Blog For Arizona

Jan Brewer's Unseemly Glee

The US District Court for Arizona handed down an order of partial summary judgement in the big Prop200 election rights case, Gonzales v. Arizona, and Secretary of State Jan Brewer reacted as if she had just parted the Red Sea. Her press release crowed:

“I am extremely happy to have earned this sweeping court victory on behalf of the citizens of Arizona, yet again Arizonan’s are able to retain their inherent right to properly establish proof of citizenship when registering to vote and require proper identification when voting at the polling place.”

Beyond the distasteful crowing over a law that is more about disenfranchising Americans than about fighting non-existent voter identity fraud, the idea that Brewer did anything to "earn" this victory is specious, AG Goddard's office is the one doing the litigation, and you don't see him crowing about his great victory; he didn't even make a press release. That says something telling about Brewer's political intent: she is playing to her base using this litigation. For her, it's not about upholding the law, it's about positioning herself with her party's xenophobes for a run at the Governorship. She should be concerned with Arizonan's inherent right to vote, and instead she waxes rhapsodic about some inherent right to demand ID at the polls. Since Prop. 200 became law, 30,000 legal citizens have not been allowed to register to vote, and countless residents have been refused at the polls.

Missing from Brewer's triumphal release is the simple fact that this decision was just clearing the deadwood issues from the case. When there are multiple consolidated plaintiffs in a case, each with their own lawyers, you get a nice flurry of theories of the case. What the court did in this summary judgment is toss out those claims that were either weak to begin with, or had been mooted by other court decisions subsequent to the complaints. The court's decision simply sharpened the focus of the court on those complaints that are viable and require litigation.

Nowhere in Brewer's release note that two vital issues remain for trial: whether Prop200 is a disparate burden on minorities under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and whether it is an undue burden on the right to vote under 14th Amendment jurisprudence. These critical and unresolved issues were not addressed and are the heart of the case as it now moves forward, not to mention being vital civil rights issues for Arizona's voters. You would think that Brewer might be interested in the civil rights of Arizona's voters, but then you would simply demonstrate that you don't know Jan Brewer.

What Brewer did make sure to point out is that court "sided with Brewer on the following areas:

• the National Voter Registration Act does not prohibit requiring voters     to prove citizenship when registering to vote
• Prop. 200 is not an unconstitutional poll tax
• Prop. 200 identification requirements do not create two classes of voters
• Proof of citizenship is material in determining an individual’s eligibility to vote
• The Secretary of State’s submission of pre-clearance from the U.S. Department of Justice on Proposition 200 was in proper form
• The Secretary of State makes available the federal voter registration form as required by law
• Requiring proof of citizenship does not conflict with other Arizona laws
• The Secretary of State has met her statutory obligations required in performing the duties of her job"

Now, reading the court's opinion, I concur on every one of those points... except the last. Nowhere does the court indicate that Jan Brewer is meeting all statutory obligations of her job. They do agree that Brewer was making registration forms available to a degree legally acceptable, but to claim a mandate for your entire administration on the basis of someone agreeing that you aren't breaking the law in one area seems to me to be overreaching. And a little needy? Someone needs a hug and some 'me' time, I think.

I don't have an objection to the litigation of these issues. These are important legal questions and they need to be resolved. I don't fault Goddard for his office's involvement in defending Prop200, and I wouldn't fault the Secretary of State (though these days I guess she styling herself Acting Governor and declaring emergencies...) for defending a law made by initiative, even if I disagreed with it (as I do this law). But Brewer seems determined to approach the issue as a political hack, not a state official. She consistently interprets the law against the civil rights of Arizona's citizens, hoards power, uses her position to play to her base, and generally tries desperately to act like another Secretary of State we all love to loathe.

Call for Volunteers to Help with Voter Registration

Linda Brown from Azadvocacy.org needs volunteers! 30,000 voter registration forms bounced by the counties. Terry Goddard says they need to prove citizenship. Though there is no evidence that fraudulent voting has ever happened, the GOP has used this red herring to create an additional hurdle that people who wish to exercise their right to vote must clear. These 30,000 citizens didn't jump high enough.

Please help us register these folks. Randall Holmes of the Arizona Democratic Election Integrity Committee is coordinating the Democratic response to this crisis, and he can be reached at rholmes69@cox.net.

Tonight's Lunar Eclipse

In the wee overnight hours tonight, the earth’s shadow will pass across the moon. Below is a chart that will help people in any the Mountain time zone know when to step outside (or set the alarm) and take in the spectacle.

Why is Bush Twice as Popular as Congress?

Why is the Democratic Congress so terribly unpopular with voters? Congressional approval ratings are at a historical low of 18%. I don't believe that it is because the Democratic Congress is working to improve wages, protecting workers' right to unionize, improving children's access to health care, fostering alternative energy and energy independence, enacting the 9/11 Commission recommendations, passing meaningful ethics and lobbying reforms, restoring pay-as-you-go fiscal discipline, and reinvesting in our future by doubling our commitment to basic research and math and science education. No, I think most people strongly approve of those, and other, Democratic priorities.

What is killing Congress' approval rating is their failure to confront this Administration forcefully enough about the occupation of Iraq, and it's abuses of executive power and civil liberties. These are issues that swamp every other good thing that the Democratic Congress has done and can do for this country. These are the issues on which nearly enough, is not nearly enough. Americans want this occupation ended and they want it yesterday, and they want this executive back within constitutional bounds. Until the Congress is willing to invest all its political capital in these goals, their numbers won't budge out of the basement.

Many Democrats in leadership positions think we are sitting pretty. The occupation of Iraq was on the Republican's watch and therefore the electorate will rightly hold them accountable for any failures going forward. And trying to take on the the Administration when it has wrapped itself in the flag on matters of anti-terrorism civil liberties violations will only get Democrats burned.

Unfortunately, That's not how it works. Our leaders hope that by just sitting on our collective hands and letting Bush have all the rope he asks for, that we will win by default because voters haven't anywhere else to go. They want to ride dissatisfaction with Bush and with the GOP in general into total power in 2008, taking over the Presidency and improving our majority in Congress.

That seems a sound, prudent and low-risk policy. But it is also a foolish one, as the Congressional approval rating bears out. The American people expect more of their leadership than not making egregious mistakes, they want real leadership, convictions and guts. Just not being the Republicans isn't enough to produce a mandate from the voters in 2008.

 

When we have a Vice President who is practically taunting Congress with his contempt for their subpoena power, it is no wonder that the public also holds Congress in contempt. Pelosi took impeachment off the table in attempt to create a functional divided Federal Government that could do the work of the people. But this Administration has no intention of allowing that to happen. It's like trying to appease terrorists, it doesn't work and it looks every bit as weak.

The Congress is only reluctantly and incrementally bringing to bear it's full Constitutional authority to rein in this Administration and people are feed up with its timorous approach. That is why approval is so low. Not because they are being too partisan and too harsh with the Administration, but because they are insufficiently partisan and not nearly harsh enough.

Impeachment, the power of the purse, subpoena power, and advise and consent powers should be fully and vigorously used to check, and if need be, destroy this over-reaching, illegal, and downright criminal Administration. Until the Democratic leaders of Congress realize that their primary goal for the next year is to reassert the primacy of Congressional power against an out-of-control Executive, their electoral hopes for 2008, along with those of Democratic candidates everywhere, will continue to fade.

Biden's Cathedral

This is the strongest ad running in Iowa today in my estimation. I don't think that it is enough to overcome Biden's mis-steps and launch him into the first tier, but it is the sort of resonant, serious, and moving messaging on Iraq that Democrats should be doing. Hopefully, it may help focus Democrats on what is really important about Iraq.

Bush Sinks the SCHIP

President Bush has chosen political ideology and the corporate health insurance industry over the health and well-being of America's most needy and vulnerable people, our children.

In a stealthy and cowardly move to avoid the news cycle, at 7:30 PM last Friday the Bush Administration sent states new restrictions for the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP); restrictions that will decimate state efforts to ensure children have access to health care.

States and Congressional leaders are vowing to fight the changes. New SCHIP Restrictions Under Bush's unilateral decree, any state that has already expanded or plans to expand SCHIP beyond 250% of the poverty level, $51,625 for a family of four, will have to meet new guidelines that SCHIP experts and the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office say are impossible to meet.

States must:

• show they've enrolled 95% of children below 200% of poverty who are eligible for either Medicaid or SCHIP,
• charge premiums that approximate private coverage and impose a one-year waiting period, during which children are uninsured, in order to prevent children from leaving private coverage, and
• show that children's coverage by the private market has not decreased by more than 2% over the past five years.

At least 19 states and the District of Columbia have already set eligibility at 250% or above, many of which did so just this year. They are: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hamsphire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington.

These states will have 12-months to comply with the new restrictions in order to maintain eligibility levels above 250%.  However, as reported, this will be virtually impossible to do, resulting in budget shortfalls or more uninsured children.

New York, which recently expanded SCHIP to 400% of poverty, would have to find an additional $41 million next year to maintain eligibility and offset reduced federal funding as a result of these rules.

The one-year uninsured waiting period is purely punitive and harms children, who are susceptible to illness at young ages and need timely access to immunizations and booster shots. Going without needed care jeopardizes a child's preparedness for school and their growth. This waiting period parallels the purpose of the 6 month "bare period" required to join Arizona's Healthcare Group for small business; to prevent people who need it from being able to obtain it.

The 95% enrollment requirement is nothing short of a brick wall impeding state efforts to respond to the needs of their residents. According to SCHIP experts at Georgetown University, the CBO and Sen. Max Baucus, no state has achieved this level of enrollment. In fact, the nationwide enrollment rate among eligible children in '04-'05 was 72%. This is not an indication that states are neglecting their responsibilities. Rather, states have taken unprecedented steps to notify families and enroll eligible children through simplified enrollment steps, advertising campaigns, and direct person-to-person outreach.

Making matters worse, under the President's budget proposal no state would achieve 95% enrollment. The CBO reports the President's budget proposal for SCHIP - $30 billion for the next five years - is not enough to pay for current enrollment, about 6 million uninsured children nationwide, let alone those eligible but not enrolled.

If states do not comply with these new restrictions, the Bush Administration has said that the federal government "may pursue corrective action."  Really, like what?

Children's health care has seen the most advancement in 2007. All of this could be forsaken if Congress fails to reauthorize SCHIP at levels vastly exceeding the President's proposals and if it fails to roll back these draconian new guidelines.

Fortunately, both the House and Senate have proposed SCHIP budgets of $75 billion and $60 billion respectively. The Senate bill passed with a 68-31 veto-proof majority. Democrats and Republicans in Congress must come together on a veto-proof reauthorization package that supports state expansions of health care.

States and Congressional leaders are vowing to fight the new restrictions and should put up a very public fight. Besides being the right thing to do, the public is on their side. A February 2007 CBS/New York TImes poll found 84% of Americans support expanding SCHIP to cover all uninsured children. The same poll found only 24% support President Bush's handling of health insurance issues.

Bush's public reason for these new draconian rules is to address "crowd-out," which is when privately insured people move to public coverage, and to prevent SCHIP from becoming a substitute for private insurance. But the Emperor has no clothes.

According to Jonathan Gruber of MIT, a health care finance expert who is repeatedly cited by the Bush Administration, 77% of the benefits under the President's health care reform proposals, which include tax deductions and credits to finance private insurance, would go to people who are already insured. In stark contrast, the Congressional Budget Office found that only 34% of children receiving coverage under the Senate's SCHIP bill, for instance, would otherwise have private coverage.

This, if there ever was one, is an instance of "throwing the baby out with the bath water." Aside from being heartless, wrong-headed, and ignorant to the real-world financial realities of American families and the failure of the private insurance market to offer affordable health insurance, the Bush Administration's position on SCHIP is purely based on political ideology. Bush is trying to prevent universal health care in the U.S. and what the right-wing Wall Street Journal editorial staff say is "health care on the installment plan."

As the Governor of Oregon said, referring to his proposal to cover all kids, "If you drive the plan into the middle class, it's not just viewed as a public assistance program. You build a base of support for the program to provide health care for all of us."

Political considerations aside, President Bush needs to get his head out of the line-in-the-sand he has drawn between himself and the states and Congress over SCHIP. The obvious reality to the 64% of Americans who believe the government should guarantee health care for all, according to that same February CBS/NYT poll, is that we need to expand access to health care rather than revoke it. But as President Bush has repeatedly shown, evidence and opinions that run counter to his positions will not persuade him. In this and many instances throughout his presidency, steadfastness is a poor excuse for stupidity.

DNC Does the Right Thing

Link: The DNC voted unimously to strip Florida of it's delegates to the nominating convention if it keeps Jan. 29th primary.

It's good to see that the DNC still believes in enforcing the rules and not letting a big state like Florida throw it's weight around and wreck up the Democratic primary schedule any more than it already is. Florida was hoping that their sheer size and importance would get the DNC to roll over for their glory grab. Well, that plan failed. Now Florida should save face and move their primary to a reasonable date in February.

This crisis should prompt the national party to take reasonable measures to stop this insanity of front-loading the primaries and adopt a rational rotation of regional primaries. States like Iowa and New Hampshire, who mindlessly guard their first in the nation status like a neurotic dog with a tasty bone, also need to be bitch-slapped into placing the needs of the party over their parochial interests. Our primary system is totally fucked, and we can fix it by exercising some political will; we don't even need Congress to get involved. It's probably too late for this cycle, but like the Florida debacle in 2000 should have prompted a rational response to election reform, Florida in 2007 should prompt a movement to fiz our primary calendar. Of course, this isn't always a rational country... The RNC nearly adopted a rotating regional system a few years back, surely the DNC can do better.

Arizona isn't immune from the pack mentality, either. Although there is clearly a case for Arizona to hold it's primary on Tsunami Tuesday, Napolitano clearly made her decision within the parameters of a broken system. Her choice was perfectly reasonable, but reflects perverse incentives. Arizona is not likely to receive additional attention by being part of Tsunami Tuesday, but there would be no chance of having a greater effect by doing anything else.

An Appeal from Drinking Liberally

UPDATE 8/27 @ 11PM: Thank you! We have met our goal and the PA system has been ordered. Thanks to the astute online shopping savvy of one of our members, we were actually able to obtain the system we wanted for a bit less than estimated: just over $140. The excess funds will be applied toward batteries for the mic, a new batch of Drinking Liberally buttons, and postage for Tasha's thank you notes to our guests. Here's the receipt for the system's purchase. Thank you for your enthusiastic response!

UPDATE 8/27 @ 2PM: We have nearly reached our goal of $165! Due to very generous $50 donation we have shot up to $145. We need just 20 dollars more to reach our goal, so won't you help us reach our goal with even a small donation right now? Note: New BforAZ posts continue to appear below this notice.

UPDATE 8/26 @ 8PM: Due to the generous donations of several members, we are now just over half-way to our goal of $165, having collected $40 at our last meeting and $50 via online donations, we are now up to $90 in the kitty. Please donate now and help us meet our goal!

We hosts of Drinking Liberally have decided that we need to invest in a public address system for use at our weekly meetings. Between ambient sounds, the size of the patio at the Shanty, nearby traffic and trains, the often limited vocal volume of some of our presenters, and the growing size of our meetings, it is sometimes hard for everyone to hear what speakers are saying.

We would like to purchase a portable wireless system that will allow us to place the amp and speaker unobtrusively and allow the speaker to move and hand about the mic without worrying about the wire.

These systems generally retail for about $200. When I announced our need at the last meeting, those present responded generously and we raised $40 toward our goal on the spot. We have a tip jar set up to send us money via PayPal on our website, please use this tool to send us a small (or a large) donation today.

Please consider making a small investment now that will pay off in weeks and months to come in the form of a more pleasant and informative Drinking Liberally experience. If every Tucson member reading this blog takes it upon him- or herself to donate even the mere $2 suggested tip amount, we'll quickly and easily meet and exceed our fund-raising goal for this project. That's less than the cost of a single pint of beer! Less than the tip you would likely give the server to bring you a pint of beer!

Please help the Tucson chapter with a donation now.

Thanks for everything you do to make Drinking Liberally an enjoyable experience for all involved!

Mike, Tasha, & Shasta
Your Tucson Drinking Liberally Hosts

Tim Bee's Conflicted Campaign

Tedski hit the post button sooner on this one, as he frequently does (I admit to being a lazy blogger), but I think we've heard the same whispers regarding Tim's hired help. There is a deep irony in the fact that the consultants Tim has hired to handle his spin are the same ones that are working for Wake Up Arizona against the employer sanctions bill, of which Tim Bee was a primary sponsor, and for which he voted.

It's a good thing that the GOP power brokers cleared the primary field for Tim by sitting down all possible comers for a primary challenge earlier this year at an exclusive GOP pow-wow, and telling them to get the hell out of the way because they wouldn't be getting any money if they stood in the way of the Bee. I don't know if that will actually stop Pullen's army of anti-immigrant Huns from fielding their own candidate if Bee proves too moderate in his rhetoric, however. Certainly, with
as Bee's spin doctor, as well as spokesman for Wake Up Arizona, it seems unlikely that Bee will be able to satisfy the red meat cravings of the base on the immigration issue.

Bee is likely to provide for some comic relief in the coming months as he tries to straddle the warring camps of the GOP: the business community who are providing his financial chops and open-field blocking who hate employer sanctions, and the hoi poloi who love employer sanctions and who will be a important part of his primary electorate and volunteer base. A great window into that conflict is the pissing match between Nathan Sproul and Randy Pullen over employer sanctions, which is well illustrated by a recent memo by Nathan Sproul to GOP legislators.

Bee's record seems to indicate that his inclination is to support employer sanctions, but the GOP's anti-immigration posse has backed the business component of it's coalition into a corner with employer sanctions, and they are fighting back. Tim many be forced to decisively choose sides. Watching how Bee threads that needle to keep his campaign on course will be an interesting spectator sport for political junkies here in Arizona.

Also problematic for Bee is the broader issue of political corruption and dirty tricks. The GOP already has an image problem among voters, with Congressmen and White House Aides going to jail (or getting commuted) and every news cycle seeming to turn up a fresh scandal, so I would think that Bee would want to act like Caesar's wife to nullify any such issues for his campaign. But Bee chose, or possibly was directed to chose, Nathan Sproul's shop to advise his campaign. Not only was Sporul's boy Friday, Garrick Taylor, behind the risible attempt to smear Napolitano's campaign for petty theft, but the firm's principal, Nathan Sproul, is synonymous with political sleaze. His shop was behind the alt-fuels scandal and has its dirty little fingers in every mud pie made here in Arizona. He's Arizona's rat-fucking offspring of Karl Rove. And this is who Bee hires to help his campaign off the ground? This association alone should prevent any Democrat from considering a vote for Bee, and give any Independents or Republicans concerned about the state of American politics serious pause.

Something new to say about Abortion?

It seems that there is never anything new in the debate over abortion. The positions of both sides have become entrenched like the front lines in WWI, and any who stray from the well-worn trenches are easy sport for the snipers. I try to look at the issue from fresh perspectives, keep an eye on any bulges in the lines, and even take a gander at what things look like from the other side of the lines.

Over the past few months, Professor Sherry Colb of Rutgers Law School has produced a series of accessible popular articles exploring the frequently neglected margins of the anti-abortion position to learn more about the moral framework on which that position is based. I think these articles present some very interesting insights into the abortion debate and should be read by any interested in this issue.

Professor Colb's first two articles deal with the oft cited exceptions to the general rule against abortion that 'pro-life' activists often will allow: the incest exception and the rape exception. Hidden within the ethical imperatives that support these exceptions are backhanded recognitions of the foundations of the 'pro-choice' ethical precepts and an implicit recognition that the most dogmatic 'pro-life' assertions about the nature of unborn are not completely back and white. If nothing else, an understanding of Colb's analysis will give you grounds for a serious and productive discussion with 'pro-choice' advocates.

The most recent article by Professor Colb considers the import of the reluctance of anti-abortion advocates to demand that women who receive abortions get jail time for their acts, when and if abortion is criminalized. Generally, only those who 'conspire' to provide abortion services to women are exposed to criminal sanctions. This blanket exculpation of women for their own criminal behavior says a great deal about the world-view of the 'pro-lifers'. Colb suggests one rationale for the failure to hold women accountable may be that the woman is viewed as a victim of abortion as much as the unborn. Women are seen as being seduced and tricked into giving up their children and thus not criminally responsible for breaking the law. There is a definite note of the infantilization of women in absolving them of any criminal sanctions for their own decisions that violate the law. One possible reason for this widely prevalent advocacy that women not be criminally punished for having abortions, which Professor Colb is perhaps too polite to suggest, is a simple political stratagem to retain support of those who may be against abortion, but find the idea of putting women in jail for it faintly repulsive. As this cavil at holding women legally responsible for their own actions is so easily seen as a crass political stratagem, it behooves those of us who advocate a 'pro-choice' view to call on pro-lifers' to explain this position more often.

Rove's Retirement Party Fundraiser 8/29

I gotta say, I love what the Pima party is doing here. Good fun with a purpose; a strategy after my own heart:

Bee Buzzes Giffords

Tim Bee is looked upon as a serious contender to Gabby Giffords in 2008 because of his moderate reputation (which is not supported by a moderate voting record) and his bipartisan etiquette. Based on Bee's first foray into electioneering, that view may be premature. Bee is apparently tone-deaf to CD8, and the American people in general, on the issue of Bush's illegal wiretapping program that the Congress just made the unforgivable mistake of authorizing for another 6 months.

The overwhelming majority of Americans, 73%, oppose domestic wiretapping without a warrant of the sort which Bush's illegal program is admittedly engaged in. That includes 51% of Republicans who oppose such an intrusion upon their civil rights in the name of the "War on Terror." Yet, the very first major swipe Bee takes at Gabby is her vote against authorizing Bush's program for six more months without any serious oversight or additional judicial scrutiny. He said, "I think she's on the wrong side of that issue." Presumably then, the right side of that issue is the one that only 27% of citizens support.

That's one way to kick off your campaign - maybe Tim should have led by advocating for wringing the necks of dogs who can't cut it in the pit anymore, only that could have assured him starting out from an even narrower electoral base.

Bee also apparently thinks that Gabby is out-of-touch with the district. "There are concerns about whether she's gone back to make the changes she said she would and whether she's in touch with the district," Bee said. I'm finding it hard to figure out when she managed to find time to get 'out of touch' in the eight months she's been in office. Considering she's constantly underfoot of every constituent in the district nearly every moment Congress is out of session, it must have happened when she's traveling to global hot-spots on fact-finding missions related to her foreign policy and military committee assignments. Shame on her.

Finally, Bee stuck his stinger in his mouth and pulled the trigger by criticizing President Bush and his whole Administration. After initially sidestepping a question about the Iraq war, Bee said, "I believe that this war has been poorly executed, and there have been many mistakes made along the way, but at the same time, it's going to be extremely important that we have a successful outcome." The incompetents who have driven the Iraq occupation off a cliff are the very same ones Bee is criticizing Gabby for not giving unchecked power to spy on and search Americans' communications and financial records without a warrant. Why does Bee think that those who have botched the war in Iraq are going to do such a great job when given unfettered power to spy on Americans in the name of the 'war on terror'? And certainly Bee's criticism of BushCo's handling of Iraq isn't going to go down well with the reality-challenged base of the GOP who think that things are getting better all the time in Iraq.

Or maybe I've got it all wrong. Perhaps Bee isn't criticizing the Administration's handling of Iraq. Perhaps he's actually criticizing those doing the real 'executing' in this occupation: the troops. When he says the war has "been poorly executed," I suppose he might be just ragging on the grunts and officers who have been pulling the triggers, making the hard calls in the field, and, incidentally, doing all that inconvenient dying and killing people are so upset about. Nah. He wouldn't do that, would he? Maybe he'll clear that up for us. So which did you mean, Timmy? Is it Bush and the ideological goons that have screwed up Iraq, or the troops?

Bee is proving himself far from an able and amicable Republican challenger. He is showing that he intends to play by the Rove play book: baselessly smear your opponent at every opportunity, and politicize your opponent's concern for civil liberties and human rights in the name of the 'war on terror', and never, never question whether our men and women are dying for a cause worthy of their sacrifice. That will not be a winning strategy in 2008. If Bee keeps up in this vein, he won't even do as well as Randy Graf against Gabby.

Iraqn

Greenwald says it very well, so I don't have to:

Justice for Pfc. LaVena Johnson

Link: The Pfc. LaVena Johnson Petition.

Pfc. LaVena Johnson's death in Iraq has been ruled a suicide. But her body was bruised severely and someone attempted to set her on fire. Her family wants an investigation and justice done for their daughter's death.

The members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees are in a position to make that happen. It so happens that our representative, Gabby Giffords, is member of that House committee. Contact her, and demand Pfc. Johnson's case be reopened.

District office
1661 North Swan, Suite 112
Tucson, AZ 85712
Phone (520) 881-3588
Fax (520) 322-9490

D.C. office
U.S. House of Representatives
502 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone (202) 225-2542
Fax (202) 225-0378

What She Said...

I couldn't have put it better myself, which is why this video won the Democrats.com "Dump Dick" video contest.

Dan Rather Reports - The Trouble with Touchscreens

Dan Rather's explosive investigation into the voting machine industry that reveals problems with the latest touch screen technology. This is a must see for anyone concerned about Election Integrity issues and the sanctity of our votes.

What Does All the Agreement with Conservatives Mean?

I've been thinking about what all this sudden agreement with conservatives on my part means. Does it mean that I'm getting conservative? No. I haven't changed. So then it must mean that conservatives may be changing. But what is different? They don't have absolute power anymore. So, maybe that means they have to actually propose policies that make sense? To have an effect on the political process they have realized that they have to focus on areas of agreement and common-sense policies?

Nah, they still are just obstructionist rabble-rousers, but occasionally one of two of them feels compelled to suggest an actual idea. That has to be considered a good thing.

It all goes to show that conservatives are always better as the opposition, not as the majority. When they rule, they become irresponsible ideologues who aren't able to distinguish good policy from bad; they can only see politically expedient and politically unprofitable. As the opposition, they use their political philosophy to improve government and challenge status-quo thinking, instead of trying to eliminate government or misuse it to remake society after their dystopian visions.

To couch it in Freudian terms, Conservatives should always be society's Super-Ego (the opposition / conscience), standing watch for naughtiness and complaining about how silly we all are with our new-fangled whatsits, never our Ego (governmental power). The Ego negotiates between the needs of impulsive needs of the Id (the electorate), the Super-Ego, and the realities of the external world. The Ego is the practical agent trying to get things done, the natural politician negotiating between competing needs. When Conservatives get control of the Ego, they either scare the crap out of the Id into agreeing with the Super-Ego, let the worst impulses of the Id run rampant and be turned into policy, or just side with the Super-Ego by default, even with real world facts contradict the Super-Ego's beliefs.

Our society becomes imbalanced and mentally ill when Conservatives control the Ego.

When Conservatives grab control of the Ego, criminality abounds at the highest levels of society, our economy and government do extravagant and irresponsible things, our worst racist and xenophobic instincts are indulged like spoiled children, the powerful are allowed to oppress the rest, and we become belligerent, violent, stupid, and unlovable. In short, it seems very much like there's no adults in charge. In fact, there aren't. The reason why Conservatives do such a bad job of governing (being the Ego) is because, at base, their political philosophy says that there should be no government (Ego), or very little.

Conservatives seem to think that society can get along just fine between the Id and the Super-Ego (the people and their cultural norms or conscience), and doesn't need an Ego to direct matters at all. But you know what they call it when someone's Ego is disposed of? A lobotomy. If we want to live in a lobotomized nation, we should give Conservatives control of our Ego. Puts me in mind of something....

Now I Agree with Espresso Pundit!

Yet again I find myself seduced by the sensible rantings of a right-wing ideologue! Greg Patterson, the Espresso Pundit, a conservative blogger here in Arizona, seldom publishes anything I agree with. Be that as it may, Greg obviously has a fine mind and knows it quite well. But it was still surprising to find a fine public policy suggestion on his site that I whole-heartedly agree with. His post, Shake Up Update, outlines a case for reforming public notice laws to reflect the realities, and reap the efficiencies, of the digital age.

Here's the meat of Greg's suggestion:

"In fact, the last time I checked, the State already has an entire office dedicated to getting information to the public.  I'm told the office is well run too.  Here's one of GITA's values.

We believe the public has a right to easy access to public information within the constraints of privacy and confidentiality.

Many of the public notices come from government agencies.  Surely, printing these notices in agate type in the back pages of obscure newspapers isn't a way to provide easy access to information. 

If the Republic is going to abandon the unprofitable areas of the state, then the state should no longer force business and local governments to publish notices in the paper.  The technology is available.  The agency is in existence.  What we need now is a change in the statute."

I suspect Greg may be suffering severe cognitive dissonance as a result of suggesting that the guv'mint can do something better and more efficiently than bid'ness can. I just hope his medical plan includes good mental health care so he can have that looked at.

The Likely Unlamented Half Hour News Hour Goes Down

I love self-defeating efforts at propaganda by the Right. I cherish the absolute ugliness of everything that comes out of Ann Coulter's mouth. I love it when fuckwads like Ted Stephens get up on the hind legs and rant. I love how completely clueless, unfunny, and outright offensive The Half Hour News Hour was. I think I saw some of the most completely thoughtless, arrogant, and down-right stupid television when watching it... when I could force myself to watch it, that is.

Here's one of my favorite examples of how utterly idiotic and reflexively nasty this show was, which is what will make me miss it so much:

How funny is that? Look at God killing the atheists for not believing in him. What a great guy God is! Look at the atheist convert under threat of death by our jealous and petty deity! Oh, good times, good times. We'll miss you Half Hour New Hour... but probably not much.

Now I Agree with Grover Norquist!

A commenter on my agreement with Dick Cheney speculated what might be next: Reagan, Mecham, Graf? Well, I gotta say, the fact is even stranger than the speculation. In what is becoming an on-going series, the latest right wing nut job that I happen to have some small and likely transient area of bi-partisan kumbayah is Grover "Drown It In The Bathtub" Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform. Grover seems to have gotten a bug up it about government transparency, and I have to say I'm all for that. He recently published a piece in the Financial Times that I wholeheartedly applaud and support:

"The nice venture capitalists in Silicon Valley are always looking for “the next big thing”. While we will have to wait for another six months to learn who will make it through the Republican and Democrat “Survivor” reality show we call primaries we can already see the next big thing in politics bubbling up from the 50 states: transparency. Making state budgets, contracts and individual expenditures available to the public on the internet."

More after the click...

Now I Agree with Dick Cheney!

Wow. First I agree with the Goldwater Institute, now I find myself in agreement with Dick Cheney! Of course, it is the Dick of 13 years ago, not the Dick of today, but none-the-less, I'm starting to worry about all this bi-partisanship on my part.

Fill 'er Up in CD1

The main event in Arizona politics in 2008, outside of the Presidential race, of course, will be the battle for control of CD1. It seems likely the Renzi won't be standing for re-election and CD1 will become on open-seat free-for-all. Our nominee will likely need north of a million to compete in the district, just for the general election. I don't know who will emerge victorious, and I don't want to handicap the race. What I do know is that it is in the interest of every Arizona Democrat that our nominee be well funded, even if we don't know who it will be.

Understandably, many will be reluctant to weigh in on a primary contest in a CD not our own. We may not understand the issues or the local history of the contestant sufficiently to make a wise choice in a distant race. But the center of political gravity in CD1 is shifting from northern Arizona to Pinal county right up the road. This is becoming more of a local race, and may will want to help Democrats win there. To that end, I have set up an ActBlue nominee page, so that you can donate to the eventual winner of the CD1 Democratic primary contest right now. A link to this donation page will remain on the right sidebar until the nominee is selected.

I'm asking that you consider donating the cost of one tank of gas for your vehicle to fuel the general election for the Democratic nominee. That's a small investment of capital for the huge return of a Democratic-majority House delegation.

Always Sorry to See His Backside

Oh, Turdblossom. We hardly knew ya.

So Rove is leaving the White House at the end of the month. I can't quite figure out the angle here. 'Cept maybe Bush doesn't want Karl on staff when the indictment comes. His departure makes it harder for the White House to keep him out of the Congressional hearing rooms, and out of the dock. I can't see any substantive benefit to the Administration by Rove's departure.

I can only conclude that Bush is planning to have Rove killed. It's the only move that makes sense. While they're at it, they should consider firing Gonzales on the same day. That way it's easier to stage the homosexual murder-suicide of Rove by a distraught Gonzales and tie up two loose ends in a neat, sensational bow that no one would look behind. I mean, really, so many of these Republican movers are turning out to be kinky little twists who would question a homosexual murder-suicide at this point?

Maybe I'm wrong, but Karl, you would do well to hire some of those Blackwater folks until Bush is out of office. Wouldn't want anything bad to happen to you. And if Gonzales comes knocking at your door in the middle of night saying he needs to talk... well, just don't answer the door.

Barbara LaWall Testifies about the Regional DPS Lab... for the Defense!

The position of County Attorney is a very demanding one, requiring an astute political sensibility. The County Attorney must meet the high standards of ethical behavior required of a prosecuting authority and negotiate a legal minefield where any slip could have grave consequences for both those of accused of crimes and the victims of crime, all while being essentially a political animal who is answerable to the local electorate. A good County Attorney requires the ability to see every issue from multiple perspectives and to be very prudent about one's political choices. The County Attorney must understand the legal and ethical ramifications of every political act he or she takes to effectively lead the office.

Barbara LaWall has been laudably and rightly pressing the state legislature to fund a new Department of Public Safety Southern Arizona Regional Crime Lab for some time now. The existing facility is an over-crowded, retrofitted stop-gap rather than a purpose-built facility, and presents several environmental, work-place safety, and, most importantly, evidence integrity issues that could impact the work of police forces and prosecutors throughout southern Arizona.

Lobbying of the state legislature by a County Attorney on behalf of the southern Arizona law-enforcement community and DPS is one of those inherently political acts that requires great foresight and sound judgment of the legal and ethical consequences. The political benefits of giving one's law-enforcement community constituents the tools they need is obvious. So is the publics' support for forensic evidence processing that reduces errors and promotes catching more criminals. What might not be obvious is the potential down-side of a County Attorney advocating for this needed improvement.

Well, when you are asking for millions for a new facility, you might want to show how many problems there are with the current facility. To do that you might want to give specific examples of how the existing facility undermines law-enforcement's mission. That's well and fine. But now imagine you want to get the most political mileage possible out of your advocacy - you want to be seen championing improving the quality of law-enforcement facilities in the community. You might want to make - I don't know - a video of yourself personally making an appeal for help and narrating personally the problems with the DPS regional lab. Sounds like a great idea, no?

Well, actually, no. You see, in personally denigrating the operations of an working facility that is processing forensic evidence for cases that your office is currently prosecuting, you have put yourself in the tricky legal position of publicly throwing doubt on the results of the lab your office uses to lock people up. Well, Barbara LaWall did opt to appear personally in an 11 minute DPS-sponsored video discussing all of the many problems with the existing facility that would warrant a multi-million dollar investment by the State. She did opt to narrate the entire sequence. UPDATE: Amelia Cramer, LaWall's Chief Civil Deputy points out that it is not LaWall narrating. It is someone who sounds quite a bit like her. My mistake. She did let her political instincts carry her away without putting on her legal and ethical hat to check that what she was doing politically wouldn't harm her office's work.

The result is that the defense bar are using her own words as evidence to undermine the work of the DPS lab, and even petitioning to have LaWall appear as an expert in their cases on the problems at the lab. So far, two county judges have dismissed such efforts, saying that there are other witnesses without a conflict available to testify. Attorneys of the defense bar are unlikely to let this issue go, however. That's just not how my peeps roll...

For the first time, in its entirety, online, for everyone to view and judge for themselves, is Barbara LaWall's video lobbying for a new DPS lab that has lately been the subject of news reports:

Where the Goldwater Institute and I Agree

Link: Arizona Capitol Times - Senator, others sue to stop tax subsidies.

"Six small-business-owners, including a Senator and a one-time legislative candidate, filed a lawsuit today challenging nearly $100 million in tax subsidies Phoenix gave to the developer of a planned mall.

The lawsuit, Turken v. Gordon, was filed in Maricopa County Superior Court and seeks an injunction against the subsidy and to restore the constitutional ban on subsidies.

If successful, the suit would tie the hands of city officials wishing to offer subsidies to lure companies away from neighboring cities.

The lawsuit argues tax subsides violate three provisions of the Arizona Constitution: the gift clause, which prohibits subsidies to corporations; the equal privileges and immunities clause, which says that if the government grants a privilege or immunity to one taxpayer, it must have a good reason for not granting it to all taxpayers; and the provision forbidding special laws that single out one corporation for benefits.

“All of those provisions were put in the Arizona Constitution to prohibit precisely the type of special- interest giveaways that CityNorth exemplifies,” said Clint Bolick, the director of the Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation, which is representing the business owners in the lawsuit."

I very much agree with the view that tax bribes like this should not be used as a tool of economic development. It's like a farmer eating his seed-corn and then reporting that his family's diet is improving. Taxing authorities should compete on the basis of quality services and infrastructure, efficiency, work-force development, and business environment - not by racing each other to the bottom by giving away their tax base.

These deals are not only a form of institutional corruption and the product of special interest political deal-making, they are an insult to the hard-working men and women and small businesses of the community who pay the taxes they are assessed in order to support their communities. It is a gross distortion of the free marketplace and violation of basic fair play for larger economic interests to be able to basically negotiate their own tax rates. If the general rate isn't fair, it should be changed for everyone, not just a wealthy and powerful few.

But the issue goes much deeper than fairness or the political down-side of such practices. The fundamental issue is the defense of free markets. It is most economically efficient to demand that localities compete on the basis of their general business environment, not on the sweetheart deals they can put together for favored business interests. A sustainable business relationship between a company and a community should be based on an objective evaluation of the long-term fit between the two entities, both of them bringing their best qualities to the partnership; a good business siting decision is like a good marriage, tax bribes are more like prostitution.

The Secret Soul of the Republican Party

Link: Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy.

UPDATE 9/10: Google Cached Link: Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy. Apparently, Family Security Matters pulled the article. Maybe they actually were (rightfully) embarrassed by its contents. Maybe they are actually capable of experiencing shame...

UPDATE 9/12: Wow, these folks want to push this thing WAY down the memory hole. I wouldn't be surprised if Sam Seder gets a cease and desist order for hosting this copy of the article. Just in case, I have decided to post the full text after the flip on this post. I think this link to the Google Cache may keep working, too.

UPDATE 9/21: A little extra crazy from Atkinson, who apparently also wants to enslave undocumented workers and invade and subjugate Mexico...

As much as I find the opinions expressed at the above link abhorrent, I am gratified by the author's honesty and integrity in saying in an unvarnished manner what he really thinks. I suspect that the purely evil scenario Philip Atkinson recommends would be acceptable to many Republicans - cause for celebration, in fact. I don't think all Republicans would celebrate the downfall of democracy Atkinson advocates, but I think many would welcome the chance to remake our society without the restraint of political opposition, so long as one of the their own who held the sceptre.

Before you write Atkinson off as some marginal crackpot, check out the Board of the Family Security Matters foundation, which he represents. It reads like a who's-who of conservative thought and media power. This isn't the deranged rantings of some blow-hard; this is an expression of policy by a significant faction within the conservative movement. Make no mistake, there are enemies of America within.

Interview with Annie Loyd, Independent for Congress in Arizona's CD3

Annie Loyd is running for Congress in CD 3 as an Independent. She will be facing incumbent John Shadegg (R) and Democratic challenger Bob Lord in the general election. I sent Annie a questionnaire about her views and positions on the issues that she returned as a PDF that you can download, or read online by clicking the continuation link below.

Annie and I also had a roughly half-hour telephone conversation following up on her answers, and touching on some additional matters, which you can listen to as a podcast.

The full questionnaire is after the click...

Harry Mitchell, Damned if he do, Damned if he don't

Harry can't seem to catch a break. Under fire from members of his own party for pandering to the right on the Iraq war, tax cuts and the Bush Administration's illegal wiretapping of Americans, Harry's now catching hell from those same Republicans he's trying to court over an overtime switch of his vote on a farm subsidy bill amendment that was punitive toward undocumented immigrants.

Poor Harry. This is what comes of not being sure what team you really want to play for; both sides end up despising you. And there is no worse position for a politician to be in that to forget who his base is. Just ask Joe Lieberman. Bush, for all his faults, knows what side his bread is buttered on, and so remains politically viable (though mainly due to the lack of sturdy Democratic spines) even though everybody outside his base is spitting on his shadow.

Harry switched his vote from Yea to Nay in order to kill the amendment and the GOP caucus exploded. Say what you want about the GOP, they know how to be a minority: cantankerous, obstreperous, obstructionist, annoying, sanctimonious, with the long-term memory of a gnat and the capacity for shame of a two-dollar Patpong whore. It wasn't too long ago that they were holding floor votes open for hours and bribing and threatening folks on the floor, yet here they are chanting "Shame!" because a few guys change their vote, which is their perfect right, a few seconds outside the alloted 15 minute vote window. That's nerve.

The topper is John Shadegg's reaction. If you understand the context of the absolute power-mad depravity and disrespect of the GOP majority for the rules and traditions, not to mention the minority members, of Congress, his comment is absolutely stunning. His words are 24-karat gold plated bullshit, but they are delivered as if butter wouldn't melt in his mouth:

"I have been here almost 13 years and I thought I had seen it all, but tonight’s display of corrupt, raw, partisan political power was stunning. I honestly didn’t think this could happen in America. This is a sad day for the U.S. House and a tragic day for our nation.”

Wow. Thirteen years, most of under a GOP majority who traduced American political traditions more times that I can count to get their way, and Shadegg was stunned by a few guys changing their votes? Really? Really!?

Here's the reaction on the floor (God, I am filled with admiration for these guys who are willing to break into a yuppie riot at the drop of a hat by their caucus leaders. If only we Democrats could have such discipline):

BfAZ Democratic Presidential Enthusiasm Poll

To complete the poll, just click the number of stars that equates to your relative enthusiasm for that candidate. Give candidates a minimum of 1 star to indicate minimal enthusiasm, and 5 stars to indicate your favorite, or favorites. If you aren't enthused by any of the folks listed, you needn't give anyone all five stars.

Considered Action to hold Democrats Accountable

Harry Mitchell votes to legalize Bush's violations of FISA and to continue secret warrantless spying on American citizens' communications and data mining of their private information. Harry co-sponsors capital gains and estate tax cuts while working Americans are suffering. Gabby Giffords and Harry Mitchell both abandon their caucus to vote to continue funding the war in Iraq. With allies like these...

Is this what we elected these new Democrats to Congress to do? Considered Action doesn't think so. Considered Action is a new 527 chaired by alternative energy entrepreneur and political donor Jonathan Read. Like many of us, Jon worked hard to elect Democrats here in Arizona in 2006, and he didn't do it for those Democrats to play it safe and vote like Republicans on key issues of critical importance to Democratic activists like himself - and maybe you, too.

Jon and his associates who are funding Considered Action were major donors to Gabby and Harry's campaigns, and this time around they will be investing in some tough love instead. They seek to ensure that our Democratic representatives recall that there is a cost for voting against your base. The calculation of timorous Democrats is that they can pick up some votes from Republicans on key issues without losing any votes from their base because, after all, where do we have to turn? A primary challenge? Possibly. The organization's goal is to ensure that our Democratic representatives never forget that there are dire costs to betraying your own base...

Considered Action's first ads will be running Friday and they have budgeted $100K toward their media efforts here in Arizona through October of this year, and they intend to ratchet that budget up every quarter until the election. The group will also soon be targeting backsliding Democrats in California and possibly other states.

Jon makes no bones about his evaluation of our new delegation members' performance. He says of Gabby "she's effectively doing a Lieberman." Frustrated with Democrats whose main re-election strategy is to position themselves as centrists by abandoning Democrats on key votes and who seem unwilling or unable to defend Democratic priorities to their electorates, Jonathan is explicit that he's open to a primary challenge of targeted Democrats, saying "I hope to encourage primary candidates to challenge Harry and Gabby - and I am making my support openly available."

Many Democrats will wail in response to Considered Action's programme that they are undermining our ability to retain Democratic seats. There are several problems with that view. If your party is not defined by some core issues, and not just a self-selected label, what does it really mean? If a primary challenger better represents the views of the party, shouldn't that person be our nominee? Don't we want representatives that will strongly advocate for the issues of importance to us? Should we tolerate Democrats championing tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, or keeping our troops in harms way for their own political security, simply because they are Democrats? Doesn't that harm the entire party by weakening our moral authority on the economic justice and security issues that are a vital part of our national success? Doesn't defending power for power's sake strike you as the beginning of become just like our opponents? At what point does pragmatism shade into nihilism? When you start giving up your ideals in the pursuit of power, how long before you no longer have any principles to live by?

Agree or disagree, the primary season has just gotten a lot more interesting.

Mitchell and Giffords Draw Fire From the Left

Harry Mitchell and Gabby Giffords are hearing radio ads telling them to straighten up and fly... er, left on the Iraq war. Some Democrats are doing more than complaining about Harry and Gabby's votes to continue funding Bush's folly in Iraq. Here's the ad:

Listen to Voided.mp3

Get out your checkbook now and send Harry and Gabby voided checks today to let them know how you feel about the course they're plotting in Congress for Iraq.

Arizona's Deficient Bridges

As the nation watches in stunned amazement as dead Americans are pulled from beneath the rubble of a major bridge on an interstate highway in a major metro area, we have to wonder: what are this nation's priorities? Are we to become a third-world nation with a decaying, failing infrastructure and a tin-pot dictator at the helm of our 'unitary executive'? And if this can happen in Minnesota, couldn't it happen here?

You bet your bippy it could. Arizona has 720 bridges that have been rated either obsolete or structurally deficient. Dozens of these obsolete and structurally deficient bridges carry at least 10,000 vehicles a day. The truly worrisome bridges are those which carry significant traffic and are rated structurally deficient, limiting their use to light vehicles, or forcing them to close to traffic altogether. These bridges present a possibility of a tragedy like that in Minnesota.

Here is a complete list of these obsolete and deficient high-traffic bridges; I've listed here only those structurally deficient (status (D)) high-traffic bridges. With our taxes going to a pointless and ill-conceived war and feeding a gaping maw of debt service, instead of investing for the future here at home, I don't expect this list to get shorter any time soon. The bridge in Minnesota that collapsed had a structural rating of 50 out of a possible 100, just to give you a frame of reference for the ratings on these Arizona bridges. I sure hope you don't find a bridge here you or a loved one drives on every day; but remember, over 10,000 fellow Arizonans do drive on each of these bridges every single day.

Status	Rating	Road	Place	County	Feature	Location
D	56.1			APACHE	SLICK ROCK CREEK	S OF FT DEFIANCE AZ
D	43.0	10		COCHISE	WASH	2.4 MI E OF JCT SR 90
D	47.5			COCONINO	RIO DE FLAG	0.3 MI W JCT US 180
D	25.0			LA PAZ	COLORADO RIVER	40.89 MI N OF JCT I 10
D	67.7	10		LA PAZ	COLORADO RIVER	18.9 MI W OF JCT US 95
D	63.7			MARICOPA	SAND TANK WASH	0.5 MI W JCT SR 85
D	65.7			MARICOPA	GILLESPIE IRR CANAL	0.05 MI W JCT SR 85
D	25.5			MARICOPA	GRAND CANAL	.5 MI N IND.SCH.RD
D	19.0	15		MOHAVE	VIRGIN RIVER	22.6 MI E OF NEVADA
D	70.0	95		MOHAVE	COLORADO RIVER	24.33 MI SOUTH RT 68
D	59.0	10		PIMA	CIENEGA CREEK	13.2 MI WEST OF JCT SR 90
D	47.1			PIMA	SANTA CRUZ RIVER	0.7 MI W OF I 10
D	76.6	10		PINAL	GILA RIVER	26.0 MI N OF JCT I 8
D	76.6	10		PINAL	GILA RIVER	26.0 MI N OF JCT I 8
D	66.1	69		YAVAPAI	SR 89	AT JCT SR 89
D	38.0			YAVAPAI	GOVERNMENT CANYON	0.10 MI SE JCT SR 89

Diana Rhoades: A Thousand Trees, Please!

Diana Rhoades is a Director of the Board of the Downtown Alliance and is passionate about creating living, vibrant street-scapes in Tucson that we can be proud of. She is currently running Regina Romero's City Council campaign. She is advocating a project to beautify downtown through the planting of 1000 trees that will use passive water harvesting for irrigation. She recently recorded a video commentary as part of Carolyn Brown's My Commentary project:

This is a wonderful idea which may be implemented as part of a downtown beautification and planting project which will make Tucson bloom and establish Tucson as a destination for those wishing to experience the beauty of the Sonoran Desert in bloom. The quality of life in Tucson will be measurably improved with improved walkability, great outdoor recreation and commerce, reduced energy use, and more placid traffic. The psychological benefits of beauty also cannot be overstated. I once travelled all the way across Tucson to locate a single desert willow that I saw a photo of on a friend's blog, just to admire its beauty in person.

This beautification program represents a major investment for the city, and politicians alway feel exposed when spending money on aesthetics, so let your city council member know that you think it's money well-spent.

Paul Eckerstrom's Legacy of Election Integrity

Paul Eckerstrom and I had a great conversation after a recent Drinking Liberally session about his role in the Election Integrity movement and getting the audit legislation passed. If you want to learn how grassroots politics works at its best, I encourage you to take the time to listen in. Download eckerstrom.wav

Paul (on the left in the picture) was the Chairman of the Pima County Democratic Party until 2006. He is very likely to be entering a primary contest against Barbara LaWall for Pima County Attorney in 2008, though he has not yet announced any definite intention. One of the many reasons Paul cites for possibly challenging LaWall is her office's position of, at best, non-cooperation in investigating charges of fraud and abuse in the Pima County elections system. LaWall's office has been far less than cooperative with the Pima County Democratic Party's two lawsuits related to possible election fraud.

Paul expected his record of fund-raising and professionalizing the Pima party to be his strongest legacy, but looking back on his term he now feels that the most important decision he made was in authorizing the formation of an Election Integrity Committee in the Pima Party. That decision created a movement within the party for pursuing election reforms that eventually led to formation of an Election Integrity Committee in the State Party, a burgeoning independent grassroots Election Integrity citizens' movement in Arizona, and election audit legislation passed by the Arizona legislature in 2006, championed by then-Representative Ted Downing.

For anyone interested in ensuring the integrity of their ballot and supporting fair and accountable elections, Paul Eckerstrom is the guy who had the foresight to put his weight behind the movement to get it off the ground, and who in office is certain to do his very best to ensure fair and open elections in Pima County.

Harry Reid and the Sorcerer's Stonewall, featuring Rovamort

A humorous take on the GOP's obstructionist tactics, taking on a serious subject in a manner that even a political muggle can grasp:

Harry's Wealth Tax Breaks... for the Middle Class?

I had a conversation (if me yelling a lot can be called a conversation) with Seth Scott, Representative Harry Mitchell's Press Secretary about Harry's co-sponsorship of a tax cut plan to keep Capital Gains taxes at their current Bush-mandated rate, and to decrease estate taxes by increasing the exemption to 3.75 million and graduating the rate.

I still am firmly against these tax reforms and even more strongly against any Democrat sponsoring such legislation. Seth led me to understand that Harry's concern is that middle class folks saving for retirement and small businesses owners could be impacted by the scheduled increase in these taxes after 2010, but I find this rationale to be labored, at best.

I challenged Seth to send me a workup of the distributional result of these proposed tax cuts and I'll publish them here when he does. I maintain that the vast majority of the benefits will go to those in the highest income groups who don't need any tax relief. Indeed, I would be very surprised if the vast majority of the $332 billion price tag doesn't end up in the pockets of the wealthiest Americans. I'll reserve judgment until Harry's tax wonk gets me figures, but every Congressional Research Service report on the matter supports my view of these tax cuts as disproportionately benefiting the very wealthy.

You only have to look at how the different income groups make their living to see that this is a tax cut for the very wealthy. CRS RL33285 "Tax Reform and Distributional Issues" of Feb. 27th, 2006 says, "According to tax data, over 80% of income in the middle class came from wage income, while only a third to a half of income in the very high income levels was derived from wages. Some forms of income do not fit clearly into the wage or capital income categories. When adjustments are made to allocate these forms of income, such as pension income and proprietorship income, the concentration of labor income increases in the middle classes. When all income is assigned to either capital income or labor income, over 90% of income earned in the middle classes derives from labor, while half or less of income in the highest brackets derives from labor."

When you tax capital gains at a rate preferential to the rate of labor, you automatically privilege wealth, and tend to increase the share of national income accruing to the wealthiest. If you want to really give middle income working people a tax break, then capital gains cuts are absolutely the least efficient way to do it. The best way would be to reduce payroll taxes and general income tax rates, especially the personal exemption.

We should tax capital gains and labor at the same rates. Anything less privileges wealth over work, and unfortunately, except for some brief periods at the beginning of the income tax and, ironically, under the first Bush Administration, we have failed to do that. The result has been a creeping and deepening inequality of wealth in this country, much to our shame and social detriment.

Capital gains should be taxed exactly like income from any other source. There is no economic efficiency benefit demonstrable from a lower rate on capital gains. There is plenty of rhetoric about encouraging the wealthy to put the capital to work to create jobs, but there is no evidence that this actually happens. CRS 98-473 "Individual Capital Gains Income: Legislative History" of May 18, 2006, from which the above table derives, puts it thusly:

"The logical question to ask after reviewing past legislative changes and new legislative proposals is why after 80 years are we still unable to agree on the appropriate means of taxing capital gains income? From a purely economic perspective the appropriate way of taxing capital gains income and loss is relatively clear. Under a tax system that measures income in a comprehensive manner, real capital income and loss would be treated as regular income and taxed or deducted as it accrues to the taxpayer. Untaxed real gains would be taxed when transferred as gifts or bequests."

What we should stand for as Democrats is clear. Fair taxation of work and wealth is equal taxation. So why is Harry seeking to introduce legislation that rejects that view? Well, Seth Scott indicates that it is because Harry sees the potential for a lot of middle class and working folks to get caught up by a tax increase that will harm them when selling a house (even though there is a 500K exclusion for selling a home and buying another), or saving for retirement (even though all the capital gains in a qualified retirement plan is accrued tax free), or selling a business (this last certainly has tax consequences, but they are seldom structured as a simple one-time capital gain).

But just Follow the money. Where does the majority of the benefit go, and are there more efficient means to provide relief to working folks trying to save and build their future? CRS RS21014 "Economic and Revenue Effects of Permanent and Temporary Capital Gains Tax Cuts" of January 29th 2003 says:

"A capital gains tax cut appears the least likely of any permanent tax cut to stimulate the economy in the short run; a temporary capital gains tax cut is unlikely to provide any stimulus. Permanently lower capital gains taxes can contribute to economic efficiency in some ways and detract from it in others. Capital gains tax cuts would favor high income individuals, with about 80% of the benefit going to the top 2% of taxpayers."

I see no reason why, without an income cut-off, which is missing from Harry's bill, there is any reason to suppose that freezing the capital gains rate at the current level would do anything but perpetuate this iniquitous situation with no compensation to middle and lower income Americans. Harry's rate freeze simply means working people taking up more of the burden of paying for government operations into the future.

What Harry says he wants is tax relief for middle income folks, but what his bill achieves is a continuation of a highly unfair status quo. We elected Democrats to make our country better and more fair. Not to entrench the evils of the Bush/GOP era. Here is what Harry wants to perpetuate as set forth in CRS RL30317 "Captial Gains Taxes: Distributional Effects" from September 24th 1999, at which time the capital gains rate was 5% higher (or 33% higher tax) than now and in the future under Harry's proposal:

"These measures are presented for 1999 and indicate that capital gains taxes are concentrated among high income individuals. Those with earnings over $200,000, who constitute the top 1.8 percent of income, account for 78.6 percent of capital gains taxes. While the average capital gains tax paid is $476, the average for the highest income class is $20,536 and the average for the bottom half is less than $10. Capital gains taxes contribute to a progressive tax system: while capital gains taxes average 1.3 percent of disposable income, they account for 5.7 percent in the highest income bracket and less than one tenth of one percent for the bottom 70 percent of the population. Some of this concentration in higher income classes occurs because of the concentration of taxes at higher income levels. However, capital gains taxes are also concentrated relative to other taxes. The capital gains tax is 4.5 percent of total federal income, payroll and excise taxes; however, it is 14 percent of total taxes in the highest income bracket, and less than one half of one percent for the bottom 70 percent of the population. For the income tax alone, capital gains taxes are 8.1 percent of total income taxes, but 16.2 percent of income taxes in the top income class. In the bottom 70 percent of the distribution, the capital gains tax is less than one percent of income taxes. About a quarter of taxpayers who pay a capital gains tax are in the bottom 70 percent of the distribution, while 11 percent of capital gains taxpayers are in the top 1.8 percent of the population. About 12 percent of all taxpayers pay a capital gains tax; in the highest income class, 75 percent pay a capital gains tax."

The impact of capital gains is overwhelmingly on the wealthiest Americans. That is the reason why the capital gains rate has historically been lower than the rate on labor: the power of concentrated wealth to disproportionately affect our political process makes itself felt in our tax code. Harry seeks to extend the hegemony of the wealthy over our tax code, but is doing so in the name of middle class tax relief and while proclaiming his action to be representative of Democratic legislative priorities. That lends support and credence to the outright lies of the GOP about these taxes and their effect on the middle class and undermines the Democratic message of real tax fairness and middle class tax relief. Unless Harry has some pretty extraordinary evidence that contradicts everything the CRS has even written on the subject, I can't see how his tax proposal is justified as tax relief for average folks.

Capital Gains and Estate Taxes contribute to the overall progressivity of our tax code. Cuts in either disproportionately benefit the very wealthy and penalizes work in favor of wealth. There are means of avoiding much of the harm that cutting these taxes can do, such as income tests and graduation, but according to Harry's office there are none of those measures in the Capital Gains portion of Harry's proposal.

The Estate Tax cuts Harry proposes are more sensible economically, but just as poorly conceived politically. We need predictability and stability in the Estate Tax more than anything. What the GOP did in creating a completely irresponsible and wholly political sliding change in the Estate rate is institute uncertainty and a death lottery for heirs more than anything else. The Estate Tax goes to ZERO in 2010 and then rebounds to 55% on estates in excess of 1 million in 2011. We as Democrats can and should do better.

I don't have the full details of Harry's plan as yet, but there will be an exemption of $3.75 million and a lower tax rate on up to $25 million estates. This is a reasonable reform and I could support it if I believed that it would mollify the GOP or pull the rug from under their political support for abolishing the so-called Death Tax. I don't think it will do either. I think it simply plays into their framing of this issue and provides cover for their campaign against the Estate Tax. I don't think we should give an inch until we are fully satisfied with middle and lower income tax relief. Estate Taxes should be a chip in the big game, not an ante. We should wait and see how much tax relief we can afford for big estates, not propose it before anything else is on the table. I don't object to reforming the Estate Tax in principle, but I think it is bad politics and bad budget strategy to have a tax cut this size, benefiting so few, at this stage of the game.

Rest In Peace: Jesse Latas

The memorial service for Jesse will be at 9:00 Friday (8/3) morning at Adair Avalon Chapel, 8090 N. Northern Avenue, Tucson, http://www.adairfuneralhomes.com/Finding_Us.html.

Graveside services will be at 1:00 Friday (8/3) afternoon at the Southern Arizona Veterans' Cemetery, 1300 Buffalo Soldier Trail, Sierra Vista, AZ, http://www.azdvs.gov/veteranscemetery.htm

Memorials may be sent to any of the following organizations:

 Make a Wish, http://www.wish.org/

 The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, http://www.leukemia-lymphoma.org/hm_lls

 No More Victims, http://www.nomorevictims.org/