We here at BlogForArizona never miss the Buckmaster Show. We especially love the Blogger Beat!
Recall Arpaio
Stop Sheriff Arpaio from continuing to make Arizona the clown car of American states. Respect our state by removing America's craziest sheriff from office. Sign up, volunteer or donate for the recall today!
Mo Udall says, "I have learned the difference between a cactus and a caucus. On a cactus, the pricks are on the outside." Donate to BlogForArizona to help us keep an eye on the pricks inside the GOP caucuses controlling Arizona's politics. Or you could buy some of our keen swag."
by David Safier In Philadelphia, six charters are being scrutinized by the U.S. Attorney's Office, which is considering criminal action. Most of it has to do with misuse of funds.
Aiming to end abuses recently uncovered in Philadelphia-area charter schools, a bipartisan legislative committee yesterday unveiled a sweeping overhaul of the state's 12-year-old charter law.
In Arizona, we don't have problems of that magnitude -- that we know of. Of course, since no one is exercising active oversight of our charters, we don't know what we'd find if we looked, do we?
Maybe we can learn from the problems uncovered in Philadelphia and similar problems in other states, including financial abuses among current and former Arizona charters. As one Pennsylvania legislator commented, "You just can't assume - you have to protect public money and make sure it's spent in the most effective way for students."
Here are the changes proposed by the PA committee:
Increasing financial oversight of charters. The proposed Office of Charter and Cyber Charter Schools in the Department of Education would have the authority to investigate complaints of fraud and financial mismanagement such as those raised by parents at the Agora Cyber Charter School in Devon.
Limiting the hiring of relatives, such as occurred at Philadelphia Academy in the Northeast and Community Academy in Kensington.
Allowing 25 parents to ask the court to remove charter school board members who fail to follow the law. Parents who voiced questions at Agora and Philadelphia Academy were told they could withdraw their children. Agora founder Dorothy June Brown sued several parents who questioned Agora's contract with a management company she owned.
Barring charter administrators from being paid through contracts with the district that authorized the charter. Former administrators at Philadelphia Academy had a special-education contract with the Philadelphia District. The top two administrators at Community Academy run a nonprofit that has an alternative-education contract with the district.
Shaun McClusky is a political neophyte. Hell, he admits that he wasn't politically active and didn't even bother to vote in city elections before he was recruited by the GOP to run for city council. So I know the latest actions are being directed by the GOP "brain trust" of Bill Arnold, Bruce Ash and Jim Click. This has their brand of Roger Ailes/Lee Atwater/Karl Rove "politics of personal destruction" fingerprints all over it. The kid doesn't like it.
I received a large glossy flier from the McClusky campaign with big, bold headlines screaming that money destined for the Tucson Police Department has "disappeared" and is "missing," and that Richard Fimbres won't say what happened to it. This kind of language is designed to suggest in the minds of voters that Richard Fimbres was somehow engaged in illegal conduct while he was the Director of the Office of Highway Safety. The piece concludes with "If we can't trust him to do his old job right, can we really trust him on the city council?" (That's pretty ballsy coming from a guy who is a political neophyte, attacking a man with a long distinguished record of public service on his resume.)
As an aside, sending a 4x4 Democratic voter who has already voted this attack piece is a waste of campaign resources and poor campaign management.
It turns out this entirely fabricated breathless "scandal" was simply a paperwork error that is easily remedied. The GOP, as they are wont to do, fabricated this breathless "scandal" to smear the character of Richard Fimbres. (Are these the kind of people you can trust on the city council?)
At the root of the issue is a series of federal grants for the Tucson Police Department to fund traffic enforcement and DUI task forces.
Highway Safety is essentially a pass-through agency. If a city is approved for federal funding, it spends the money and then submits a request to be reimbursed. Tucson Police spent $189,952, and sought reimbursement several times through 2008.
Leadership of the office switched under Gov. Jan Brewer. In August, Gutier's deputy director sent a letter to Fimbres asking for a detailed response for why the reimbursement requests "went unpaid and ignored."
In an interview Tuesday, Gutier said despite the wording on the mailer, he would not characterize the money as "missing."He said a Fimbres staff member neglected to file the reimbursement paperwork on time.But his office has since gotten an extension so the money can be paid.
Although the mailer said Fimbres won't answer questions about the lapse, Fimbres did respond to the state shortly after receiving the letter, telling Gutier, "I am very concerned about what appears to be a thinly veiled political attack using the state resources of your office."
He found it curious, he wrote, that in an office that handled millions of dollars in grants, the office had singled out Tucson contracts, mere months before the city elections. He said he was never personally contacted by the agencies in question with any concerns about their requests.
Fimbres also said Gutier overstated the importance of when reimbursement requests are processed. "We like to get them in during the fiscal year, but sometimes that's not possible," he said.
"All they had to do was get the paperwork in," he said, adding that's obviously the case since the feds were agreeable to the extension.
In other words, there is no substance to this last minute attack piece. It is completely fabricated by the GOP. And their puppet Shaun McClusky permitted his name to be attached to it. That causes me to question his judgment and character.
This is where our story turns comical. The very campaign responsible for this character assassination attack piece is now complaining that the Pima County Democratic Party sent out a mail piece describing the GOP candidates as right-wing Republican extremists. Pima County Republican chairman Bob Westerman complained "'Right-wing extremist' is just a nasty label designed to make conservatives look like they're not rational." The truth hurts, Bob. I warned Republican candidates when they voluntarily chose to align their campaigns with the right-wing extremists of the Tucson Tea Party that it would come back to bite them in the ass. Did they listen? No.
Shaun McClusky has pulled a Kathleen Dunbar, circa 2005, who filed a lawsuit against her opponent Karin Uhlich, the Pima County Democratic Party, and several others over a campaign mail piece. (That lawsuit was eventually dismissed - and Kathleen Dunbar left town.) McClusky has filed a complaint with the City Clerk under his own signature, not his lawyer, which is telling to me (that whole Rule 11 frivolous complaint sanctions thing; a lawyer didn't want to sign this complaint). Stupid move, Shaun. This kind of thing is the kiss of death for a campaign. Just ask Kathleen Dunbar.
"Permitting renegade organizations to drop last-minute charges is a disservice to the voters of Tucson," McClusky wrote in the complaint. McClusky files complaint over Dems' mailer (The Democratic Party is a "renegade organization"? I guess "maverick" was already taken.)
McClusky cited an Arizona statute that requires a political committee making an independent expenditure relating "to any one candidate or office" within 10 days of the election to send a certified copy of the campaign literature to the candidate mentioned in the piece.
First, the piece refers to three candidates and does not single any candidate out, which puts it outside of the statutory reference cited by McClusky. Strike one!
Second, it also falls outside the 10-day statutory period. There is a postal receipt for mailing on October 23, 2009. Strike two!
Third, the mail piece plainly included the disclaimer required by law, "Paid for by the Pima County Democratic Party not authorized by any candidate or candidate committee." Strike three! You're outta here!
Can you spell f-r-i-v-o-l-o-u-s Shaun?
The Pima County Democratic Party called the complaint frivolous and a "last-minute desperate attempt of a losing candidate"... to "either gain publicity or tarnish the Democratic Party or its candidates."
This is a fair characterization. These are the acts of a desperate campaign that is circling the drain in its final days.
Christina Romer, Chairwoman of the President's Council of Economic Advisors, writes On Today's GDP Numbers:
Data released [Thursday] by the Commerce Department show that real GDP grew at an annual rate of 3.5 percent in the third quarter of the year. This is in stark contrast to the decline of 6.4 percent annual rate just two quarters ago. Indeed, the two-quarter swing in the rate of growth of 9.9 percentage points was the largest since 1980. Analysis by both the Council of Economic Advisers and a wide range of private and public-sector forecasters indicates that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 contributed between 3 and 4 percentage points to real GDP growth in the third quarter. This suggests that in the absence of the Recovery Act, real GDP would have risen little, if at all, this past quarter.
After four consecutive quarters of decline, positive GDP growth is an encouraging sign that the U.S. economy is moving in the right direction. However, this welcome milestone is just another step, and we still have a long road to travel until the economy is fully recovered. The turnaround in crucial labor market indicators, such as employment and the unemployment rate, typically occurs after the turnaround in GDP. And it will take sustained, robust GDP growth to bring the unemployment rate down substantially. Such a decline in unemployment is, of course, what we are all working to achieve.
The nation’s gross domestic product expanded at an annual rate of 3.5 percent in the quarter that ended in September, matching its average growth rate of the last 80 years, according to the Commerce Department.
* * *
Before the third quarter, the gross domestic product — the broadest measure of the government’s total goods and services produced — had been shrinking for a year. It bottomed out with a 6.4 percent rate of decline in the first three months of this year, the steepest fall since 1982.
The trend was halted last quarter primarily because of consumers, who drove most of the economic gains.
The government’s cash-for-clunkers program spurred consumers to spend more on durable goods, orders of which grew at an annual rate of 22.3 percent in the third quarter after a decline in the previous quarter. Similarly, the $8,000 federal tax credit for first-time home buyers helped revive housing sales, which rose at an annual rate of 23.4 percent in the third quarter. Housing sales had actually fallen by a comparable amount in the previous three months.
The $787 billion stimulus package, which was passed last winter and is still being distributed, is also credited with strengthening economic activity, although the precise contribution is contested.
* * *
Still, withering consumer confidence and concerns about a weak recovery have left companies wary of hiring more employees. The jobless rate reached 9.8 percent in September, its highest in 26 years.
* * *
Concerns about rising unemployment may pressure the administration to look for additional ways to stimulate the economy. Proposals include another extension in unemployment benefits and various job creation programs.
“It’s all in the hopper,” said Christina D. Romer, chairwoman of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers. “It would be irresponsible if we weren’t thinking about these kinds of programs.”
* * *
The official end of the recession will be determined by the National Bureau of Economic Research. Its business cycle dating committee looks at output as well as other indicators like employment to make that call. The group spent a year examining data before declaring that the recession had begun in December 2007.
Some economists say they expect the panel will eventually decide that the recovery began sometime this summer.
More than 650,000 jobs have been saved or created under President Barack Obama's economic stimulus plan, the White House said Friday, saying it is on track to reach the president's goal of 3.5 million jobs by the end of next year.White House: 650,000 jobs in new stimulus report:
New job numbers from businesses, contractors, state and local governments, nonprofit groups and universities were not scheduled to be released publicly until Friday afternoon. But White House economic adviser Jared Bernstein says officials have been told the figures. When adding in jobs linked to $288 billion in tax cuts, Bernstein says the stimulus plan has created or saved more than 1 million jobs.
The data will be posted on recovery.gov, the web site of the independent panel overseeing stimulus spending.
* * *
When it is released Friday, the new data will be the largest and most complete look at how the stimulus has been spent so far. The White House promised the data would be far more reliable than the first batch of numbers on federal contracts, which the administration initially embraced, then branded a "test run" after thousands of errors were discovered.
[On Wednesday] the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act became law, and the President hosted a reception to celebrate a victory decades in the making and steeped in blood and pain. Amongst those attending were the families of the victims for which the law was named, as well as civil rights community leaders. Below are the President’s remarks in full.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you so much, everybody. Thank you so much, and welcome to the White House. There are several people here that I want to just make mention of because they helped to make today possible. We've got Attorney General Eric Holder. (Applause.) A champion of this legislation, and a great Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. (Applause.) My dear friend, senior Senator from the great state of Illinois, Dick Durbin. (Applause.) The outstanding Chairman of Armed Services, Carl Levin. (Applause.) Senator Arlen Specter. (Applause.) Chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the House, Representative John Conyers. (Applause.) Representative Barney Frank. (Applause.) Representative Tammy Baldwin. (Applause.) Representative Jerry Nadler. (Applause.) Representative Jared Polis. (Applause.) All the members of Congress who are here today, we thank you.
Mr. David Bohnett and Mr. Tom Gregory and the David Bohnett Foundation -- they are partners for this reception. Thank you so much, guys, for helping to host this. (Applause.)
And finally, and most importantly, because these were really the spearheads of this effort -- Denis, Judy, and Logan Shepard. (Applause.) As well as Betty Byrd Boatner and Louvon Harris -- sisters of James Byrd, Jr. (Applause.)
To all the activists, all the organizers, all the people who helped make this day happen, thank you for your years of advocacy and activism, pushing and protesting that made this victory possible. You know, as a nation we've come far on the journey towards a more perfect union. And today, we've taken another step forward. This afternoon, I signed into law the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. (Applause.)
This is the culmination of a struggle that has lasted more than a decade. Time and again, we faced opposition. Time and again, the measure was defeated or delayed. Time and again we've been reminded of the difficulty of building a nation in which we're all free to live and love as we see fit. But the cause endured and the struggle continued, waged by the family of Matthew Shepard, by the family of James Byrd, by folks who held vigils and led marches, by those who rallied and organized and refused to give up, by the late Senator Ted Kennedy who fought so hard for this legislation -- (applause) -- and all who toiled for years to reach this day.
You understood that we must stand against crimes that are meant not only to break bones, but to break spirits -- not only to inflict harm, but to instill fear. You understand that the rights afforded every citizen under our Constitution mean nothing if we do not protect those rights -- both from unjust laws and violent acts. And you understand how necessary this law continues to be.
In the most recent year for which we have data, the FBI reported roughly 7,600 hate crimes in this country. Over the past 10 years, there were more than 12,000 reported hate crimes based on sexual orientation alone. And we will never know how many incidents were never reported at all.
And that's why, through this law, we will strengthen the protections against crimes based on the color of your skin, the faith in your heart, or the place of your birth. We will finally add federal protections against crimes based on gender, disability, gender identity, or sexual orientation. (Applause.) And prosecutors will have new tools to work with states in order to prosecute to the fullest those who would perpetrate such crimes. Because no one in America should ever be afraid to walk down the street holding the hands of the person they love. No one in America should be forced to look over their shoulder because of who they are or because they live with a disability.
At root, this isn't just about our laws; this is about who we are as a people. This is about whether we value one another -- whether we embrace our differences, rather than allowing them to become a source of animus. It's hard for any of us to imagine the mind-set of someone who would kidnap a young man and beat him to within an inch of his life, tie him to a fence, and leave him for dead. It's hard for any of us to imagine the twisted mentality of those who'd offer a neighbor a ride home, attack him, chain him to the back of a truck, and drag him for miles until he finally died.
But we sense where such cruelty begins: the moment we fail to see in another our common humanity -- the very moment when we fail to recognize in a person the same fears and hopes, the same passions and imperfections, the same dreams that we all share.
We have for centuries strived to live up to our founding ideal, of a nation where all are free and equal and able to pursue their own version of happiness. Through conflict and tumult, through the morass of hatred and prejudice, through periods of division and discord we have endured and grown stronger and fairer and freer. And at every turn, we've made progress not only by changing laws but by changing hearts, by our willingness to walk in another's shoes, by our capacity to love and accept even in the face of rage and bigotry. In April of 1968, just one week after the assassination of Martin Luther King, as our nation mourned in grief and shuddered in anger, President Lyndon Johnson signed landmark civil rights legislation. This was the first time we enshrined into law federal protections against crimes motivated by religious or racial hatred -- the law on which we build today.
As he signed his name, at a difficult moment for our country, President Johnson said that through this law "the bells of freedom ring out a little louder." That is the promise of America. Over the sounds of hatred and chaos, over the din of grief and anger, we can still hear those ideals -- even when they are faint, even when some would try to drown them out. At our best we seek to make sure those ideals can be heard and felt by Americans everywhere. And that work did not end in 1968. It certainly does not end today. But because of the efforts of the folks in this room -- particularly those family members who are standing behind me -- we can be proud that that bell rings even louder now and each day grows louder still. So thank you very much. God bless you and God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)
Earlier this year, our comic "hero" (sic) Cap'n Al Melvin (R-LD 26) sponsored legislation to expand the Pinal County Board of Supervisors from three members to five members, years before this will happen anyway in 2012 after the 2010 census, because "Republicans shouldn't have to wait that long to get a board" he believes the GOP would control by a 3-2 margin. Judge voids Pinal Board of Supervisors law
Cap'n Al disregarded the Arizona Constitution and the rule of law in his partisan quest to create two new Republican-dominated supervisor districts in Pinal County. Most people would call this an abuse of power, and rightly so.
And Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Edward Burke just did. Judge Burke said the legislation approved earlier this year is unconstitutional. Burke said he found several legal flaws in the law. Judge voids Pinal Board of Supervisors law:
Burke, who handled the case after all the Pinal County judges disqualified themselves, said the measure, which applies only to Pinal County, runs afoul of a provision in the Arizona Constitution that prohibits "local or special laws."
Even if it didn't, Burke pointed out the law would have required the two new supervisors to be elected in 2010 to serve just two-year terms. That, he said, violates another constitutional provision saying all supervisors have four-year terms.
Finally, Burke said the populations in each of the five community college districts that Melvin's legislation sought to use for the 2010 election are now far out of balance with each other, violating constitutional requirements for equal representation.
Cap'n Al's response to the ruling of the Court? "It's a crying shame."
No, Cap'n Al, "It's a crying shame" that a partisan hack like you who disregards the Constitution and the rule of law and willfully engages in abuse of power is serving in the Arizona Legislature. Hopefully the voters will correct their error in judgment in 2010.
Rhonda Bodfield of the Arizona Daily Star has a report today about the faux outrage coming from the Tucson Tea Party over being "slandered" by the use of the term "teabagger." Potential sexual slur in release raises Tea Partiers' ire; Uhlich apologizes This is known as manufacturing a story from nothing.
Let me help you out with a little research you obviously did not do, Rhonda. It was the Tea Party Patriots and their free advertising promotions at Faux News who first used the term "teabaggers" as you can see from this report below from the Rachel Maddow Show from this past April.
It was only after it was pointed out to these wingnuts that the term also has a sexual connotation, something they could have easily discovered from a search of the Urban Dictionary: teabagger, that they clutched their pearls and feigned offense over use of the term. Here are a couple of the other definitions of "teabagger" at the Urban Dictionary (there are many more) that Rhonda conveniently failed to mention in her report:
A whining fool shouting loudly for liberty but not willing to pay the bill.
A conservative activist who is so ignorant that they protest against tax cuts (that benefit them) by throwing tea into a river.
I suspect many of the people who will happily describe their movement as such will not really know of or not particularly care about the definition 360 and the rest are into. I may be delusional, but I think the American Revolution still trumps the urban dictionary in much of the country.
Shorter K-Lo:Who cares how the Urban Dictionary defines “teabaggers”? The important thing is that’s what the patriots in Boston called themselves in 1773 (not really).
K-Lo says to embrace your inner "teabagger" wingnuts, and stop pretending to be offended by a term that you yourselves coined and used freely back in April.
A note to the Karin Uhlich campaign: you had nothing to apologize for and you should not have apologized.
The Republic's Ronald Hansen and Pat Kossan have picked up the story of School Tuition Organizations (STOs) handling corporate tuition tax credit money not giving out the required 90% of the contributions they receive as scholarships. The reason the STOs give is priceless.
Some organizations said the shortfall is in part because the state's scholarship-eligibility rules limit which students can get the aid based on income and the amount of aid each student can receive.
The tuition tax credit money individuals give isn't tied to income. It can be used as scholarships for millionaire's children. But corporate tax credits have to go to people with limited income. I won't say poor, because a family of 4 making up to $75,467 qualifies. And yet they say they can't find enough families wanting their kids in private school to spend all their money.
If you went back to the arguments for the original tuition tax credit bill, you'd see impassioned Republican legislators pleading for a level playing field where low income children are given the opportunity to participate in private school education. And now STOs say they can't find enough people making under $75,467 who want their kids to go to private school to spend all the money they've collected.
To be fair, I should add that corporate scholarship money has to go to children who aren't already in private schools, since it's designed to bring in new students rather than subsidize those already there. That raises the bar a few inches. But either the STOs and the private schools aren't doing much active recruiting, or there isn't an overwhelming desire among poor and middle income people to have their children in private schools.
It would be so much easier if they could just give the tax dollars to rich kids.
Tedski makes a good point at R-cubed. The conservative Gila Courier -- self titled "Arizona's leading political news site" -- put a bogus version of an op ed on its site, an adulterated version of the one Lisa Suarez wrote for the Star praising Prop 200. I commented yesterday that it showed a lack of blogger/journalistic integrity for the Courier not to post an apology for putting up erroneous information.
But Tedski takes it to the next level and wonders where the email they published came from. He's right. The Courier not only owes Suarez and their readers an apology, but they should explain how the misinformation made it on the site. Did someone with an agenda "leak" bad information to them?
If Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) had followed my advice after the election last November, Joe Lieberman (the party of me! - CT) would have found himself stripped of any committee chairmanships and his Senate office would have been reassigned to the janitor's closet of the Hart Office Building. The janitors deserve better digs.
Of course, in the ways of the Senate today, Joe Lieberman paid no price for his holding the "50 Democrats plus Joe" Senate hostage for two years to his constant threat to caucus with the Republicans and give them control of the Senate; his bad-mouthing of Barack Obama during the presidential campaign; speaking at the Republican National Convention; and campaigning on behalf of his warmongering buddy, Sen. John McCain.
God, I miss the old days. Lyin' Joe Lieberman would have never been heard from again.
Well, heeee's baaaack! As Kos says, "Enter Joe Lieberman, and his successful bid for attention yesterday, promising to screw Democrats for the umpteenth time by joining Republicans in a filibuster of the Democratic health care plan. Whatever."
Josh [Marshall] provides some perspective on the Lieberman situation. Basically, what else could you expect from Lieberman? He's not on either of the committees that have been the focus of the debate, so here was his chance to get in the media spotlight, his favorite place to be. He's the Senate's biggest narcissist, which is saying something. He's certainly gotten all over TV with it. But Josh argues that this is the ConservaDem way, they hold out in hopes of getting something in the negotiations.
Nonetheless, the thing to react to with Lieberman, the thing that will possibly get traction, are his lies, which he ran to FOX News with this morning.
This is a new entitlement program and the taxpayers and the premium payers are going to paying for it or else the debt’s going to go higher, and it’s just the wrong thing to do now. So I just felt if I believed that, it was time for me to say it.... It’s just not worth the risk, and it’s not necessary to reform health insurance, which we need to do. When people hear public option, I think they think it’s for free. It’s not for free. Somebody’s going to have to pay for it, and you can bet it’s going to be the taxpayers and the people who pay health insurance premiums now.
"I think a lot of people may think that the public option is free," he says. "It's not. It's going to cost the taxpayers and people who have health insurance now, and if it doesn't it's going to add terribly to the national debt." Soon enough, he'll be looking at Congressional Budget Office numbers saying the exact opposite. The public option costs taxpayers nothing, adds nothing to the debt and saves everyone money. Lieberman won't be able to hang onto this argument for very long, and then what?
Lieberman will be able to hang on to that argument as long as it is reported without being refuted. He loves to lie, and will continue to do so as long as he's not directly challenged on them on camera and by the reporters asking the questions. Every Democrat who is asked to comment on him also needs to point out that his supposed opposition to this reform is built on a fabrication. As CBO report after CBO report has shown, the public option doesn't cost the taxpayer anything, won't add to the deficit. It will be paid for by consumer premiums, premiums that will be affordable because the administrative costs for the program will be low.
Joe's blowin' smoke, and for that and all his other betrayals, his committee chairmanship should be in jeopardy (and shouldn't have really been given in the first place). But that's a decision for his colleagues to make, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if there's some discussion of that in Senate backrooms today. In the meantime, what we can do is to continue combat the lie and to continue citizen lobbying of his colleagues to do the right thing.
This is from an email reply Giffords sent after I called her office supporting the public option.
I support reform that creates competition through a strong public option that lowers everyone's costs and competes with private insurers. I also support malpractice tort reform, and I will not vote for a bill that is not deficit neutral. You may be pleased to know that H.R. 3200 is 100 percent paid for through a combination of cost saving measures within the health sector and a new surcharge on the very wealthiest Americans. Finally, I do not support a "government take-over" of health care or "socialized medicine."
I can accept that, even though I'm not sure I'd agree on every detail.
You can call Giffords' Tucson office: 881-3588. Call even if you called before. It only takes a minute.
The state's high court on Tuesday upheld a 3-year-old law that lets corporations divert some of their state income taxes to help students attend private and parochial schools.
Without comment, the Arizona Supreme Court rejected arguments by the Arizona Education Association and other foes of the law they say amounts to the state providing illegal aid to these schools. The justices also apparently were unswayed by arguments that the law amounts to the state advancing religion, as most of the dollars collected end up in the coffers of parochial schools.
On the other hand,
Last week the full 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that groups challenging the credits on federal constitutional grounds have the right to make their case in court. Unless overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, that decision paves the way for a federal trial.
Around and around she goes. Where she stops, nobody knows.
The Gila Courier, a right wing blog/news site (take your pick) printed what it thought was a version of an op ed Lisa Suarez published in the Star saying people should vote for Prop 200. The version on the Courier site had Suarez making a comment implying City Manager Mike Letcher drinks too much.
The Gila Courier made a mistake for reasons that may be perfectly innocent. Then again, maybe it had ulterior motives. I have no idea either way.
So what did the Courier do? It took the version of the op ed down from the website without explanation or apology, at least not one anyone can find.
Why does this sound so like the current conservative mindset to me? Make things up, lie, misstate, misquote, but never let them see you retract or apologize.
By way of comparison:
Today I received an email from the Vice Principal at Sonoran Science Academy, Broadway, saying I had made an error in a post a few weeks back. I said the school had been around for awhile when in fact it opened its doors in August, 2008. Its main school was the one that's been open awhile. It wasn't a big or an important mistake, but I went back to the post, crossed out the mistaken phrase (but left it in so people could see the error), inserted a corrected phrase and put an apology for the error in brackets.
Last weekend, I wrote a semi-contrite post about a suspicion I had regarding a Goldwater Institute survey. I had never posted about my suspicions, but I figured, since I go after G.I. so often, I should be honest when a suspicion I have is wrong. It made me feel better, like I wasn't hiding anything.
Last night Tedski at R-cubed made a statement, then found out this morning it was wrong. He got rid of the old post and replaced it with one that restated his mistake, explained why it was wrong and ended with, "I regret the error."
Tonight, Rachel Maddow took a few minutes on her MSNBC show to say that a statement she had made on an earlier broadcast was wrong. It wasn't a big mistake, but she took a good minute detailing what she had said before and why it was in error. She apologized. I saw her make a similar apology once before in the last week or two.
That's what you do. You own up to your mistakes openly and clearly. It actually adds to your credibility. Lefty bloggers and journalists do it all the time. But conservatives seem to believe in George Orwell's "memory hole" from 1984, where you dump old information you no longer want people to know about in the hole, and Poof! it never existed.
Irony alert. In the tradition of "Fox News: Fair and Balanced," Gila Courier calls itself "Arizona's leading political news site." Humility is another trait, along with honesty, that appears to be in short supply on that side of the political spectrum.
My last post about Giffords and health care reform was very positive. She came out clearly for a strong public option and held firm in front of a hostile crowd at the town hall I attended.
The rubber is about to meet the road on health care legislation, and I hope she'll stay true to her convictions. These are the times that try legislators' souls. They're also the times that test their mettle.
The Arizona attorney general has sent letters to 19 of the state’s nonprofit school tuition organizations asking them to explain why they didn’t spend 90 percent of donations on scholarships for private school students as required by law.
The 90% figure is complicated by the difference between a calendar year and a school year. The STOs get a huge chunk of money the last few days of the year, and they most likely don't give it out until sometime the next year.
But Reese is all over that. Instead of looking at the STO scholarships year by year, she looked at them in a 5 year block, from 2003 to 2008. Using those figures,
. . . the newspaper determined that two-thirds of the state’s STOs were out of compliance with the law over the past five years.
Let's hope the AG is diligent in looking at this. And let's hope the investigation doesn't stop there. One of the biggest questions is, however much the STOs hold back for administrative costs, are they spending the funds for legitimate purposes or feathering a few people's nests in violation of non profit rules?
[Note: the Trib article lists Michelle Reese and Sonu Munshi in the byline.]
Cal Thomas is a conservative columnist, usually very conservative, though I haven't read him enough to put him in a specific category.
He has a column in today's Washington Times titled Liberation from liberalism: Escaping government schools is key to reclaiming America. He makes his point loud and clear. Traditional public schools aren't teaching the principles of liberty and allegiance to the Constitution, which are ideas, apparently, liberals hate. Good charter schools and good private schools are doing the job. So . . .
If conservatives and Republicans support an exodus from public schools as a strategic goal, they will strike at the heart of liberalism while simultaneously liberating minorities trapped in failed government schools. To free them and teach them about America and its promise of hope would produce everything they are seeking but can't find in politics. It also would pay political dividends as children and their parents saw which party and persuasion cared about them enough to bring real change to their lives.
Thomas doesn't speak for all conservatives, but he's giving voice to an idea that has been prominent in conservative thinking at least since the Reagan years. Many conservatives, including members of our state legislatures, want to kill, or at least cripple, public schools. Sometimes the complex legal and legislative twists and turns obscure their underlying hatred of public schooling that Thomas lays out so clearly.
(Hat tip to AZ Blue Meanie for pointing me to the column.)
Bob Herbert, columnist for the New York Times, continues his excellence in journalism with this opinion Changing the World:
[For context, the opinion is framed around the history of the Civil Rights Movement and Andrew Goodman, Michael Shwerner and James Chaney, the three civil rights workers who were murdered by the Ku Klux Klan on the outskirts of Philadelphia, Mississippi in June 1964, during Freedom Summer. The entire opinion should be read. Here is an excerpt.]
Americans have tended to watch with a remarkable (I think frightening) degree of passivity as crises of all sorts have gripped the country and sent millions of lives into tailspins. Where people once might have deluged their elected representatives with complaints, joined unions, resisted mass firings, confronted their employers with serious demands, marched for social justice and created brand new civic organizations to fight for the things they believed in, the tendency now is to assume that there is little or nothing ordinary individuals can do about the conditions that plague them.
This is so wrong. It is the kind of thinking that would have stopped the civil rights movement in its tracks, that would have kept women in the kitchen or the steno pool, that would have prevented labor unions from forcing open the doors that led to the creation of a vast middle class.
This passivity and sense of helplessness most likely stems from the refusal of so many Americans over the past few decades to acknowledge any sense of personal responsibility for the policies and choices that have led the country into such a dismal state of affairs, and to turn their backs on any real obligation to help others who were struggling.
Those chickens have come home to roost. Being an American has become a spectator sport. Most Americans watch the news the way you’d watch a ballgame, or a long-running television series, believing that they have no more control over important real-life events than a viewer would have over a coach’s strategy or a script for “Law & Order.”
With that kind of attitude, Andrew Goodman would never have left the comfort of his family home in Manhattan. Rosa Parks would have gotten up and given her seat to a white person, and the Montgomery bus boycott would never have happened. Betty Friedan would never have written “The Feminine Mystique.”
The nation’s political leaders and their corporate puppet masters have fouled this nation up to a fare-thee-well. We will not be pulled from the morass without a big effort from an active citizenry, and that means a citizenry fired with a sense of mission and the belief that their actions, in concert with others, can make a profound difference.
It can start with just a few small steps. Mrs. Parks helped transform a nation by refusing to budge from her seat. Maybe you want to speak up publicly about an important issue, or host a house party, or perhaps arrange a meeting of soon-to-be dismissed employees, or parents at a troubled school.
It’s a risk, sure. But the need is great, and that’s how you change the world.
For those of you who are residents of Tucson, have you returned your early mail-in ballot that you requested? (Do so by Friday). If you did not request an early mail-in ballot, have you voted early at one of the locations of the Pima County Recorder's office? Have you volunteered a few hours of your time for making phone calls, or knocking on doors, or dropping off campaign literature? Have you made a small donation to your favored candidate, issue or political party? Have you written a letter to the editor?
These are just "a few small steps" that you can take to be an active citizen. It does not take much of your time or effort. Democracy is not a spectator sport, as Mr. Herbert says. Political apathy and passivity is how democracies die. A healthy democracy requires an active and engaged citizenry. It is one week to Election Day. Please do your part.
Commentators Bruce Ash and Vince Rabago weigh in on the City of Tucson election and the Propositions. Vince Rabago brings his A-game and destroys the bogus arguments of GOP National Commiteeman Bruce Ash, who is also the chief financial backer of the Tucson Vision Committee The Vision Thing: Independent Campaign Donors Revealed which is running false attack ads on television. For more about Mr. Ash's smear campaign see GOP culture war smear campaign reduced to Ash.
Arizona faces the prospect of large-scale layoffs of school teachers next year due to the state's budget problems, state Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne said Monday.
He said the ‘‘massive layoffs'' of teachers are possible even though school districts' actual job cuts for the current school year fell short of reductions indicated by early layoff notices. The vast majority of those notices were rescinded, he said.
[snip]
Horne offered his assessment after a board member noted that the state now faces a projected $2 billion midyear budget shortfall and a $3 billion shortfall for the next fiscal year.
The situation is ‘‘much grimmer'' than most Arizonans realize, Horne told the state Board of Education.
I went to the debate over Prop 200 tonight. I think the No on 200 folks sounded intelligent and knowledgeable and Yes on 200 folks had nothing but fear on their side. But that doesn't tell me anything about who's going to win at the polls.
Other than the actual debate, which was pretty much what you would expect (I wish those Yes folks would put up a chart to show where they're planning to cut $64 million from the city budget every year instead of ducking the issue), the one thing that struck me was a line Jon Justice on the Yes side kept repeating. It went something like this:
"We introduced a proposition to increase safety in Tucson, and the other side keeps playing politics with the issue."
Huh? The Yes side introduced the proposition, and the No side is fighting against it because we think it's wrong for the city. In Justice's view, that's playing politics. I guess what we should do is just not talk about it. You spend your $300,000 plus war chest, and we'll just sit back and let the voters decide without making a peep.
It's a typical statement from today's conservatives. If you don't agree with me, shut up! If I tell you something and you still don't agree with me, you're not listening! If you criticize what I say, you're violating my first amendment rights of free speech!
You know why these folks hate what they call "entitlement programs"? Because they honestly believe they have a God given entitlement above and beyond the "others" -- those with different religions, from different ethnic or racial backgrounds, people with beliefs they don't like -- and no one should challenge them or their ideas.
A challenge is greeted as an affront. A loss at the polls is treated as a violation of the Divine Right of Conservatives. And if they're challenged enough, and if they lose enough, they see their only option as violence. But don't blame them if someone gets hurt. It's the fault of the other side that just wouldn't listen to reason.
As for being political, Justice kept bringing up what was wrong with Democrats on the City Council. He ended his closing statement by saying, "One last thing. Vote for Republicans for City Council." But I guess that wasn't political. When he makes a statement like that, he's just saying what's right and true. And if you don't like it, you can . . .
"Under this concept states will be able to determine whether the public option works best for them," Reid told reporters. He said it was the "fairest" way to go.
Reid said after "countless hours" of talking to his caucus, there is a "strong consensus" for this plan. He said he will not submit a plan with a triggered public option to the Congressional Budget Office.
"As we've gone through this process, I've concluded, with the support of the White House and Senators. Dodd and Baucus, that the best way to move forward is to include a public option with an opt out provision for states," Reid said.
Reid said he was "disappointed" the public option had "frightened" Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) but that he hoped she would "come back."
I just don't understand all the attention paid to "Queen Olympia" Snowe. It was always a misguided waste of time and energy. Queen Olympia has never been a reliable partner in the past and she cannot be counted upon now. Sen. Reid's refusal to send Queen Olympia's "trigger" option to the CBO for scoring may mark the end of this nonsense.
Queen Olympia has been playing an "inside-outside" game - she was the GOP's inside game in negotiations to undermine the bill as much as she possibly could, and failing that, the GOP's outside game of AHIP and FreedomWorks and Fox News would try to finish the job. There was never any good faith negotiation here. President Obama and Senate leaders should just forget about kissing Queen Olympia's ass, they are never going to get her meaningless vote. Just produce a Democratic-consensus bill and be done with it.
Reid said he is a "strong supporter" of the public option but that is is "not a silver bullet." He said it was a key way to ensure competition among insurers and "to level the playing field."
Today Reid implied that under the current bill, states will have until 2014 to opt out of the government plan.
He also said "there will be a co-op in this bill."
In the next several hours, Reid will send the CBO a draft bill with alternative provisions on certain issues, to get a range of cost estimates on the plan he'll bring to the floor.
Wait, the bill also includes Sen. Kent Conrad's (D-ND) untested and unproven co-op plan that Sen. "Mad Max" Baucus (D-MT) couldn't sell to his own Senate Finance Committee? (Queen Olympia Snowe supported the non-profit cooperatives plan as well. ) Is this lame co-op plan included just to bring along Sens. Conrad and Baucus?
Whatever works. Baucus: I Support Harry Reid And A Public Option Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus, who was reportedly none too pleased when he learned that Harry Reid was leaning towards putting a public option in the Senate's health care bill, is now singing a much more positive tune. "It is time to make our system work better for patients and providers, for small business owners and for our economy. It is time for health care reform," Baucus said.
For more than a year, we've been working to meet the goals of reducing the growth of health care costs, improving quality and efficiency and expanding coverage. There are a tremendous number of complicated issues that go into reform and the public option is certainly one of them. I included a public option in the health reform blueprint I released nearly one year ago, and continue to support any provision, including a public option, that will ensure choice and competition and get the 60 votes needed to pass the Senate. Success should be our threshold and I am going to fight hard for the 60 votes we need to meet that goal this year.
"Leader Reid has always been a strong supporter of a public option that could help keep the insurers honest, and today he showed just how deep his commitment is. The public option has new life because as Americans have learned more about it, they have come to see it is the best way to reduce costs and increase competition in the health insurance industry. This form of public option is not exactly what either liberals or moderates would want. But a public plan based on a level playing field, with an opt-out for states, is the best compromise that has the potential of getting 60 votes in the Senate."
"The President congratulates Senator Reid and Chairmen Baucus and Dodd for their hard work on health insurance reform. Thanks to their efforts, we're closer than we've ever been to solving this decades-old problem. And while much work remains, the President is pleased that at the progress that Congress has made. He's also pleased that the Senate has decided to include a public option for health coverage, in this case with an allowance for states to opt out. As he said to Congress and the nation in September, he supports the public option because it has the potential to play an essential role in holding insurance companies accountable through choice and competition."
The last "unofficial" whip count in the Senate - which occurred before Sen. Reid's press conference, and before the bill is scored by the CBO, and before the President does any arm-twisting - was in the 57-58 vote range. The problem conservadems are Ben Nelson (D-NE), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR). This assumes that Sens. Conrad and Baucus are on board with the co-op plan also being included in the bill.
These senators are free to vote their conscience and constituencies on the final vote for the bill, but on a procedural vote for cloture to end debate (a filibuster), there should be no doubt that they will vote with their Democratic caucus. It is a matter of party loyalty and discipline. A senator filibusters this bill at ther own peril. Any Democratic senator who filibusters this bill should pay the price with the loss of committee chairmanships and leadership positions, and be cut off from any campaign funds from Democratic Party organizations. Give us an up or down vote.
I believe that there will be no Republican votes. Republicans have made a strategic decision to be the party of no and the status quo. They were never interested in bipartisanship, only in defeating the Health Care Reform bills so they can assert that Obama failed in a cynical game of partisanship. Any more concessions to Republicans will only weaken the bill further. Republicans and their conservadem fellow travelers in the Senate have already done enough to water down the Senate bill. It's time to advance this bill.
This one got past me in the heat of the state budget problems. According to Pat Kossan at the Republic, significant changes have been made to rules about teacher contracts and firings.
Republicans hated the idea that teachers had to be given pink slips by May 15 if the district couldn't guarantee them a contract, which would be true if the budget wasn't finalized. Republicans said they wanted to move that date to June. Instead, they got rid of the date entirely. According to Kossan, "teachers may not know they have a teaching contract until the first day of the next school year." She talks about some, but not all, of the consequences.
Seniority can no longer be a factor in whether a teacher is laid off due to budget cuts. Up til now, apparently, each district could decide the extent to which it considered seniority, but now it can't be considered at all. Some people might say it makes it easier to fire bad-but-experienced teachers. But don't forget, a veteran teacher makes considerably more than a new one. The temptation to get rid of 10 older teachers, even good ones, and hire 15-20 young ones in their place could be irresistible.
by David Safier This is one of a series of posts, Peeking into Charter Schools. If you have information you wish to contribute, you can post comments or email me: safier@schooltales.net.
I just posted about an email from Imagine Schools' CEO which says, basically: We own the schools. The school boards either should do what we say or resign.
How do Arizona Imagine Schools deal with that problem? Do the individual schools' boards (a) assert their authority, or (b) give in to the dictates of the higher level directors?
The answer is, none of the above. The schools apparently don't have their own local boards.
I called the front offices of three Imagine Schools: Imagine at Camelback, West Gilbert Charter and Bell Canyon Charter. All of them said they have PTOs and the West Gilbert charter said it has a site council, but none has a board made up of local parents and community members.
Going back to the 990 forms they file with the IRS as non profits, I found that Camelback and West Gilbert have the same 4 people listed as "Current Officers, Directors, Trustees and Key Employees." They fulfill the same function at a number of other Imagine schools. Bell Canyon has 5 people listed (one is also on the list of the other 2 schools), and this group also serves in the same capacity at other Imagine Schools.
So the closest thing to a "board" for the schools is a group of people that oversees a number of schools with no direct relationship with the individual school or the community. Within the schools, there are groups of parents who can make suggestions but have no real power.
I guess Arizona is a dream state for charter owners like Dennis Bakke who don't want the locals interfering with the way the corporation runs the schools it "owns" -- even though a for profit corporation can't "own" a non profit school. That may be one reason why Arizona, unlike other states, has heard so few complaints about the schools.
A little over a month ago, I made public an email sent by Dennis Bakke, the national CEO of Imagine Schools, to the principals, directors and developers of his schools around the country, 18 of them here in Arizona. Bakke's basic message: We own the schools. The school boards either should do what we say or resign.
Now there's a big story about the email in the Sunday edition of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch along with an unedited version of the email. The story was also picked up by the AP. So far, it's appeared in New York and Washington, D.C. As of yet, Arizona papers have remained quiet about our Imagine charter schools or their parent company, though local stories have been carried in 10 other states.
Here are some excerpts from the Dispatch article.
In the year-old e-mail, CEO Dennis Bakke tells his employees they should control who stays on the board, select those who will "go along with Imagine," and ask board members to submit undated letters of resignation "that can be acted on by us at any time."
Such philosophies break a primary tenet of the charter school movement — that schools should be independently governed by local leaders — and conflict with both nonprofit law and state charter school statutes.
"That is appalling. I am appalled," Jocelyn Strand, Missouri's state director of charter schools, said after reading the memo.
[snip]
. . . regulators said the letter reinforced what they had long believed. Several said they would now look at applications involving Imagine with greater scrutiny.
"That is so far afield from best practices," said Dean Titterington, vice chairman of the Colorado Charter School Institute, the agency that authorizes charter schools in Colorado and that turned down an Imagine-run school application last year. "If we're going to have genuine oversight of tax dollars, we have to have functioning boards. And they can't be shills for the management company."
[snip]
In exchange for six- or seven-figure yearly fees, [Imagine] will do everything for a school, from hiring teachers to recruiting students to leasing desks, file cabinets and trash cans.
But Imagine has lost some contracts, often when board members get assertive about their independence.
By Sept. 4, 2008, the day Bakke sent the e-mail, Imagine was struggling with governance issues in Nevada, Colorado, Florida and Missouri.
Here [in Missouri], a charter school downtown, Ethel Hedgeman Lyle Academy, was wrapped in a bitter divorce with Imagine, one that had descended into a melee of accusations, money squabbles and lawsuits. "We feel like they're trying to take our school away," former Lyle school board leader Karen Douglas Bell said at the time.
Soon thereafter, Bakke sent his memo.
[snip]
Now the letter, confirmed by former and current Imagine staffers, sends up red flags among nonprofit attorneys and experts.
The Internal Revenue Service prohibits nonprofit companies from being "self-dealing," established simply to benefit a for-profit company.
"Nonprofit boards have many functions, but they can't be puppets of some for-profit corporation," said Bruce Hopkins, a national nonprofit law expert and senior partner at Kansas City's Polsinelli Shughart law firm.
The IRS comes up frequently in these questions about whether a non profit school or educational organization is crossing the line. We're hearing it in the tuition tax credit concerns, and the subject comes up with charters as well, especially those being dubbed "corporate schools," across the nation.
Privatization is moving into public education at an ever increasing rate, for better and/or for worse. The IRS needs to exercise due diligence and oversight. It must investigate some of the more egregious situations and create firm guidelines concerning non profit and for profit education organizations being paid for with tax dollars.
Some of you may say to yourself, "oh sure, opposition to the Public Safety First Initiative (Prop. 200) is just those lefty Democrats." You'd be wrong.
In two online opinions today in the Arizona Daily Star, the uber-libertarian Goldwater Institute and the uber-conservative Arizona Tax Research Association weigh in against Prop. 200. It is a rare moment of bipartisan agreement between the left and right on which we all agree that Prop. 200 is bad public policy.
Prop. 200 is marketed as an effort to focus Tucson on giving priority funding to core local government services — law enforcement, emergency medical services and fire protection — in order to generate better response times. But the truth is it would just mandate more government spending with no strings attached.
Proposition 200 would amend Tucson's Charter to mandate the hiring of significantly more police, emergency medical service and fire personnel, which would in turn require even more spending on infrastructure and equipment.
The hiring mandates would be imposed on city taxpayers regardless of economic circumstances, and they won't be cheap. Independent audits estimate Prop. 200 would cost $150 million over the next five years.
There's nothing in Prop. 200 that limits spending on the new employees to existing tax money. And there's no guarantee that the increased spending needed to fulfill the police and fire mandates would come from current money being spent on non-essential city services. Somewhere, somehow, Tucson taxpayers will have to pay the bill and you can bet that will eventually come in the form of higher taxes.
Perhaps this major new expense could be justified if Prop. 200 included a strong mechanism for ensuring it would actually result in improved public safety. But there is no consequence if the funding does not, in fact, result in better service.
Rather than streamline local government and make it more effective, Proposition 200 would simply guarantee a massive expansion of the city payroll without a guaranteed return.
Taxpayers in Tucson, courtesy of Proposition 200, are being asked to amend the city Charter to strip the current and future City Councils of their authority to establish budgets for the police and fire departments. The Arizona Tax Research Association strongly urges Tucson taxpayers to reject this effort at ballot-box budgeting.
From local school districts to the state of Arizona, clearly the most important duty of our elected representatives is to establish an annual budget. Once adopted, those budgets reflect months of planning in which elected officials are challenged with managing changing spending priorities against the budget decisions of previous elected officials.
Arizona has become the poster child for the negative policy implications of ballot-box budgeting...
* * *
The inherent flaw with ballot-box budgeting is that citizens vote to mandate a spending obligation without understanding the long-term budget impacts of the proposals. Clearly the proponents prefer it that way.
Sidestepping the city's budgeting process allows the proponents of Proposition 200 to have an isolated budget debate regarding police and fire protection without the unpleasantness of a tax increase to fund it.
Make no mistake; in the end, this process always poorly serves taxpayers who are left questioning why citizens were not properly informed that these services are not free.
* * *
By any measure, Proposition 200 will force increased spending that will either drive future tax increases or impact other city services.
With the economic crisis facing Arizona serving as a painful reminder, Tucson taxpayers can be assured that, if approved, Proposition 200 will certainly force a tax increase at some future date.
I never pretend to be objective, but I try my best to be fair. I go after G.I. regularly -- fairly, I believe -- but when a suspicion turns out to be wrong, I should say something. Which is what I'm doing here.
Matthew Ladner put together three policy briefs comparing public and private school students. I think the methodology used on the studies is bad, as I've written in earlier posts, but I suspected the surveys were inadequate to even reach the shaky conclusions Ladner reached. Ladner was good enough to send me the original surveys, and the raw data looks fine, even if the conclusions are still questionable in my book. So what we have here is a serious disagreement, which is OK by me.
For anyone interested, G.I. commissioned two surveys of 1,350 students each, one of private school students and the other of public school students. Except for some of the school information at the beginning, both surveys asked the same questions -- 35 in all. Ladner used different questions from the surveys to form the basis of each of the three policy briefs.
For the record, the reason I was suspicious of the surveys is the wording used to describe the surveys in each of the three studies. They differed enough that I wanted to see what was going on.
The Civics test study described the survey like this: "Strategic Vision, LLC conducted the poll of 1,350 Arizona public high school students on November 21-23, 2008. A separate sample of private school students was taken during the same period." That's very accurate.
The study about student attitudes toward their school worded it this way: "In November 2008, the Goldwater Institute commissioned Strategic Vision to survey Arizona public and private high school students regarding their schools. The company conducted a poll of 1,350 Arizona public and private high school students on November 21-23, 2008." It's not clear if that's 1,350 of each or 1,350 total.
The study about students' tolerance of others uses wording that is simply inaccurate: "The Goldwater Institute commissioned a private survey firm, Strategic Vision, to survey 1,350 Arizona high school students to help determine how well Arizona high schools promote civic values." That says 1,350 total, not 1,350 public and 1,350 private school students.
Hence, my suspicions and concerns about the nature of the data. And now those suspicions have been put to rest.
I'm doing my best to ferret out specifics of Arne Duncan's educational directions concerning charter schools. General directions are easy. Specifics are harder to figure out.
I hear good things in a short interview the Republic's Pat Kossan had with Duncan while he was in Arizona.
Shorter Duncan:
We need good charters, not necessarily lots of them.
Close bad charters.
Charters need freedom with accountability.
Charters for the gifted and the elite are OK, but what we most need are good charters for underserved communities and disadvantaged kids.
So, when the first $14 million of fed charter school money comes into Arizona, the bulk of it should go to schools serving the student populations in greatest educational need -- either existing schools with proven track records or new schools with real plans and real promise. If that doesn't happen, Arizona shouldn't get the other $40 million.
Here's an idea. Why don't the folks who have multiple charters that mainly serve gifted students open schools for underserved communities and disadvantaged kids? These people are serious about education and have excellent track records. Give them a chance to succeed with the hardest-to-reach students.
"Net Neutrality" or "Network Neutrality" is a principle for a broadband Internet network that is free of restrictions on content, sites, or platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and on the modes of communication allowed, as well as one where communication is not unreasonably degraded by other communication streams. Since the early 2000s advocates of net neutrality and associated rules have raised concerns about the ability of broadband providers to use their last mile infrastructure to block Internet applications and content (e.g. websites, services, protocols), particularly those of their competitors.
Neutrality proponents claim that telecom companies seek to impose a tiered service model in order to control the pipeline and thereby remove competition, create artificial scarcity, and oblige subscribers to buy their otherwise uncompetitive services. Many believe net neutrality to be primarily important as a preservation of current freedoms. Vinton Cerf, co-inventor of the Internet Protocol, Tim Berners-Lee, creator of the web, and many others have spoken out strongly in favor of network neutrality. See generally Network neutrality - Wikipedia
For an easy to understand primer, there is this video from Public Knowledge:
On October 22, 2009 the FCC voted unanimously to begin consideration of proposed rules that would protect and promote open broadband pipes to the Internet. Over the next several months, an official rule making proceeding will take place, along with public workshops and technical advisory discussions, allowing everyone to provide feedback before the Commission adopts a final set of rules. Google Public Policy Blog: Net Neutrality (Note the stakeholder not-so-neutral source).
That same day, Sen. John McCain issued a press release announcing the filing of his bogus-named bill:
SENATOR McCAIN INTRODUCES “THE INTERNET FREEDOM ACT OF 2009”
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator John McCain today introduced legislation that would prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from enacting rules that would regulate the Internet. The Commission will meet today to determine whether the historically open architecture and free flow of the Internet should be subject to onerous federal regulation. Specifically, the Commission will seek to impose “net neutrality” rules that would reign in the network management practices of all Internet service providers, including wireless phone companies.
This government takeover of the Internet will stifle innovation, in turn slowing our economic turnaround and further depressing an already anemic job market. Outside of health care, the technology industry is the nation’s fastest growing job market. Innovation and job growth in this sector of our economy is the key to America’s future prosperity. In 2008, while most industries were slashing jobs in the worst economy in nearly 30 years, high tech industries actually added over 77,000 good high-paying jobs. Just this month, Google and Yahoo both released positive earnings reports.
The wireless industry exploded over the past twenty years due to limited government regulation. Wireless carriers invested $100 billion in infrastructure and development over the past three years which has led to faster networks, more competitors in the marketplace and lower prices compared to any other country. Meanwhile, wired telephones and networks have become a slow dying breed as they are mired in state and Federal regulations, universal service contribution requirements and limitations on use.
“Today I’m pleased to introduce ‘The Internet Freedom Act of 2009’ that will keep the Internet free from government control and regulation,” said Senator John McCain. “It will allow for continued innovation that will in turn create more high-paying jobs for the millions of Americans who are out of work or seeking new employment,” McCain continued. “Keeping businesses free from oppressive regulations is the best stimulus for the current economy.
Sen. John McCain, who opposed net neutrality regulations in his 2008 presidential bid, promptly introduced legislation in the Senate to block the FCC from making its proposed rules law. In a Washington Times editorial, McCain compared the rules to the government's bailouts of the auto and financial industries, as another "power grab" for control.
"These new rules should rightly be viewed by consumers suspiciously as another government power grab over a private service provided by private companies in a competitive marketplace. Does that sound familiar? It should," he wrote. FCC Votes To Create Net Neutrality Rules -Sunlight Foundation
In John McCain's "opposite world" spin, Net Neutrality becomes a "government takeover of the Internet" because of regulations to preserve Net Neutrality. The FCC rule making process poses a threat to erode that neutrality under pressure from the vested financial interests of the stakeholders. Telecommunications monopolies and other Internet Service Providers (ISP) have a vested financial interest in ending Net Neutrality in favor of allowing monopolistic practices to control content and access, as noted above.
Net Neutrality clearly has not stifled innovation. What it does do is hinder monopolistic practices in the marketplace, and that is what old Johnny Boy is really concerned about. You really didn't think he was concerned about Internet "freedom", did you?
Overall, the top recipient of the largess was Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who took in $894,379 (many of those contributions were directed to his 2008 presidential campaign). The telecom interests also targeted House and Senate leaders: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., was next with $341,089, followed by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md. ($275,275), Senate Finance Committee chair Max Baucus, D-Mont. ($248,999) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell ($198,972).
Broadband providers have attempted to enlist members of Congress in an effort to block action on net neutrality rules by the FCC. Verizon and AT&T have been particularly active in this effort; they also were the sources of all the clustered contributions among broadband providers, with AT&T and its outside lobbyists combining to give to 110 members, followed by Comcast (105 members) and Verizon (96 members).
John McCain's ties to the Telecommunications monopolies run long and deep. "Of the 66 current or former lobbyists working for the Arizona senator or raising money for his presidential campaign, 23 have lobbied for telecommunications companies in the past decade, Senate lobbying disclosures show." Telecom Lobbyists Tied to McCain (see chart of advisers who are Telecom lobbyists):
McCain is a senior member of the Senate Commerce Committee, which oversees the telecom industry and the Federal Communications Commission. He has repeatedly pushed industry-backed legislation since 2000, particularly during a second stint as committee chairman from 2003 through 2005. His efforts to eliminate taxes and regulations on telecommunications services won him praise from industry executives.
People who lobbied for telecom companies on those issues include McCain's campaign manager, his deputy manager, his finance chief, his top unpaid political adviser and his Senate chief of staff. Telecom companies have paid the lobbying firms that employed those top five McCain advisers more than $4.4 million since 1999, lobbying records show.
During the 2000 presidential campaign, McCain flew to several fund-raisers in a corporate jet belonging to Paxson Communications, which had business before his Senate committee. A study by the Center for Public Integrity showed that McCain received more than $2.5 million in contributions from telecommunications and media companies between 1996 and 2002, the bulk of the money during his unsuccessful 2000 presidential bid. Pinocchios for John McCain - washingtonpost.com
And then there was the imbroglio with the New York Times that the prurient interests of the media villagers made all about an alleged sexual affair with Telecom lobbyist Vicki Iseman. The actual substance of the story was about the undue influence that telecommunications lobbyists exert over John McCain and the special favors he does for his biggest campaign contributors. John McCain Lied About Meeting Lobbyist Iceman and Her Client:
Last week, John McCain was confronted with allegations that he had a sexual affair with Vicki Iseman, a lobbyist for telecommunications corporations, as much of John McCain’s staff is now, and that he had done special favors for Iseman’s clients, who had business with McCain’s committee, the Senate Commerce Committee. Senator McCain held a press conference first thing Friday morning to deny that anything wrong at all had taken place.
One of the denials that John McCain made: McCain said on Friday that he had never, ever, ever met with Vicki Iseman and her clients. It didn’t happen even one time, McCain said.
John McCain’s own words from a 2002 deposition contradict his latest claims. In that deposition, John McCain admitted that he met with Vicki Iseman and her client, Lowell Paxson, to talk about a letter that McCain sent to the FCC, about telecommunications matters, in order to achieve financial advantage for Paxson’s company – Paxson Communications, now ION Media.
Lowell Paxson also says that he went to meet with John McCain, thanks to Vicki Iseman’s influence. “I remember going there to meet with him,”says Paxson. Paxson says he told McCain, “I would love for you to write a letter.” Paxson also admits that Iseman was probably at the meeting: “Was Vicki there? Probably. The woman was a professional. She was good. She could get us to meetings.”
In his deposition, McCain admitted to being Paxson’s advocate with the FCC: “I said I would be glad to write a letter asking them to act.” In fact, Senator McCain was so eager to do the bidding of Paxson and Iseman that he wrote two letters to the FCC.
Those letters were not regarded as at all typical. In fact, the FCC rebuked John McCain, calling the letters “highly unusual.”
The relationship went both ways. Lowell Paxson did favors for John McCain too. John McCain flew around the country on Paxson’s private jet, doing political business to prepare for this presidential campaign. Paxson also made gave campaign donations to John McCain.
Lowell Paxson’s company owns 60 television stations around the country (see if there’s one in a city near you), poised to influence congressional elections – and the presidential election – in every region of the USA. The company also owns 2 television stations in Washington, D.C., able to exert heavy pressure on inside-the-beltway political opinion.
Sen. John McCain is the corrupt tool of the telecommunications monopolies for whom he has been doing special favors, and receiving favors in return, for many years. Sen. McCain is a poster boy for political corruption.
And yet our local McMedia here in Arizona will give McCain undue credit and praise for his Campaign Finance Reforms (most of which have already been gutted by the U.S. Supreme Court, which is poised to gut the rest of the law later this term), reforms which were meant for everyone else but not John McCain, as his repeated violations of FEC campaign finance rules during his 2008 presidential campaign made clear. (Spare me the nonsense about the FEC cleared him. The FEC is ineffectual and politicized and has not enforced the law for years. It is a sham.)
Sen. John McCain is no friend of Internet "freedom" and Net Neutrality. He is the corrupt tool of the telecommunications monopolies. The Rachel Maddow Show discussed what McCain's bogus-named bill would actually do - just the opposite of what he claims.
This would be the same George W. Bush who was at war with the English language and added Bushisms to the American lexicon?
Today is October 25th, Saint Crispin's Day, the disfavored and long forgotten feast day of Saints Crispin and Crispinian. October 25th is also the date of the Battle of Agincourt in 1415, at which Henry V of England rallied his much smaller forces to victory over the superior French forces of Charles VI with this motivational speech -- recounted in the words of William Shakespeare in his play Henry V.
Watch and learn, Mr. President.
This story shall the good man teach his son; And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by, From this day to the ending of the world, But we in it shall be remember'd; We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; For he to-day that sheds his blood with me Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile, This day shall gentle his condition: And gentlemen in England now a-bed Shall think themselves accursed they were not here, And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.
Kavanagh wants to sweep money from special funds to help balance the state budget. It's a terrible idea on its face, as many people have pointed out.
But one of his terrible ideas gave me a potentially good idea.
Kavanagh singled out, in particular, an 80-cent-a-pack tax on cigarettes approved by voters in 2006. That cash is earmarked for programs to improve early childhood development. He said there is about $350 million gathered in that fund.
"It's crazy to be banking hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars in dedicated tax money for special areas that we could use to help get us out of this mess," Kavanagh said. "I don't see how you get out of a $2 billion hole without using every resource that you can."
Here's why this program, First Things First, has $350 million in its coffers. It's been banking the tobacco money until it can be assured it has enough to fund its early childhood education and health program for at least 8 to 10 years. That much time is needed to be able to assess the value of the program.
Here's my idea. The state borrows all or part of the funds from the First Things First program and pays it back at the same level of interest it would be paying to lease back the state buildings it's talking about "selling" to private interests. That way, instead of the dollars flowing out of government coffers into private hands, a net loss for the state, the money would stay with a government-funded program and increase its viability.
It wouldn't cover the whole bill, of course. But a few hundred million is a few hundred million.
The idea sounds too good and too easy. There must be something wrong with it.
If you want a copy of the Presidential Family Photo, you can download it in a number of sizes: small, medium, large and unbelievably large.
The photo comes with the following guidelines (this is for real, by the way):
"This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House."
I have always thought that instead of talking about health care reform, we should be talking about bankruptcy reform -- bankruptcy due to medical expenses not covered by health care insurance.
A national study in the American Journal of Medicine (May 2009) found that 62 percent of all bankruptcies filed in 2007 were linked to medical expenses. Of those who filed for bankruptcy, nearly 80 percent had health insurance. According to another published article, about 1.5 million families lose their homes to foreclosure every year due to unaffordable medical costs. NCHC | Facts About Healthcare - Health Insurance Costs
This is consistent with what I have seen in my practice. Too many people have lost everything they spent a lifetime working to acquire due to an illness and health care expenses not covered by their health care insurance. It is heartbreaking to see their pain and suffering compounded by financial devastation.
Jon Perr at crooksandliars.com has an exceptional post that I will reproduce here. Republican Malpractice Myths Arizona's Senator Obstruction, Jon Kyl, figures prominently in purveying these myths lies.
In recent days, Republican leaders have scored a series of political victories in their eternal quest for tort reform. Last week, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) told Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) that an onerous package of malpractice curbs he championed could save the government an estimated $54 billion over 10 years. [Sen. Jon Kyl had made up a number, $100-200 billion]. That came on the heels of President Obama's latest offer to support limited tort reform as an olive branch to recalcitrant Republicans balking at his health care proposals, including funding for a $25 million pilot program.
But largely overlooked in the heated discussions of damage award caps, special health courts, expert panels and national compensation schedules is the inescapable truth that the medical malpractice system has only a negligible impact on overall American health care costs. Republican horror stories of a torrent of baseless malpractice suits producing "jackpot justice" that fuels rising premiums for physicians and patients alike while driving doctors from practice simply don't comport with reality. The overstated, overblown, over the top and often outright false GOP claims suggest that the Republicans' real target is not the flawed American malpractice system, but instead the nation's trial lawyers whose campaign contributions help bankroll the Democratic Party.
Here, then, is a look at Republican Malpractice Myths:
Here's a photo of Vic Williams (R-LD26) hanging around with a few of his closest friends: Russell Pearce, J.D. Hayworth and Sheriff Joe Arpaio (Present but out of the shot: Andrew Thomas). That's Vic looking stern and resolute behind the big three.
The issue is immigration. With those folks sharing the microphone, you know the tone is harsh.
Because Congress has abdicated its responsibility to resolve illegal immigration, powers have stepped into their leadership vacuum. And the powers calling the shots in place of the federal government constitute the most radical and single-minded among all would-be reformers.
The inmates of the immigration-reform asylum now are in charge.
[snip]
The group is a "who's who" of us-against-them absolutists.
Radio personality and ousted Congressman J.D. Hayworth, who has made a latter-day career of characterizing illegal immigrants as bloodthirsty criminals, was there. So were Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and County Attorney Andrew Thomas, whose commitment to ridding the county of dishwashers, landscapers and broken-tail-light scofflaws is beyond question. Leading the affair was state Sen. Russell Pearce, nationally renowned illegal-immigrant basher, who proposes the group's plan for either the state Legislature or the 2010 ballot.
So what is avowed sensible middle-of-the-roader (when he's not a conservative, that is) Vic Williams doing with this crew of immigrant bashers? If I was of a mind to photoshop the pic, I would have inserted a finger in the wind next to Vic ("The election, my friend, is blowin' in the wind . . ."). He's in perpetual motion, shuttling back and forth from moderate to right wing positions. And when it's time for a vote where he has to choose one way or the other, Vic can often be found making a potty call.
A new face has entered the LD-26 Republican Rep race, the very conservative Terri Proud. Trent Humphries is likely to be there as well. Seeing two Rs assaulting him from the right, Vic may be trying to establish his conservative cred on a favorite Tea Party issue.
Tedski had his ear to the ground on this one, and he says Vic was the only Southern Arizonan there. Think of the folks we have down here, from Melvin to Stevens to Gowan to Antenori. For Vic to be the only one choosing to participate in the photo op is saying a whole lot.
No, not Motown legends Diana Ross, Mary Wilson and Florence Ballard. U.S. Supreme Court Justices.
What:The University of Arizona Rehnquist Center is hosting an event, "Principles of Constitutional and Statutory Interpretation: A Discussion between Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Stephen Breyer."
When: Monday, October 26, 2009 from 11:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
Where: Leo Rich Theater at the Tucson Convention Center, 260 S. Church Avenue
Reservations Are Required: Submit on-line reservations at http//www.law.arizona.edu/news/faculty/rsvpregistration.cfm.
The discussion will be moderated by Pete Williams, NBC News Justice Correspondent.
The event is free and open to the public. A capacity crowd is anticipated and reservations are required. Those planning to attend must comply with applicable security guidelines. Admission tickets and photo ID will be required at the door. Further details will be provided to registrants by e-mail and will be posted at the Rehnquist Center's website at http://www.rehnquistcenter.org
Proposition 200 would mandate hiring scores of new government employees without requiring spending be reduced elsewhere or imposing any incentive for good performance or consequence for bad performance. This won’t put public safety first, it will just bloat city government.
The Senate voted Thursday to extend new federal protections to people who are victims of violent crime because of their sex or sexual orientation, bringing the measure close to reality after years of fierce debate by a vote of 68-29. Senate Approves Broadened Hate-Crimes Measure
Sen. Jon Kyl voted no, Sen. John McCain voted yes.
The measure, attached to an essential military-spending bill, broadens the definition of federal hate crimes to include those committed because of a victim’s gender or gender identity, or sexual orientation. It gives victims the same federal safeguards already afforded to people who are victims of violent crimes because of their race, color, religion or national origin.
Senator Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said afterward. “For nearly 150 years, we have responded as a nation to deter and to punish violent denials of civil rights by enacting federal laws to protect the civil rights of all of our citizens.”
Mr. Leahy sponsored the hate-crimes amendment to the military bill and called its passage a worthy tribute to the late Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, who first introduced hate-crimes legislation in the Senate more than a decade ago.
Federal protections for people who are victims of violent crime because of their sexual orientation have been sought for more than a decade, at least since the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard, a gay Wyoming college student.
The Senate action came two weeks after the House approved the measure, 281 to 146, and would give the federal government the authority to prosecute violent, anti-gay crimes when local authorities failed to.
The legislation now goes to President Obama who has said that he will sign it. Previously, President Bush threatened to veto the Matthew Shepard hate crimes bill if it ever came to his desk.
The Military Readiness Enhancement Act will eliminate the current U.S. military policy, known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue, Don't Harass" (DADT). The policy prohibits anyone who "demonstrate(s) a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from serving in the military, but places limits on when the military can initiate an investigation into an service member's sexual orientation.
The percentage of Americans who believe that openly gay and lesbian service members should be allowed to serve in the military has increased from 44 percent in 1993, when DADT was introduced, to 75 percent in 2009. More than 12,500 military service members have been discharged under DADT, costing taxpayers more than a quarter billion dollars.
It takes an act of Congress to repeal federal statutory law. It cannot be accomplished by an executive order. President Obama has said that he will sign a repeal of DADT if Congress sends the bill to his desk.
The problem is in Congress, where repeal would require 218 votes in the House and 60 in the Senate [for cloture], votes that have yet to materialize. Tauscher renews effort to repeal 'don't ask':
Opposition is especially intense on the armed services committees, including from former Republican presidential nominee John McCain, R-Ariz.
Since the current policy was implemented in 1993, at least 12,500 lesbian and gay service members have been discharged for violations. These have included Arab linguists, medics and intelligence analysts in short supply. An estimate 65,000 gays and lesbians are believed to be currently serving in the military.
I gather most of my information sitting here behind my MacBook. If Google Search, Google Alerts and the newspapers somehow disappeared from the web, I'd probably fold up my laptop and go home. Except that I'm already home. So I'd just fold up my laptop and do something else.
From this vantage point at my desk, I get to take unfair advantage of others' work. I cut and paste their copy, comment on it and carp at the reporters when I feel like carping. Fortunately, I'm self aware enough to know that's exactly what I'm doing. I never think, "What do we need those jerks for?" I know how much I need those reporters, both for myself as an informed citizen and for the writing I do on BfA.
Monday, I ventured out to the Listen and Learn forum Grijalva and Duncan held at Ochoa Elementary because I wanted to see Duncan in person and hear what was being said first hand. Armed with pad and pen, I listened, took notes and posted here on some of what I saw and heard.
Rhonda Bodfield of the Star was there too. She was also scribbling notes, writing down far more than I, and talking with her photographer, and making sure to get into the proper position so she could hear exactly what everyone said and take down their names from the cards on the table in front of them. She held quick interviews with students and with PTA members. She chatted with participants. She and I talked briefly and amiably at one point.
Bodfield's article the next day was far more comprehensive than what I posted. I made some points and observations she didn't, but while I was playing to a select audience and so didn't have to explain everything, she was writing for a general audience. She had to create a narrative, give background, explain context, and so on. Though I knew everything she wrote in the article, I still gained a bit of perspective from reading it.
In other words, in terms of covering the event, Bodfield smoked me, which was no surprise. I expected it. I don't have the chops to do what she did. And she does it regularly, sometimes two or three times an issue. I've quibbled with some of her points on occasion, or criticized her for what she left out, or where she put the information in the article, but I always try to preface my comments with the respect I have for the work she does. By the time I get to the end of her articles, I usually feel I have a more global grasp of the situation than I did at the beginning. That's not true of the work of some reporters.
We need these folks who report on the news, especially the best among them. Michelle Reese and Ryan Gabrielson at the East Valley Trib, for instance, took information all the papers had on tuition tax credits and built on it to create a five part investigative series that earned them national, and well deserved, praise. Terrific work. Though I was dogging the story as well, some of the material they dredged up left me open-mouthed. Their work led to two different legislative panels looking into tax credits and the STOs that disburse the tax credit dollars. That's the power of the press.
Jim Nintzel has really stepped up this election season, mixing snark and seriousness in the way a Weekly reporter should, offering often penetrating analysis to explore and explain candidates and propositions. No one can fill the hole left by the Citizen (I sorely miss Billie Stanton's passion as well as the paper's coverage of local issues which often surpassed the Star), but I get the sense Nintzel sees himself filling part of the the void left by the Citizen's exit. I look to his discussion of political issues to distill what's been going on during the week. If you want to read a world class take-down that would make any WWF wrestler proud, check out this week's article, Bunch of Dicks: Republicans pump up a baseless art controversy, by Nintzel and Margaret Regan.
My point here, I guess, is to show that I know my place in the world of journalism and commentary. Much as I value the importance of the work done by citizen journalists in general and the blogosphere in particular, both of which surpass the MSM in their coverage of important issues (or what I consider important issues) at times, those work-a-day reporters are the ones who make it all happen. If the printed newspaper shrinks and shrivels to the point it becomes a quaint artifact of a bygone era (and I hope that doesn't happen. I don't think my morning coffee would taste right without a pile of newsprint on my lap), we damn well better find another way to pay reporters to ply their trade. There is no way we can do without them.
Friday, November 13,1:30 pm Join the Udall Foundation as it honors former Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall and celebrates the addition of his name to the Foundation.
Outside of the Udall Foundation Office 130 S. Scott Ave., Tucson, AZ
~The event is open to the public~
Special Guest The Honorable Stewart L. Udall
Expected Speakers Senator Tom Udall Senator Mark Udall Representative Raúl Grijalva Representative Gabrielle Giffords Deputy Secretary of the Interior David J. Hayes Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard
Master of Ceremonies Terry Bracy Closing Words Dr. Anne J. Udall
On Wednesday, the House Judiciary Committee voted 20-9 to approve legislation to repeal the health insurers' exemption under the McCarran-Ferguson Act. House panel votes to end insurers' antitrust shield:
"No one on this committee believes that price fixing or carving up markets is a good thing, and the wide, bipartisan support for this bill's passage reflects this," said committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich.
In the Senate, Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said he'd offer an antitrust exemption repeal as part of the health-care overhaul bill when the Senate begins debate on it, probably in the next few weeks.
Consumer groups are convinced that ending the exemption would prompt insurers to compete with one another more energetically. The current practice, said Jim Guest, the Consumers Union president and CEO, is "bad for consumers, bad for patients and bad for taxpayers."
The push to end the exemption will have the backing of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who appeared with Leahy at a Capitol news conference.
"The case for action is very simple," Reid said. "When companies are forced to compete with one another, that's what our free enterprise system is all about, and when you have one industry that has no referee … you never win the ballgame."
NB: Speaking of ballgames, Major League Baseball is the only other business exempt from anti-trust laws. End MLB's anti-trust exemption as well. Break up those damn Yankees!
Howard Fischer has an article today on the idea of the "selling" state buildings to generate revenue. He may have the details of the arrangement right, but I seem to remember something he doesn't mention.
The first part is what I remember. The state "sells" the buildings, then leases them back until they pay them off.
Here's how Fischer explains it, which is different in a small but significant way from what I believe I've read.
The deal is structured so the state would promise to lease back the buildings over the next 20 years, making payments to the "owners" over that period. It is only if the state defaults on the rent that actual possession of the building would go to the buyers.
But if all goes as planned, at the end of 20 years the state would again take full title to the buildings, unencumbered by debt.
What I remember is this. The state would have to buy back the buildings at whatever is considered their fair market value in the future, which would likely be more than it is now. If I'm right, that would mean the state pays principle, plus interest, plus appreciation of the properties' value. It's kind of a value-added (for the lenders) second mortgage.
I may have this totally wrong. Anyone know more than I do?
The Rachel Maddow Show reported Wednesday evening that the Republicans who voted against the Al Franken Amendment to the defense appropriations bill are taking heated criticism from the editors of their Red State newspapers back home. 'The Rachel Maddow Show' for Wednesday, October 21:
MADDOW: Thirty Republican senators - 30 of the 40 total Republican senators we have now cast a vote recently that has even the conservative op-ed pages of the senator's local hometown papers burning bright with outrage.
It may be the sleeper political issue of the year, the vote that will launch 1,000 campaign ads, if nothing else. And it seems to have already caused a lot of regret.
* * *
MADDOW: One specific vote on one specific part of the giant legislation that funds the Defense Department is turning into a real political problem for 30 Republican senators.
In Idaho, the "Lewiston Morning Tribune" called out its two senators in an editorial titled, "Senators Crapo and Risch Cast an Inexplicable Vote."
In Mississippi, "The Clarion Ledger" editorialized, quote, "Senators Cochran and Wicker voted to protect corporations, not victims, and they should own up to that."
An opinion piece in the "Osawatomie Graphic" was titled simply, "Kansas Senators are Disappointing." In Tennessee, a "Crossville Chronicle" writers asked, "Whose Side are Our Senators On?"
The "Athens Banner Herald" in Georgia headlined a letter quote, "Georgia Senators Embarrass State." And in Louisiana, a "Shreveport Times" writer asks, quote, "What exactly is Sen. David Vitter problem with women."
When Republicans are getting called out in Mississippi, Kansas, Louisiana, Tennessee and Georgia, something big is going on politically..."
Arizona Senators Jon Kyl and John McCain voted against the Franken Amendment. I have been reviewing Arizona's major newspapers since the vote, and as of yet I have not found one editorial opinion on the vote from the editors of the state's major newspapers. (If you are aware of one I may have missed, please post a link to it in the comments).
The best that I can find is this mildly critical opinion by E.J. Montini of The Arizona Republic today. A puzzling 'no' vote vs. victims:
Arizona Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl voted no.
Last week, I asked them why. In return I received a note from a McCain staffer. Nothing from Kyl.
* * *
Opponents noted that the Department of Defense was against the amendment, saying it would be difficult to enforce. They also said that the government should not dictate terms to a private company; that the amendment included too many offenses, and that arbitration is a better resolution than court.
McCain staffer Brooke Buchanan explained her boss' vote in an e-mail that reads:
"As the amendment stood, it would deny the Department of Defense (DoD) funds under existing contracts that have the mandatory arbitration clause even if performance under the contract was in all ways satisfactory. In other words, it would force DoD to stop payment on a contract over a clause that was legal at the time and had nothing to do with performance.
"Had Franken aimed his provision at future contracts, then the question would have been whether this is good policy. But as applied to existing contracts, it was a matter of 'you can't back up from here.'
"Also, where ever possible an environment that encourages arbitration instead of litigation that overburdens the court system is a good thing. Of course, Senator McCain strongly opposes any activity or behavior, including of course sexual harassment, in violation of law."
Sen. Kyl's office didn't respond.
However, Sen. Franken has noted that his amendment "does not require contractors to change or modify existing employment contracts. It only bars funds to contractors who continue to use these mandatory arbitration clauses in their employment contracts."
No single vote defines a politician. Kyl and McCain have supported crime victims. Maybe they saw this as an attack on defense contractors or wrote it off as a political hammer Democrats want to use against Republicans. The fact remains, it's a simple question. One that Sen. George LeMieux of Florida, a Republican who voted for the amendment, answered best.
He said, "I can't see in any circumstance that a woman who was a victim of sexual assault shouldn't have her right to go to court."
Contact your local newspaper editors to inquire of their editorial opinion. And write a letter to the editor of your local newspapers about this vote.
This GOP gimmick of bad public policy to give their weak and inexperienced council candidates an issue to wrap around their campaigns is unraveling faster than an old knit sweater.
When new campaign finance reports get turned in at the end of this week, we hear that there will be some interesting names from the business community handing out contributions to Don't Handcuff Tucson, the political committee battling against the Public Safety First Initiative. The Skinny | Tucson Weekly
It's not all that often you see the business community teaming up with the libs from the Pima County Interfaith Council and the Sierra Club. But you're seeing it with Prop 200 because everyone besides the core of supporters recognizes this is a recipe for fiscal disaster.
Program note from the Weekly:
Speaking of Prop 200: KUAT-TV's Arizona Illustrated is airing a one-hour special on the initiative from 6 to 7 pm. on Monday, Oct. 26. The show will be taped live at the Leo Rich Theatre, so if you want to join the audience—and maybe ask your question—come on down. It will be streamed live at azpublicmedia.org, and broadcast live on Cox channel 83 and Comcast channel 203.
The panel will include supporters and opponents of Prop 200, along with Arizona Illustrated anchor Bill Buckmaster, Skinny scribe Jim Nintzel and the Arizona Daily Star'sAnn Brown.
I previously reported on the GOP culture war smear campaign against the Democratic Tucson City Council candidates Sen. Jesse Helms alive and well in Tucson?, which was alleged to be based on "phallic imagery that some might consider pornographic."
The mysterious smear campaign has been solved. Here It Is: "Big Dick No. 1": Republican National Committeeman Bruce Ash.
I have to agree with the assessment of Jim Nintzel and Margaret Regan of the Tucson Weekly, Bruce Ash and the Tucson Vision Committee are a Bunch of Dicks for pumping up a baseless art controversy:
You could hardly squeeze more GOP anxieties into one swollen story: Deadbeat local artists defiling the local fire station! An obscene painting of penises funded by local tax dollars! Homeland Security denied the office space needed to fight terrorism!
The only problem with this political wet dream: Not one of the claims is true.
"The 'story' exploded publicly last week, when Republican National Committeeman Bruce Ash turned up on KGUN-9 News to accuse the City Council of funding an obscene artwork."
"The Tucson City Council authorized through another committee—a not-for-profit group—the expenditure of a lot of dollars for a piece of art called 'Big Dick No. 1,'" Ash told KGUN-9 reporter Joel Waldman.
Back to the "story." It turns out that Bruce Ash is full of crap, as any astute political observer already knows. The old joke about "How do you know when he's lying? His lips are moving" has long been applied to Bruce Ash by local politicos.
After his prime-time appearance on KGUN-9, Ash now concedes that the show containing "Big Dick No. 1" took place when the City Council was controlled by Republicans Fred Ronstadt, Kathleen Dunbar and Bob Walkup and independent Carol West. (Ronstadt and Dunbar were beaten later that year by Democrats Trasoff and Uhlich.)
Caught with his pants smoldering, Ash is now backing away from his assertion that the current Democratic-controlled City Council had anything to do with "Big Dick No. 1." But he's still trying to tie the Dems to the museum.
After all, he points out, the City Council OK'd a deal to lease the Fire Department's vacated downtown headquarters to the museum for $1 a year. MOCA is set to take possession of the bunker-like building Dec. 1 and open to the public on Feb 6. Ash claims, without evidence, that the federal Department of Homeland Security wanted to lease the building after the Fire Department relocated to spiffy new digs on Cushing Street.
But City Manager Mike Letcher says flatly: "Homeland Security never wanted this building. ... There's just no truth to that rumor."
Ash admits he has no way to substantiate his claims that Homeland Security wanted the fire station building.
"I'm waiting for some information to be presented to me," Ash says. "If I'm able to make it public, I will."
Ash also asserts that the Tucson Police Department wanted the space. Letcher says it's true that the police department, which has headquarters next door to the old fire station, did consider taking over the fire station lot—but that plan proved too costly.
TPD had planned to enlarge its building and demolish the old fire station to make way for a parking lot. But it would have had to pay a cool $1 million just for demolition. And it would have cost the police $52 million to expand their downtown building.
Instead, TPD added a new crime lab at the westside station on Miracle Mile at a cost of $39 million.
Once the city decided against demolition, it put out a call for bids to lease the empty building. MOCA was the only organization that stepped up. Not only would it take the white elephant off the city's hands, it would add a new museum space to a downtown desperately seeking attractions. (The museum has operated out of assorted temporary quarters in recent years.)
MOCA signed a five-year lease at a sweetheart $1 a year, but there are downsides. The city gave itself an exit strategy in the unlikely event it wants the building back. Whenever it wants, the city can terminate the lease by giving the museum one year's notice.
"It's a very low risk on the part of the city," Russell says. "It doesn't give us permanence."
In addition, museum director Russell estimates that the museum will have to spend about $80,000 to transform the firehouse into gallery space, with annual maintenance costs running into the six figures. The city had to pay at least $300,000 a year in maintenance and utility costs to operate the fire station 24 hours a day, according to Letcher.
Bruce Ash was representing an independent political committee, the Tucson Vision Committee, in his appearance on KGUN-9 News last week.
"In the KGUN-9 report, Ash showed off a draft of a political ad the committee had put together. The hit piece not only condemned the city council for supporting an art exhibition featuring obscene artwork but for blocking Homeland Security from leasing the downtown fire station. Ash says the committee has decided against running the ad"... except on Tea Party Republican biased KGUN-9, of course, as a news item. Way to get free political advertising for your attack ad, Bruce.
"The Tucson Vision Committee has filed only one campaign finance report, although another is due this week." We may learn who the other culture warriors are behind this smear campaign besides Bruce Ash.
By the way, a program note. Bruce Ash will be returning to Arizona Illustrated on PBS this coming Monday evening, replacing "Lyin' John" Munger who is off on his reverse Robin Hood quest to enrich the wealthy and to screw the poor as the next Governor of Arizona. Munger calls for big tax cuts, toll roads
Maybe the first question should be addressed to legendary broadcast journalist Bill Buckmaster, the host of Arizona Illustrated: "What the hell are you thinking?" Inviting Bruce Ash, the man who is at the center of this smear campaign controversy against the Democratic City Council candidates, to be a commentator on Arizona Illustrated? You don't see the conflict of interest here, Bill?
And is being a congenital liar a requisite for the job?
There are not a lot of people contributing to the Tucson Vision Committee, an independent political committee that is targeting Democratic candidates in the City Council election.
The committee had raised $39,000 from fewer than 10 contributors as of Oct. 14.
Roughly three-fourths of the money has come from developer Michael Goodman and Republican National Committeeman Bruce Ash.
Wednesday's ruling by the 9th Circuit Court could hurt the tuition tax credit program, but since the wheels of justice turn slow, it could still be years before it has any effect.
Basically, the 9th Circuit agreed with a previous ruling which said the tuition tax credit scholarships are too heavily weighted toward religious schools. Since many of the Student Tuition Organizations (STOs) only give scholarships to religious based schools,
"85 percent or more of the state financed scholarship money is available only to students whose parents are willing to send them to sectarian institutions. If these facts are proved true, the Arizona Department of Revenue's execution of the scholarship program (Section 1089) violates the Establishment Clause," the judges wrote Wednesday.
One important fact isn't mentioned in the article. About 80% of Arizona's private schools are sectarian, and the figure is similar nationwide. This is one of those secrets hiding in plain sight. If you support vouchers or back door vouchers tuition tax credits, you're for funneling the lion's share of the tax dollars (yes, tuition tax credits are tax dollars even if they're not actually collected, since they come from money that would otherwise go to the general fund) to religious institutions. I have a real problem with that.
What's the next step? Either the U.S. Supreme Court hears the case, or it goes back to the 9th Circuit Court.
Please, someone tell me the Onion has temporarily taken over the Phoenix Business Journal, or it's putting out its April Fools edition six months early. No one could really be talking about this, could they?
Talk of Russell Pearce heading state police swirls around Capitol
The already-tense fight over immigration in the state could get a lot more intense.
There is talk at the State Capitol of state Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, possibly being named head of the state police.
Sources familiar with the situation say Brewer could be replacing Arizona Department of Public Safety director Roger Vanderpool and Pearce’s name has popped up.
(At right, Cutman, AKA Russell Pearce, half of the legislative Dynamic Duo, Cutman and Melvin)
I have previously suggested that you should call Sen. Jon Kyl's office to "thank" him for being the SOB holding up the extension of unemployment benefits in Congress. Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) Holds Up Unemployment Extension:
If your unemployment ran out this week, you can thank Sen. Jon Kyl. Yes, the Republican whip objected to a quick vote that would have helped all those people. You can contact him here and thank him for his compassion.
Because of the actions of two Republican senators, every day this month 7,000 jobless workers have lost their unemployment insurance (UI) coverage. Each day these two Republicans continue to stand in the way of Senate passage of a UI extension, 7,000 more workers will run out of benefits.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has tried twice to bring the UI measure to a vote on the Senate floor. First Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), then Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) blocked action.
Christine Owens, executive director for the National Employment Law Project (NELP), says workers are “devastated” by the Republican roadblock. Unemployed workers across the country are devastated and dismayed by the failure of the U.S. Senate to extend their lifeline. Every day, 7,000 additional workers are facing the total loss of benefits, in many cases after struggling to find work for more than a year and a half.
The official unemployment rate now is 9.8 percent, while the number of those who have given up looking for work or are underemployed stands at an appalling 26 million workers.
Click here to tell the Senate it’s time to pass an extension of UI benefits.
In September, the House overwhelmingly passed a UI extension that called for an additional 13 weeks of (UI) for jobless workers in high unemployment states (more than 8.5 percent) who have exhausted their benefits without finding new work.
* * *
NELP estimates 400,000 workers exhausted their benefits in September and without any extension, another 1.3 million will run out of benefits by year’s end.
Says Owens: "It’s shameful and callous. Because the Senate has not acted, hundreds of thousands of workers are languishing without any means to support their families in the midst of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. It’s time for the Senate to do right by the families hardest hit by the recession—the Senate needs to do whatever it takes, working weekends included, to make this happen."
Shame on every member of the Arizona news media that doesn't hammer Sens. Kyl and Hatch for preventing the unemployed from getting this much-needed help.
UPDATE: What does Sen. Orrin Hatch believe is the most pressing issue in the country today? He has asked that President Obama open a Department of Justice investigation into how the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) determins the college football national champion. I kid you not. Hatch urges Obama to investigate college's BCS
Arizona may be the only state in the nation where mothers can no longer tell their children that some day they can grow up and be President of the United States.
— John McCain paraphrasing a joke by Morris K. Udall in May 2003
Key conservatives tell Whispers that there are five lawmakers poised to lead the conservative populists, perhaps all the way to the 2012 or 2016 presidential campaigns. One is in the Senate: Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl, the GOP whip.
The others Mr. Beddard lists are Ohio’s Rob Portman who is running for Senate, Virginia Rep. Eric Cantor, the No. 2 House Republican Leader, Indiana Rep. Mike Pence, the No. 3 House GOP leader; and Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, a fiscal conservative.
Mr. Beddard does not disclose who his "key conservatives" sources are. Hint: it's the names on his list, self-promoters all.
And what makes Beddard think there will be a "Republican" Party in 2012 or 2016? The "conservative populists" are doing their best to tear it apart.
There have been persistent rumors in the blogosphere that Sen. John McCain still harbors dreams of running for president in 2012, which he has laughed off when confronted by questioners. Then again, it is a truism that it is easier to run for president than to quit running for president. And John McCain has been running for president his entire political career. Maybe he will reach for the brass ring that has eluded him one last time.
Rhonda Bodfield of the Arizona Daily Star fact checked, in a roundabout manner, the wild claims being made by the "Republican" candidates for Tucson city council and their Tea Party supporters. Tea Party organizers, Dems square off at downtown events. Here is her fact check reformatted:
Claim: Members of the Tea Party criticized the City Council's February decision to lease the building to the Museum of Contemporary Art for $1 a year.
Fact: The museum, which plans to move into the building in the next few months, was the sole bidder for a five-year lease that can be revoked with one year's notice.
Claim: "If I had known about it, I would have doubled that offer. It would have made a great Tea Party headquarters," said organizer Trent Humphries.
Fact: Lou Ginsberg, the city's director of real estate, said ... The request for proposal was advertised on the same day for three weeks in a row in The Daily Territorial. "That is standard practice for anybody looking for real estate transactions," he said. "That was open to everyone and everybody, and the fact is we had only one response."
Claim: Tea Party organizers have said the Tucson Police Department wanted the two-story fire building next door for its own use, and that the Department of Homeland Security wanted to buy it for millions.
Tucson Police Officers Association President Larry Lopez said members of his department, whom he refused to name, made verbal requests of city officials to use the fire building for several things, including housing a backup 911 system.
He said the request was quietly denied behind the scenes. He also charged there was never an appropriate bid process for the lease of the headquarters.
Fact: City Manager Mike Letcher said in an interview the city never had an offer from Homeland Security to rent or purchase the fire headquarters.
Letcher, who was an assistant city manager at the time of the lease, said he wasn't aware of any verbal discussions. "All I can go by is what I've got documented, and there was never any formal request made for those uses."
Lou Ginsberg, the city's director of real estate, said ... the request for proposal was advertised on the same day for three weeks in a row in The Daily Territorial. "That is standard practice for anybody looking for real estate transactions," he said. "That was open to everyone and everybody, and the fact is we had only one response."
In addition to these Tea Party tall tales being false and fully debunked, the GOP candidates added some of their own.
Steve Kozachik denied that he made a pitch to get hired on with the Rio Nuevo arena project and wanted to oversee the construction of the arena and then stay on as building operations manager when the project was complete. David Safier has the e-mail and has addressed it here. How serious was Kozachik about wanting that Rio Nuevo job?
Ben Buehler-Garcia, then part of the Fox Tucson Theatre Foundation in 1999 (he left the board in 2004), suggested the renovation of the theater would cost as little as $3.5 million. Buehler-Garcia said at the time the foundation hoped to do the renovation privately. "It's not our plan to saddle the city with any debt," he said then.
Fact Check: In 2002, the renovation project had grown to $8.5 million when it received a $3.5 million infusion of Rio Nuevo project funds. In the five years previous, the foundation had only raised about $3 million in contributions, including $1 million in federal grant funding.
The project shot up to more than $13 million by the time it opened. Earlier this year, the city had to take over day-to-day operations of the theater and "loan" workers to keep it open because it had gone through most of its cash.
The Fox's financial situation also calls into question how the foundation will repay the $5.6 million loan the city gave it in 2005 to help finish renovations after fundraising efforts fell flat. Fox Theatre lost $1.4 million in 2 years
A private investment failure resulted in a mult-million dollar obligation to the City of Tucson.
Please link to this site. Deep linking as well as landing page links are encouraged and appreciated. Here are site graphics you can use for graphic links.
BforAZ Merchandise:
Purchase of goods via or donations to this site do not constitute a donation to any political candidate or party and are not tax deductible. This site is run by volunteers and is not authorized by any political campaign, party, or PAC.
Opinions expressed are solely those of the authors and do not reflect the opinions or positions of any other organization, entity, or officials.
Recent Comments