch.aspx

I have no idea how the Special Election for the temporary sales tax increase scheduled for May 18, 2010 will impact candidate filings. This has never occurred before. I assume it will make campaigning easier as the public will be more politically aware and engaged earlier in the election season than is usual. It is going to make for crowded party primaries in August.

A word of caution, the list below does not distinguish between an "exploratory committee" and a "candidate committee." "NP" indicates no party affiliation designated on the face of the filing.

So who is out there exploring if not actually running for office in 2010?

Governor

Janelle Wood - NP
Roy Miller - NP
Kent Warren Couchee - NP
Fredrick 'Fred' Scotty - NP
Stanford Collins - Independent
Alvin Ray Yount - Independent
Bruce Olsen - Libertarian
Samuel T. Willis - Republican
Hugh Kealer - Republican
Karen Johnson - Republican
Johnnie E. Robinson III - Republican
Robert Shaw Graham - Republican
Matthew Jette - Republican
John Munger - Republican
Steven H. Slaton - Republican
Jan Brewer - Republican
Buz Mills - Republican
Dean Martin - Republican
Charles Caston - NP (ASU College Republicans)
Benjamin Jankowski, Jr. - Democrat
Terry Goddard - Democrat

Secretary of State

Sam Wercinski - Democrat
Christopher Deschene - Democrat
Ken Bennett - Republican

Attorney General

David Lujan - Democrat
Felecia Ann Rotellini - Democrat
Vince Rabago - Democrat
Tom Horne - Republican
Andrew Thomas - Republican
Tajudeen "Taj" Oladiran - Republican

Treasurer

Andrei Cherney - Democrat
Thayer Verschoor - Republican
Barbara Leff - Republican
Theodore "Ted" Carpenter - Republican

Superintendent of Public Instruction

Jason Williams - Democrat
Penny Kotterman - Democrat
John Huppenthal - Republican
Margaret Dugan - Republican
Mary Lou Taylor - Republican
Beth Price - Republican

Corporation Commission

Jorge Luis Garcia - Democrat
Gary Pierce - Republican
Brenda Burns - Republican
Barry Wong - Republican

State Mine Inspector

Manuel Orozco Cruz - Democrat
Joe Hart - Republican

Arizona Legislature

LD  1 Steve Pierce - Republican - Senate
LD  1 Andrew Tobin - Republican - House
LD  1 Karen Fann - Republican - House
LD  1 Noel Campbell - Republican - House
LD  1 Lucy Mason - Republican - House (filing does not designate office sought)

LD  2 Sylvia Laughter - Democrat - Senate
LD  2 Albert Tom - Democrat - House
LD  2 Tom Chabin - Democrat - House
LD  2 Patrick Carr - Democrat - House
LD  2 Frank Mulligan - NP - House

LD  3 Beth Weisser - Democrat -Senate
LD  3 Ron Gould - Republican - Senate
LD  3 Thomas Howell - Republican - Senate
LD  3 Nancy McLain - Republican - House
LD  3 Doris Goodale - Republican - House
LD  3 Ray Cullison - Republican - House

LD  4 Sue Dolphin - Democrat - Senate
LD  4 Scott Bundgaard - Republican - Senate
LD  4 Shawn Kohner - Republican Senate
LD  4 Tony Bouie - Republican - Senate
LD  4 Karina Guerrero - Democrat - House
LD  4 Jack Harper - Republican - House
LD  4 Judy Burges - Republican - House
LD  4 Timothy 'Tim' Zobel - Republican - House

LD  5 Sylvia Allen - Republican - Senate
LD  5 Bill Konopnicki - Republican - Senate
LD  5 David Rodriguez - NP - House
LD  5 Bill Shumway - Democrat - House
LD  5 Brenda Barton - Republican - House
LD  5 Chester Crandell - Republican - House
LD  5 LeAnn Arganbright - Republican - House

LD  6 Patricia Flickner - Democrat - Senate
LD  6 Teri Conrad - Democrat - House
LD  6 Steven Henry Kaiser - Republican - House
LD  6 Nicholas Burr - Republican - House
LD  6 Carl Seel - Republican - House
LD  6 Richard Newhouse, Jr. - Republican - House
LD  6 David Fitzgerald - Republican - House
LD  6 Lori Klein - Republican - House (filing does not designate office sought)
LD  6 Leonard Clark - Independent - House

LD  7 Ray Barnes - Republican - Senate
LD  7 Nancy Barto - Republican - Senate
LD  7 Brad Buch - Republican - Senate
LD  7 Robert "Bob" Green - Republican - Senate
LD  7 Peter Joseph Royers - Democrat - House
LD  7 Michael Coskun - Republican - House
LD  7 Lawrence Coutts - Republican - House
LD  7 David Burnell Smith - Republican - House
LD  7 Kristen Burroughs - Republican - House
LD  7 Howard Sprague - Republican - House
LD  7 Craig Barton - NP - House

LD  8 Michele Reagan - Republican - Senate
LD  8 John Alan Kriekard - Democrat - House
LD  8 Walter John Williamson - NP - House
LD  8 Ray Mahoubi - Republican - House
LD  8 Eric Ulis - Republican - House
LD  8 Dennis Robbins - Republican - House
LD  8 James Rich - Republican - House
LD  8 David Paddison - Republican - House
LD  8 Michael Blaire - Republican - House
LD  8 Paul LoBianco - Republican - House
LD  8 John Kavanagh - Republican - House
LD  8 Michelle Ugenti - Republican - House
LD  8 Paula Anne Pennypacker - Republican - House
LD  8 Jacob Roy Chapman - Republican - House

LD  9 Sheri van Horsen - Democrat - Senate
LD  9 Robert Burns - Republican - Senate (exploratory filing does not designate office sought)
LD  9 Rick Murphy - Republican - Senate
LD  9 James Andrew Clark - Republican - Senate
LD  9 Diane Douglas - Republican - House
LD  9 Debbie Lesko - Republican - House
LD  9 Richard "Rick" Gray - Republican - House
LD  9 Nathaniel Martin - Republican - House

LD10 Justin Johnson - Democrat - Senate
LD10 Linda Gray - Republican - Senate
LD10 Jackie Thrasher - Democrat - House
LD10 Edy Blackwell - Democrat - House
LD10 Aaron Jahneke - Democrat - House
LD10 James Weiers - Republican - House
LD10 Bill Adams - Republican - House
LD10 Doug Quelland - Republican - House

LD11 Rita Dickinson - Democrat - Senate
LD11 Allen Harlan - Republican -Senate
LD11 Rich Davis - Republican - Senate
LD11 Adam Driggs - Republican - Senate
LD11 John Allen - Republican - Senate
LD11 Andrew Smigielski - Republican - Senate
LD11 Eric Meyer - Democrat - House
LD11 Jon C. Altmann - Republican - House
LD11 Beverly Kraft - Republican - House
LD11 Dusti LeeAnn Morris - Republican - House
LD11 Kate McGee - Republican - House
LD11 Shawnna Bolick - Republican - House

LD12 Tyler Kissell - Democrat - Senate
LD12 John Nelson - Republican - Senate
LD12 Clark Silver - Republican - Senate
LD12 Evangeline 'Eve' Nunez - Republican - Senate
LD12 Angela Cotera - Democrat - House
LD12 Jerry Weiers - Republican - House
LD12 Steve Montenegro - Republican - House

LD13 Steve Gallardo - Democrat - Senate
LD13 Martha Garcia - Democrat - Senate
LD13 Ana Tovar - Democrat - House
LD13 John Martin Quezada - Democrat - House
LD13 Lydia Hernandez - Democrat - House

LD14 Robert Meza - Democrat - Senate
LD14 Chad Campbell - Democrat - House

LD15 Krysten Sinema - Democrat - Senate
LD15 Bob Thomas - Republican - Senate
LD15 Katie Hobbs - Democrat - House
LD15 Lela Alston - Democrat - House
LD15 Luis Alberto Garcia - Democrat - House
LD15 Ken Clark - Democrat - House
LD15 Bernice Condit - Republican - House
LD15 Dean Yoder - Republican - House
LD15 Kathryn Marquoit - Independent - House

LD16 Victor Jett Contreras - Democrat - Senate
LD16 Leah Landrum Taylor - Democrat - Senate
LD16 Cristy Lopez - Democrat - House
LD16 Jimmie Munoz, Jr. - Democrat - House
LD16 Ruben Gallego - Democrat - House
LD16 Catherine H. Miranda - Democrat - House
LD16 Sandra Gonzales - Democrat - House
LD16 Robert Michael Gular - Republican - House

LD17 David Schapira - Democrat - Senate
LD17 Wendy Rogers - Republican - Senate
LD17 Ed Ableser - Democrat - House
LD17 Ben Arredondo - Democrat - House
LD17 Donald Hawker - Republican - House
LD17 Augustus H Shaw IV - NP - House

LD18 Robert McDonald, Jr. - Democrat - Senate
LD18 Russell Pearce - Republican - Senate
LD18 Michael Conway - Democrat - House
LD18 Cecil Ash - Republican - House
LD18 Steve Court - Republican - House

LD19 Rich Crandall - Republican - Senate
LD19 James Molina - Republican - Senate
LD19 Kathryn "Kit" Filbey - Democrat - House
LD19 Kirk Adams - Republican - House
LD19 Scott Perkinson - Republican - House

LD20 John McComish - Republican - Senate
LD20 Rae Waters - Democrat - House
LD20 Christopher Tolino - Republican - House
LD20 Bob Robson - Republican - House
LD20 Jeff Dial - Republican - House

LD21 Steve Yarbrough - Republican - Senate
LD21 Jeff Vance - Republican - House
LD21 Venessa Whitener - Republican - House
LD21 J.D. Mesnard - Republican - House
LD21 Tom Forese III - Republican - House
LD21 Scott Bergren - NP - House

LD22 James Samuelson - Democrat - Senate
LD22 Andy Biggs - Republican - Senate
LD22 Adam Armer - Republican - House
LD22 Steven Urie - Republican - House
LD22 Kelly Townsend - Republican - House
LD22 Paul Howell - Republican - House
LD22 Laurin Hendrix - Republican - House
LD22 Brett Matthew Petillo - Republican - House

LD23 Rebecca Rios - Democrat - Senate
LD23 Matthew Byers - Republican - Senate
LD23 Steve Smith - Republican - Senate
LD23 Barbara McGuire - Democrat - House
LD23 Emily Verdugo-Aldrich - Democrat - House
LD23 Ernest Bustamante - Democrat - House
LD23 Frank Pratt - Republican - House
LD23 John Fillmore - Republican - House

LD24 Amanda Aguirre - Democrat - Senate
LD24 Robert Cannell - Republican - Senate
LD24 Lynne Pancrazi - Democrat - House

LD25 Manuel "Manny" Alvarez - Democrat - Senate
LD25 Patricia Fleming - Democrat - House
LD25 Kenneth "Ken" Davis - Democrat - House
LD25 David Stevens - Republican - House
LD25 Gurmeet 'George' Nerhan - Republican - House
LD25 Timathy Davies - Republican - House

LD26 Cheryl Cage - Democrat - Senate
LD26 Al Melvin - Republican - Senate
LD26 Nancy Young Wright - Democrat - House
LD26 Terri Lynn Proud - Republican - House
LD26 Vic Williams - Republican - House

LD27 Olivia Cajero Bedford - Democrat - Senate
LD27 J.D. 'Duke' Schechter - Republican - Senate
LD27 Bob Gilby - Democrat - House
LD27 Sami Hamed - Democrat - House
LD27 Dustin Curtis Cox - Democrat - House
LD27 John Martin Bernal - Democrat - House
LD27 Sally Ann Gozales - Democrat - House
LD27 Robert Compton - Republican - House
LD27 Gene Chewning - Independent - House

LD28 Ted Downing - Democrat - Senate
LD28 Ted Prezelski - Democrat - House
LD28 Mohur Mona Sidhwa - Democrat - House
LD28 Tim Sultan - Democrat - House
LD28 Steve Farley - Democrat - House
LD28 Bruce Wheeler - Democrat - House
LD28 Ken Smalley - Republican - House

LD29 Matt Heinz - Democrat - House
LD29 Daniel Patterson - Democrat - House
LD29 Pat Kilburn - Republican - House

LD30 Todd Camenisch - Democrat - Senate
LD30 Frank Antenori - Republican - [Senate]
LD30 Marian McClure - Republican - Senate
LD30 Andrea Dalessandro - Democrat - House
LD30 David Gowan - Republican - House
LD30 Doug Sposito - Republican - House
LD30 Kurt Knurr - Republican - House

Updated 2/9/10

Funny, but a red star is the symbol of Communism

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

J.D. Hayworth's official campaign web site went public yesterday, link here (www.JDforSenate.com).

The banner logo at the top of the home page caught my attention:

Funny, but a Red star is the symbol of Communism. I'm just saying. I'll bet his campaign will change it now.

Not a G.I. tweet after all

by David Safier

Thanks to Sonoran Sam for catching this. I guess the tweet I posted criticizing Antenori wasn't from the Goldwater Institute after all. 

According to Dawn Teo, G.I. tweets under GoldwaterInst, and the one I referred to comes from GoldwaterAZ. As Thane pointed out, lots of people use Goldwater's name, not just G.I.

I got it wrong -- unless, of course, someone else tells me different -- and I regret the error. I have to remember, if it looks too good to be true, maybe it is.

I also have to take back my "Way to go!" to G.I., since I complimented the Institute for something it didn't do.

Goldwater Institute asks the Supremes to intervene in Citizens Clean Elections

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The ruling of U.S. District Court Judge Roslyn Silver holding that the matching funds provision of Citizens Clean Elections is unconstitutional, based upon U.S. Supreme Court precedents, was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Silver granted an order of stay of her opinion and order pending the appeal.

The Goldwater Institute, representing the corporatists who want to do away with Citizens Clean Elections on the specious argument that it is "public welfare for politicians" (as opposed to corporate bailouts and the corporate welfare companies routinely receive from the very same politicians who are challenging Citizens Clean Elections), has filed a petition from the order of stay with the U.S. Supreme Court. Block Clean Elections, US justices are urged:

In pleadings Thursday before the U.S. Supreme Court, attorney Nick Dranias of the Goldwater Institute noted that U.S. District Judge Roslyn Silver has already concluded a provision giving extra money to publicly financed candidates to match spending by privately funded foes is unconstitutional. But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed earlier this week to stay her decision while the state appeals, effectively leaving the matching funds in place.

Dranias argued that every day Silver's ruling is prevented from taking effect "punishes, deters and chills the exercise of First Amendment rights" by those who want to use their own money, or that of donors, to run for office.

* * *

"If anything, it is far more likely the Court of Appeals' appellate stay is disrupting, and would disrupt the legitimacy of the 2010 election cycle by stifling core political speech," [Dranias] told the justices. "Additionally, no case has ever held that the public interest requires courts to refrain from vindicating the First Amendment in order to ensure government campaign subsidies are distributed to particular candidates."

Dranias' "chilling political speech" argument is specious. No one is denying his clients' political speech. This is not about speech at all, it is about maintaining his clients' financial advantage over their political opponents, something never contemplated by the Founding Fathers nor protected by the U.S. Constitution. Judge Silver destroyed Dranias' specious argument in her opinion:

In some respects the burden Plaintiffs allegedly suffer in this case is analogous to the burden in [Davis v. FEC]. Plaintiffs submit evidence that they have felt “chilled” and that but for the matching provisions they would have spent or will spend more money on campaigns. Thus, it appears that in Plaintiffs’ view, the “burden” is that an exercise of their First Amendment right to spend as much as they wish will result in Arizona conferring an additional benefit on publicly-financed candidates. Those candidates presumably will spend the matching funds, i.e. generate more speech.

In other words, the “burden” created by the Act is that Plaintiffs’ speech will lead directly to more speech. Given that the purpose of the First Amendment is to “secure the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources,” it seems illogical to conclude that the Act creating more speech is a constitutionally prohibited “burden” on Plaintiffs. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 49.

Another strange aspect of the alleged burden is that public financing of elections is permitted by the Constitution. If the Act provided for a single lump sum award, instead of incremental awards, the law would fall squarely within the regime blessed in Buckley and reaffirmed in Davis. Presumably the Act would also be permissible if the incremental awards were linked to some occurrence other than a non-publicly financed candidate’s speech. Thus, Plaintiffs are left to argue their First Amendment rights are violated not by the fact of public financing, or the level of that financing, but by the fact that Arizona provides incremental grants linked to their activities. If a single lump sum award would not burden Plaintiffs’ free speech rights in any cognizable way, finding a burden solely because of the incremental nature of the awards seems difficult to establish.

Unfortunately, the petition filed by the Goldwater Institute will be heard by the conservative activist Supreme Court that radically departed from long-standing federal law and judicial precedents in Citizens United v. FEC to give birth to a new corporatocracy. There are probably the votes on the Supreme Court to consider this petition rather than deny it.

Should the Supreme Court agree to consider this petition it should be taken as a sign that the court intends to lift the stay order pending the outcome of this appeal (which will eventually find its way to the U.S. Supreme Court). Stay tuned.