Blog For Arizona

Brewer vetoes, signs a number of bills

By Craig McDermott, cross-posted from Random Musings

Arizona's Governor Jan Brewer has signed a slew of bills passed by the legislature this year, and has also vetoed a larger-than-expected number of them.

While she usually lists technical reasons for her veto of a bill, her real reasons for vetoes usually boil down to either payback for past conflicts (see the linked story regarding her veto of SB1322) or protecting the turf of the governor from legislative encroachment.

From an Arizona Republic article by Alia Beard Rau and Jim Walsh -

Gov. Jan Brewer closed out this year's legislative session with a flurry of vetoes, nearly doubling what she blocked last year.

She issued a total of 29 vetoes, 14 of them coming at nearly 8 p.m. Friday night. She signed 357 bills into law.

Among her Friday night vetoes: a bill that would have required cities to allow the sale of fireworks during certain weeks of the year, one that would have removed 11 phrases from the state's 9/11 memorial and one that would have allowed most of the state's counties to turn many of its workers into at-will employees.

The 9/11 bill is HB2230; the fireworks bill is SB1379; the "put the screws to county employees" bill is HB2650.

AZBlueMeanie at Blog for Arizona has some good insight on the enactment of SB1333 here.  It's one of Sen. Frank Antenori's "I hate Tucson, even though I represent part of it" bills.  He has the info on many changes to election law here.

Dave Safier of BfA offers his perspective on two of Brewer's vetoes here.

Some of Brewer's veto/signing letters for specific bills (not just those dealt with Friday) include -

- SB1593, veto, health insurance, interstate purchase

- SB1088, veto, interstate compact, health care.  Turf protection - it mandated something to the governor.

- SB1322, veto, privatizing city services in Phoenix and Tucson (Brewer listed some valid reasons for her veto, but the Republic's Mary Jo Pitzl points out the fact that Brewer and Phoenix City Council member Sal DiCiccio, the bill's main proponent, aren't exactly close personal friends.

- HB2707, veto, general fund revenue limit

- HB2335, enacted, making some changes to ballots for presidential and vice-presidential candidates (NOT a birther bill).  An imperfect bill, but she signed it anyway, saying that sponsor Jack Harper has promised to run a bill making corrections next session in time for the fall election.

- HB2177, veto, a birther bill.  Possibly the most surprising veto in the bunch.  Look for an "after-birther" bill next year, just in time for the presidential election.

- HB2700, veto, creating an 11th paid holiday for state employees.  Once every hundred years.

- SB1525, enacted, limiting the ability of municipalities to impose and collect development fees

- SB1186, veto, a "tax corrections" bill.  An annual bill to simply sync up state tax laws with federal tax laws, it was hijacked by Sen. Steve Yarbrough with an amendment that added language expanding the state's school tuition tax credits.

- HB2577/SB1561, veto, taking the ability to allocate certain federal funds away from the governor and giving it to the legislature.  Turf protection.  Not sure why the lege passed this one twice in one session.  Maybe they think she's dumber than they are and wouldn't notice (I may not agree on almost anything with her, and she isn't exactly the most intellectually impressive member of the Arizona political world, but she *has* been in one office or another for over two decades.  She's got to have something going for her.)

This isn't a complete list of vetoes or enactments, but one can be found here on the lege's website.  Right now, it doesn't include Friday's bill dispositions.  It should be updated on Monday, however.

In addition, any remaining bills outstanding have to be vetoed/signed no later than Monday, otherwise they become law without the governor's signature.

Later...

Is there about to be a land grab in Pima County?

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Back in the late 1990s, Tortolita and Casas Adobes attempted to incorporate as towns, despite the existence of Arizona law that prevented such incorporation because of the proximity to the City of Tucson, which had to give its approval. The courts later voided the incorporation attempts.

Tucson Mayor Bob Walkup was elected mayor for the first time in 1999 promising "mountain to mountain annexation" for the City of Tucson. Like so much of what Bob promised, it never happened.

Sen. Frank Antenori -- who wants you to know he is from Vail, do not associate him with those dirty hippies from Tucson -- wants to incorporate the town of Vail on the eastern edge of Tucson.

On Friday, Governor Jan Brewer signed Antenori's bill which is specifically targeted at Pima County.

SB 1333 modifies the statutes governing municipal incorporation and establishes time frames within which a prescribed distance of an incorporated city or town is declared an urbanized area.

Here is the House Summary transmitted to the governor. It stipulates that, "if a municipality causing an urbanized area to exist is in a county in which more than 60% but less than 65% of the population lives in an incorporated city or town and does not approve a petition requesting annexation of the area proposed for incorporation within 120 days of its presentation, the following applies within the provided time frames" of one to six years for a city or town having 5,000 or more persons in an urbanized area.

It also stipulates that, "through December 31, 2020, if the area proposed for incorporation has a population of 15,000 or more persons, is in a county in which more than 60% but less than 65% of the population lives in an incorporated city or town and has a governing board – including a planned community board of directors or a special district board – the Board shall proceed with the incorporation or annexation without a resolution by the city or town or a filed affidavit."

The City of Tucson will be reviewing this closely for a possible legal challenge, as it has done in the past. This bill is specifically targeted at Pima County, which makes it suspect.

It is an open question whether unincorporated urban areas of Pima County will seek to incorporate as towns. County residents' resistance to annexation into the City of Tucson is the same resistance to forming a town government of their own -- they do not want another layer of government nor do they want to pay taxes to support it.

They are happy with the status quo which costs Pima County millions of dollars in state revenue sharing every year (it is only shared with incorporated municipalities). Of course, an alternative would be to amend the state revenue sharing formula. Doh!

Intended to be a factual statement?

by David Safier

A reader sent me this tweet from Kirk Adams:



Kirk, a humble and honorable man can still wiggle out of a tweet by declaring it is not intended to be a factual statement. But I'm 90% certain you meant it.

Brewer surprised me by vetoing tuition tax credit increase again

by David Safier

I'm still trying to catch up, so while this is a few days old, I want to make a comment because it's good news, and not at all what I expected.

Brewer vetoed the second attempt at hiking the private school tuition tax credits from $500 per person to $750. I predicted earlier that the fix was in and she planned to sign the revised version and say the lawmakers made it fiscally responsible. I was wrong. Not only did Brewer issue a veto. She had to toss out a 140 page bill making technical changes to get rid of it. She scolded the legislature for including the tax credit hike into what was supposed to be a clean bill. For that, and for a few other vetoes, I give Brewer a limited "Good for you." However, given all the other crapola she signed, I'll amend that to read, "It's good to know you're not totally insane like most of the Republican legislators (or maybe it's a good thing your advisors who are also business lobbyists recommended you make some Chamber of Commerce-approved vetoes)."

The true joker (as in "What a joke this guy is!") in this incident is Steve Yarbrough, who was behind the tax credit hike. Remember, every tax credit dollar that makes its way through Yarbrough's STO -- the state's biggest -- gets 10% taken off the top for operating expenses. A good chunk of that goes into Yarbrough's pocket. Last time I checked, his STO brought in about $13 million,which means $1.3 million stays in the organization instead of going to scholarships. So if Yarbrough manages to push through a bill that raises donations, it also boosts his profits.

Apparently, his bill had a big loophole in it. Yarbrough said he and the other STOs wouldn't use the loophole, and he'd close it next session. I guess he thinks we should trust him, even though he can't write decent legislation after all these years and he's gotten rich with the backdoor voucher tuition tax credit scam. What a joker!

A number of election law changes signed into law

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

This has been a very active year for election law changes in the Arizona legislature. I would recommend that state and county political parties request that the Arizona Secretary of State provide a refresher course to update everyone on these election law changes. Public education is part of the duties of that office.

Here are some of the election law changes to date.

Pima County Election Integrity advocates will be happy to learn that a scanned-ballot election-auditing pilot program has been approved in this bill:

HB 2304, the "omnibus state elections" bill, makes numerous changes to election procedures, including allowing a permanent early voter to list a mailing address outside of the county of their residence; permits a candidate who has established an exploratory committee to collect contributions [the courts effectively eviscerated Arizona's "Resign to Run" law in 2010 in John Huppenthal's case; this makes it official]; allows corporations and unions to donate to an independent expenditure committee [the Citizens United v. FEC fallout]; defines electioneering as express support or opposition of a candidate, proposition or political party on the ballot; and allows the Secretary of State to establish a scanned-ballot election-auditing pilot program.

HB 2303 which permits a county to use voting centers instead of or in addition to designated polling places. Voting centers must allow any voter in that county to lawfully cast a ballot there. This is in recognition of the fact that vote-by-mail in Arizona has rendered precinct polling locations a costly burden for the few number of votes cast at precincts. It has also become more difficult for counties to obtain ADA-compliant polling locations available to contract as a precinct polling location.

HB 2701, a strike everything amendment which makes numerous changes to election law, including requiring the Secretary of State (SOS) to create a single voter-registration form for all counties to use and to develop a standardized training program for election workers across the state.

SB 1472 which requires the Secretary of State (SOS) to post information online regarding Arizona Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges prior to their elections for retention.

Howard Fischer reported that Governor Brewer signed a bill giving candidates the right to place campaign signs in the public right-of-way regardless of local ordinances. Brewer vetoes health insurance proposal, other measures (how about including the bill number, Howard). This bill originally was SB1307 but appears to have been folded into another bill or as a strike everything amendment (this is not the signed bill). I believe the language probably remains the same.

The editors of the Arizona Daily Star are clutching their pearls in horror. What is up with the Star's obsession over campaign signs? There goes half of their election coverage complaining about campaign signs.

SB 1473 which requires facilities that offer early voting to allow people to electioneer outside the 75-foot limit in public areas and parking lots used by voters, except in the case of an emergency.

HB 2335 which adds the name of vice presidential candidates below that of presidential candidates on the ballot. I undestand that this will be amended by the legislature because it creates confusion: you actually vote for a slate of presidential electors, you do not directly vote for the president and no vote is directly cast for vice president. Doh! Arizona Capitol Times » Brewer signs bill adding VP candidates to ballots (subscription required).

SB 1318 which modifies the method of filling vacant seats on city and town councils, based on when the vacancy occurs.

SB 1365 which prohibits any public or private employer from making a payroll deduction for political purposes without first obtaining specific authorization from the affected employee. Arizona Capitol Times » Brewer signs bill targeting union paycheck deductions (subscription required).

h/t The Arizona Republic

More interesting vetoes by Governor Brewer

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Who would have thunk it that Governor Jan Brewer would stand up to "the crazy" from the Tea-Publican Arizona legislature? At least on the big-ticket items; she is still signing some of their pet bills.

On Friday, Governor Brewer vetoed a few more bad bills:

SB 1201, the "omnibus firearms" bill, which would have required state and local governments to either allow guns in public facilities or secure those buildings with metal detectors and armed guards. The bill wopuld have applied to government-owned pools, libraries, community centers and offices. Brewer previously vetoed the "guns on campus" bill, SB 1467. Gun advocates are in shock - shock I tell ya! - that the governor was not swayed by their armed intimidation.

Their self-proclaimed leader, Charles Heller from the Arizona Citizens Defense League, sounds like a petulant child with the "terrible threes" throwing a temper tantrum because he didn't get his way. Gun-rights bill vetoed by Brewer:

"I don't know what's gotten into her," Charles Heller, the league's spokesman, said of Brewer. "Nothing in our wildest nightmares told us we'd miss Governor (Janet) Napolitano."

* * *

Heller, whose group pushed the gun bills, vowed the league will be back with a stronger effort next year.

"You ain't seen nothing yet," he said.

"If (Brewer) didn't like this one, wait till you see what we come out with next year."

Riiight. And Brewer will just veto it again, crybaby.

Sen. Frank Antenori will make another check mark on his "Sh*t List" of people to get even with for Governor Brewer's veto of his pet bill:

HB 2650 which would have ended the civil service merit selection system for county employees everywhere except, of course, the state of Maricopa. The bill would have required all counties except Maricopa to make all new hires, employees who change jobs within the county or employees who get raises to be converted to an at-will employee; allows a county board of supervisors anywhere but Maricopa County to make certain administrative positions at-will.

Frank Antenori is grousing in his troll cave today plotting his revenge against all those who do not let him have his way. He may be joined today by Rep. John Kavanagh over this veto:

HB 2230 which would have removed 11 phrases from the state's 9/11 Memorial that Rep. Kavanagh personally finds objectionable. Everyone's an art critic.

The Arizona Board of Regents has survived a power-grab challenge to its constitutional authority:

HB 2067 which would have prohibited the Arizona Board of Regents from having any authority of a non-profit that oversees any hospital affiliated with the University of Arizona for 18 months starting April 18, 2011.

Two miscellaneous vetoes:

SB 1329 which would have prohibited a public employee from engaging in any political activity or lobbying a governmental entity during the employee's work hours. The concern here was that this would have precluded public employees from attending legislative hearings during regular business hours (even though this Tea-Publican legislature has established a precedent for holding meetings in the wee hours of the morning with no public testimony or even the press present).

SB 1379 a strike everything amendment which would have prohibited a local government from banning the sale or use of permissible consumer fireworks from June 15 through July 5, Dec. 12-31 or Jan. 1-2. Gotta have those July 4th fireworks!

SB 1041 the so-called “invest Arizona” bill which would have provided qualifying properties with an assessment ratio providing a significantly smaller property tax bill. The bill would have assessed as class 6 property the personal property and real property improvements that are newly constructed or renovated and owned or used by a qualifying business that meets capital investment and minimum hiring requirements.

h/t The Arizona Republic

Get your Baja Arizona petitions now!

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Start Our State is also sponsoring Celebrate Free Baja Arizona Day! on Cinco de Mayo (that's May 5th for Tom Horne) at the Shanty, 401 E. 9th Street (at 4th Avenue), from 5:00 to 7:00 p.m. Food will be provided, but you'll have to pay for your own drinks. The date was chosen by the Pima County Board of Supervisors in 1987. Free Baja Arizona Day is officially recognized by our County on May 5. We thought it appropriate to celebrate/observe the date this year, considering our movement and its history.

Arizona Daily Star article from 1987:

h/t http://www.facebook.com/startourstate

Help Living Liberally of Tucson!

NOTE: new posts will continue to appear below this post.

To those of you who have attended a Drinking Liberally (a liberal forum for drinks and discussion), Reading Liberally (a liberal book club), Screening Liberally (a liberal cinema night), or Investing Liberally (a sustainable, values-driven investment club) event here in Tucson, or who have always intended to, but haven't gotten around to it, or who just like the idea of liberals getting together, we need your help.

Which means, of course, we need your donations.

Drinking Liberally bought an inexpensive PA system more than 3 years ago, and it is definitely showing its age. The mic no longer works except sporadically, the handles have busted off and the battery life is getting shorter all the time.

We need a new PA system and we found one that has everything we need, recording, in-line inputs, integral media player, dual wireless mics - we can have guest speakers, debates, forums, and could even do liberal karaoke nights with it! We need to raise $380.00 to purchase the new system.

In addition, we have web-hosting and domain costs for our website, www.livingliberallytucson.org, that we must pay for. This year's hosting and two years of domain registration are due, and the cost is almost $100.00. Maintaining an on-line presence isn't free.

Please consider even a small donation to help us meet our costs and purchase a new PA system for Drinking Liberally. Thanks for your patronage!

NOTE: new posts will continue to appear below this post.

'Democracy is in the way' of Tea-Publican Tyranny in Michigan

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

"Autocracy, not democracy!" is the authoritarian Tea-Publican way. "Democracy is in the way of progress." Americans fought a revolution against such tyranny. This country has gone insane.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

'It's called "The People's Budget"'

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Linda Valdez of the Arizona Republic has a short and succinct commentary today for the Clueless political reporters at the Arizona Daily Star. The federal antidote to budget butchery:

Arizona will suffer because GOP politicians clutched their no-taxes ideology like a security blanket despite the need for revenue. Their budget slashes services for kids and education, starves state parks and violates the voters' mandate to provide medical care to the poor. There is an alternative to such cruelty on the federal level. It's called "The People's Budget." Rep. Raúl Grijalva is a champion.

Tea Party license plate, official state gun approved

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

As I have warned before, "Let's not get carried away here, people." While Governor Brewer has vetoed some very bad Tea-Publican bills, she will throw them a bone for their pet bills that she does not believe will seriously affect this state, other than make us the butt of jokes for late-night comedy shows.

Governor Brewer signed SB 1402 which created 11 new specialty license plates, including the "Don't Tread On Me" Gadsden flag plate to benefit Tea Party organizations. My version (right) is more accurate.

This bill has some legal issues surrounding it, as it is the only license plate that benefits a political organization and it is run by a nonprofit committee appointed by elected officials who stand to directly benefit from those activities. About that 'Tea Party' license plate. I expect a legal challenge.

Brewer acted on the license plate bills late Thursday, approving them despite previously expressing concern about Arizona's absurd number of specialty license plates now numbering 46. Brewer OKs bill for Arizona tea party license plate:

The Legislature completed action April 26 on the bill authorizing the tea party plate. In the run-up to approval, opponents said the tag inappropriately promotes a specific political movement. Supporters said it's meant to stand up for constitutional principles. [Oh, please...]

Brewer felt comfortable signing the bill authorizing the tea party plate because the movement "is not a purely political organization," spokesman Matt Benson said Friday.

True. It is a corporate-funded front group for the Koch brothers' Americans For Prosperity and FreedomWorks, headed by front-man Dick Armey. It is corporate Astroturf that feigns to be a grassroots political movement. Take away the corporate funding and it disappears.

Democratic Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (Phoenix) said it's wrong to use state resources to support a political organization, whether the tea party or the Democratic Party. "Why not get a bumper stick like everybody else?" [Damn straight!]

Backers now must raise $32,000 to design and produce the plate.

The Koch brothers carry around that much money in pocket change. The check has already been cut.

Brewer signed another totally unnecessary bill, SB 1610, designating the Colt Single-Action Army Revolver as Arizona's "official" state gun. We'll all be able to sleep better tonight knowing that we have an "official" state gun. Arizona Capitol Times » Brewer signs bill making Colt state gun:

Legislative supporters argued that the designation was appropriate because the revolver was widely used during Arizona territorial days.

Opponents said it was inappropriate to give the official designation to an out-of-state company’s commercial product.

Democratic Rep. Albert Hale also called the gun an instrument of destruction that was used against Native Americans.

I hope Native Americans will turn out in big numbers next November to express their displeasure with this Tea-Publican insult to Native Americans.

Connecticut-based Colt does not operate in Arizona and did not pay anything for the naming rights of "Arizona's official gun." The Tea-Publican legislature just gave away the "honor" without obtaining any financial benefit to the state. And they call themselves businessmen.

h/t Arizona Capitol Times

Some interesting vetoes by Governor Brewer

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I told you about Governor Jan Brewer's first seven vetoes in Let's not get carried away here, people. This week she has added several more notches to her veto pen. And some of these vetoes are due to your pressure on the governor's office. Be sure to send a "thank you" to the governor.

HB 2707 is "son of TABOR." This bill would have imposed a ceiling on state spending that was determined by the level of spending in the previous year, adjusted for inflation and population growth. Arizona is at rock-botton right now, and this bill would have locked us into that condition indefinitely into the future. This was the big one, people. Be sure to thank the governor for her veto of this bill.

SB 1593 would have allowed out-of-state companies to write health-insurance policies in Arizona and waived Arizona's 32 insurance mandates, which require insurers to cover a host of treatments and services. This was a "race to the bottom" in health-insurance coverage. The Arizona Department of Insurance has no regulatory jurisdiction over out-of-state health-insurance policies. If you have a claim to make against your insurer, you would have had to pursue it in the state in which the insurance policy originated or in federal court. This is another big one, people. Be sure to thank the governor for her veto of this bill.

SB 1322 was the unduly burdensome bill from Sen. Frank Antenori and Phoenix City Councilman Sal DiCiccio which would have required only the cities of Phoenix and Tucson to competitively bid city services that cost more than $500,000. The purpose was to "privatize" city services on the ideological belief that private business always does the job better and cheaper than government. Riiight. Brewer in her veto letter said the bill was "riddled with shortcomings" and was an attempt to micromanage decisions best made at the local level. Antenori is already threatening to bring this bill back again and subject all municipalities in Arizona to his ideological foolishness.

SB 1088 was a strike everything amendment which would have directed the governor to enter into an "Interstate Health Care Freedom Compact" with other states. This bill was the brainchild of health-insurance companies' front-man, Dr. Eric Novack, who gave us Prop. 106, the so-called Health Care Freedom Act in 2010.

This was the second Neoconfederate secessionist "interstate compact" bill vetoed by Governor Brewer. She previously vetoed SB 1592 which would have directed the governor to enter into a Health Care Compact (Compact) on behalf of Arizona with any state lawfully joined in the Compact. A confederacy of states aligned in opposition to "Obamacare" violates Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution. Only Congress can authorize "compacts" among states, and this is normally done for the limited purpose of resource management (like watersheds).

SB 1186 was a "tax corrections" bill that included provisions for the jobs program Governor Brewer signed into law earlier this year, to which the anti-public education supporters of private school tuition tax credits (STOs) attached an amendment once again trying to increase private school tuition tax credits.

 Governor Brewer previously vetoed HB 2581 which would have removed the cap on corporate contributions to STOs while increasing the cap on individual contributions. Thanks to the shenanigans of these anti-public education Tea-Publicans, Governor Brewer has said she may have to call a special session to pass a "clean" tax corrections bill.

HB 2700 which would have given state employees a paid holiday on Feb. 14, 2012, and every 100 years thereafter in honor of the day Arizona became a state. It is a once-in-a-lifetime day off... this was just mean-spirited.

HB 2577 and SB 1561 which would have given the Legislature the authority to appropriate noncustodial federal monies (block grants and other federal monies that provide the state with discretion regarding the development, implementation or operation of a program or service) instead of the governor. This is a separation of powers turf war over federal funds. These bills get vetoed every couple of years.

h/t The Arizona Republic

Overdue Ethnic Studies updates and comments

by David Safier

I've been out of town, so I haven't had a chance to digest the lastest Ethnic Studies/MAS news, let alone comment on it, until now.

Because of the bold move by a group of students to chain themselves to the Board members' chairs, the whole world, as the saying goes, is watching. In an uneven power struggle where those in power have the authority to make decisions affecting those without an official voice, the "voiceless" need to shout loudly and effectively to be heard. That's what this group of young people did. Their "shout" was heard as far away as the UK, where the UK Guardian wrote a strongly favorable article about the protest.

The Board cancelled the meeting. It had no other choice unless it wanted to arrest the students, which would probably have led to enough uproar, the meeting would have been cancelled anyway. The meeting is rescheduled for May 5 (Cinco de Mayo? That might be a bad choice) in a larger meeting room. If the meeting is disrupted again, the same choice may repeat itself -- arrest or cancel.

Allow this old English major/English teacher to talk about the symbolism of putting yourselves in a situation where the power structure either has to beat heads, arrest bodies or capitulate. Labor strikers and other protesters do it by picketing in front of a place of business. Gandhi did it by having people lay down on railroad tracks. Vietnam War protesters and anti-nuclear activists did it by chaining themselves to gates leading into war- or nuclear-related facilities. It is a time honored tradition to create a body-to-body confrontation in place of invisible backroom decisions (or public votes where the public can only watch and wait) which have negative effects on people's lives.

Opening yourselves to the possibility of being arrested? Martin Luther King made an art of forcing the law to overreact to his strikes and marches and sit ins, turning oppression that would otherwise have been hidden into a form of theater where the segregationists are forced to become villainous actors in a very public drama.

And chains. Not only does locking yourself to the Board's seats of power -- literally -- say, "We Shall Not Be Moved." The chains create a visual image of a minority group whose treatment by the majority imprisons them, keeping them locked away, in this case, from achieving their dreams of educational and economic success.

I'm not sure what will happen next. But it's very possible those fighting the resolution to make MAS history courses electives will win again in one way or another. It's also possible that if the Board and/or the Superintendent "win" in the short term, it will actually be a loss for them in the longer run.

I think today's Star editorial gets it exactly wrong. It says the protesters are playing into the hands of those who want to end Ethnic Studies (The Star backs Stegeman's resolution, which surely influenced the editorial's opinion). Sure, Horne, Huppenthal, et al, will try to use this. Horne already has. But my feeling is, telling the protesters to act like good little boys and girls in the face of a situation which will make their lives worse is wrong-headed. It's like telling the Civil Rights era "negroes" they were hurting their cause by acting like "uppity n-----s." "Just keep quiet and stay in your place, or you'll just make things worse for yourself." It's like telling the recent Wisconsin protesters to go home and the Democratic legislators to return to the state house rather than doing themselves even more damage. "The Republicans are going to pass that law eventually. Why make things worse for yourself?" I'll try to restrain myself from making comparisons to the uprisings in the Middle East. The comparison would be apt if the scale weren't so wildly different.

What should Pedicone and the Board do now? They should declare they're delaying the discussion and vote on the Resolution until some time in the future. First, I think it's the right thing to do. Second, even though it will feel like a defeat, it will be a mature action that will forestall the likelihood of a serious confrontation, including posible arrests and maybe injury of students TUSD is tasked to help, which would be a far greater defeat. The May 5 meeting will not resolve this issue. The situation will be worse for everyone if the resolution is brought to the floor than if the discussion is tabled for further thought and review.

A final thought. Where the hell is Board member Miguel Cuevas? He's the tie-breaking vote on the Resolution. He has more than enough information to decide how he plans to vote. If he plans to vote against the Resolution, the whole thing would be over since it would be defeated. If he plans to vote for it, he should have the courage to say so. Either way, he needs to make a clear statement and be ready to defend it in public.

Frank Antenori still has an anger management problem

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

We documented the many ways Frank Antenori has demonstrated he has an anger management problem quite awhile ago in Frank Antenori has an anger management problem:

Frank(enstein) Antenori is an angry man. Lately he has been terrorizing the villagers. (He bears a remarkable resemblance to Peter Boyle in Young Frankenstein.)

Today I read in the Arizona Daily Star this comment from Antenori in response to Gov. Jan Brewer's veto of SB 1332, which would have required the cities of Phoenix and and Tucson (the village Frank despises and loves to terrorize) to competitively bid city services that cost more than $500,000. Brewer nixes requiring bids for certain services in cities:

"Just because you're in a city doesn't mean you're in a little freakin' island, that somehow you don't have to abide by state law," he said.

Tucson loves you too, Frank (not).

Gov. Brewer may want to watch her back. Tedski at R-Cubed reports that Frank’s Got Himself a Sh*t List and she just put her name on it:

(From the Yellow Sheet Report):

If he decides not to run for Congress, Antenori said he’s got some scores to settle at the Capitol. Chief among them are gripes with some unidentified House Republicans who he said killed his bills as the session wound down. The only one he identified – [Kirk] Adams – almost certainly won’t be there next year. Antenori said he was upset the speaker wouldn’t bring S1585 to the floor…But other House Republicans committed worse transgressions, Antenori said. He wouldn’t name names – “They know who they are” – and didn’t explicitly say he wanted to exact revenge, but said he’d enjoy coming back and returning the favor. “I got a little ticked off. I had some bills killed by some folks in the House in a very sneaky, vindictive way after I bent over backwards to accommodate them with amendments. Then they stood up on the floor and killed my bills on final read. I was half tempted to say, ‘Screw running for Congress. I’m coming back to make sure none of your stuff sees the light of day next year,’” he said.

Well I've got a better idea Frank. It's past time that the voters of District 30 recall your egotistical angry and vindictive ass. You are an embarrassment. It's time for you to go. Just file the Recall Frank Antenori Committee already. What are we waiting for?

Tobin in as AZ House speaker, Adams out and running for Congress

By Craig McDermott, cross-posted from Random Musings

In a bit of a surprise (to me, anyway), Rep. Andy Tobin (R-LD1) was elected Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives.

From the Arizona Republic story written by Mary Jo Pitzl -

The Arizona House of Representativesgot a new leadership lineup Thursday when members elected Rep. Andy Tobin, R-Paulden, as speaker and Republicans chose Rep. Steve Court, R-Mesa as their majority leader.

Tobin replaces Kirk Adams, who resigned from the House and promptly announced his bid for an open congressional seat in the southeast Valley. Adams revealed U.S. Sen. Jon Kyl as his honorary campaign chairman.

The reason that I was a a little surprised by Tobin's elevation to the speaker's post isn't that I think he is less qualified than the other Republicans (hey - I'm a Democrat, so I think *all* of the Rs are unqualified for the job :) ), but he's a rural Republican, and generally, the center of Republican power in AZ is Maricopa County.  The House hasn't had a Speaker from a rural district since the late Jake Flake in 2003/2004. 

However, the election of Rep. Steve Court as Majority Leader does maintain the rural/urban balance.

The election of Tobin does signal one thing:

Arizona will continue to be the country's embarrassment.


From the press release emailed by the Republican House caucus -

Last – but certainly not least – Speaker Tobin is a devoted Yankee’s [sic] fan...

So, in addition to the anti-immigrant hysteria, the pro-gun fetishism, the "birther" insanity, and more abominations, Arizona has now solidified its position as the America's shame -

We have a Yankees fan in high public office.

...So sayeth the lifelong Red Sox fan... :))

Two "must read" articles

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Two "must read" articles for you to read when you can make the time:

Rick Perlstein writes at Mother Jones, Inside the GOP's Fact-Free Nation | Mother Jones:

It takes two things to make a political lie work: a powerful person or institution willing to utter it, and another set of powerful institutions to amplify it. (emphasis added) The former has always been with us: Kings, corporate executives, politicians, and ideologues from both sides of the aisle have been entirely willing to bend the truth when they felt it necessary or convenient. So why does it seem as if we're living in a time of overwhelmingly brazen deception? What's changed?

Today's marquee fibs almost always evolve the same way: A tree falls in the forest—say, the claim that Saddam Hussein has "weapons of mass destruction," or that Barack Obama has an infernal scheme to parade our nation's senior citizens before death panels. But then a network of media enablers helps it to make a sound—until enough people believe the untruth to make the lie an operative part of our political discourse. (emphasis added)

For the past 15 years, I've spent much of my time deeply researching three historic periods—the birth of the modern conservative movement around the Barry Goldwater campaign, the Nixon era, and the Reagan years—that together have shaped the modern political lie. Here's how we got to where we are.

 * * *

There evolved a new media definition of civility that privileged "balance" over truth-telling—even when one side was lying.

* * *

The protective bubble of the "civility" mandate also seems to extend to the propagandists whose absurdly doctored stories and videos continue to fool the mainstream media.

* * *

What's new is the way the liars and their enablers now work hand in glove. That I call a mendocracy, and it is the regime that governs us now.

Andy Kroll has an investigative report at Mother Jones, The Right-Wing Network Behind the War on Unions | Mother Jones:

[R]epublican lawmakers are waging war on organized labor. They're pushing bills to curb, if not eliminate, collective bargaining for public workers; make it harder for unions to collect member dues; and, in some states, allow workers to opt out of joining unions entirely but still enjoy union-won benefits. All told, it's one of the largest assaults on American unions in recent history.

Behind the onslaught is a well-funded network of conservative think tanks that you've probably never heard of. Conceived by the same conservative ideologues who helped found the Heritage Foundation, the State Policy Network (SPN) is a little-known umbrella group with deep ties to the national conservative movement. Its mission is simple: to back a constellation of state-level think tanks loosely modeled after Heritage that promote free-market principles and rail against unions, regulation, and tax increases. By blasting out policy recommendations and shaping lawmakers' positions through briefings and private meetings, these think tanks cultivate cozy relationships with GOP politicians. And there's a long tradition of revolving door relationships between SPN staffers and state governments. While they bill themselves as independent think tanks, SPN's members frequently gather to swap ideas. "We're all comrades in arms," the network's board chairman told the National Review in 2007.

* * *

Founded in 1992 by businessman and Reagan administration insider Thomas Roe—who also served on the Heritage Foundation's board of trustees for two decades—the group has grown to include 59 "freedom centers," or affiliated think tanks, in all 50 states. SPN's board includes officials from Heritage and right-wing charities such as the Adolph Coors and Jacqueline Hume foundations. Likewise, its deep-pocketed donors include all the usual heavy-hitting conservative benefactors: the Ruth and Lovett Peters Foundation, which funds the Cato Institute and Heritage; the Castle Rock Foundation, a charity started with money from the conservative Coors Foundation; and the Bradley Foundation, a $540 million charity devoted to funding conservative causes. SPN uses their contributions to dole out annual grants to member groups, ranging from a few thousand dollars to $260,000, according to 2009 records.

According to SPN's website, Roe launched the conservative network "at the urging" of President Reagan himself as a way to shape state-level policy just as Heritage has influenced federal policy. Surveying the political landscape today, Roe's and Reagan's idea couldn't have been more prescient. More than a dozen states are currently considering legislation weakening the clout of organized labor. In many of those states, SPN think tanks have been pushing for similar prescriptions for years via "research" papers, policy recommendations, and talking points that are widely distributed to lawmakers.

* * *

[T]hose on the other side of the fight see the think tanks as part of a broader effort. "This is not a grassroots movement to eliminate collective bargaining," says Al Mance, executive director of the Tennessee Education Association, the state's largest teachers union. "This is a national movement, and it's funded by all the conservative moneyed interests."

Billionaire funded think tanks, the "mendocracy" of the corporate media, and revolving door employment between them: an excess of money has entirely corrupted our politics.

10 More GOP Myths For The Media To Debunk

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Jon Perr at perrspectives.com has this excellent post taking the media villagers in the "lamestream media" for being complicit in advancing the "big lies" of the right-wing noise machine. After Birthers: 10 More GOP Myths Debunked:

Two statements this month sum up everything you need know about the sad state of American politics and media. Just days after Arizona Republican Senator Jon Kyl declared his 30 fold error about Planned Parenthood was "not intended to be a factual statement," President Obama decried the "silliness" over his place of birth.

But lost in the laughter over Kyl's unintended moment of candor and the sad spectacle of the President of the United States being forced to reconfirm his U.S. citizenship is this: almost every conservative talking point is not intended to be a factual statement. From President Obama's birthplace and "tax cuts that pay for themselves" to death panels, a government takeover of health care and so much other mythmaking, virtually every article of conservative faith is a fraud. Yet the Republican Party is neither scorned not laughed off the national stage but instead, aided by a complicit media desperate for entertainment value and ratings, is rewarded with power.

While some Americans will nevertheless continue to persist in their Birther fantasies, it is not too late for the media to perform its penance by debunking (or more accurately, redebunking) these 10 GOP myths:

1. "Tax Cuts Pay for Themselves."
2. "The Estate Tax Destroys Family Farms and Small Businesses."
3. "Death Panels."
4. "A Government Takeover of Health Care."
5. "No American is Denied Health Care."
6. "The Health Care Law Adds to the Deficit."
7. "Barack Obama is a Muslim."
8. "Public Employees Are Overpaid."
9. "We Went to War [with Iraq] Because We Were Attacked."
10. "Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy."

(Click on each topic to continue reading)

Atlas Wanked

Posted by AzblueMeanie:

I wasn't going to give this any publicity, but now I have to.

The "first installment" of what promised to be a trilogy based on Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" is sinking like a stone at the box office. Do tell! Daily Kos: Atlas Whined: 'Shrugged' producer may drop sequels to film nobody watched:

[T]he guy who paid the bills may be about to do his own little version of going Galt as a result:

Twelve days after opening "Atlas Shrugged: Part 1," the producer of the Ayn Rand adaptation said Tuesday that he is reconsidering his plans to make Parts 2 and 3 because of scathing reviews and flagging box office returns for the film.

"Critics, you won," said John Aglialoro, the businessman who spent 18 years and more than $20 million of his own money to make, distribute and market "Atlas Shrugged: Part 1," which covers the first third of Rand's dystopian novel. "I'm having deep second thoughts on why I should do Part 2."

* * *

The film's anemic performance is despite the fact that right-wing political elements played a role in marketing the film, and the film was even adorably opened to the public on April 15th, presumably to take advantage of American anti-tax fervor.

Critics, virtually all of whom also wrote of the film's shortcomings in its first weekend, were more than a little unkind, to be sure. But for the film to tank that badly from week one to week two, something other than a critical conspiracy theory had to be at work, as well.

Aside from Aglialoro's entertaining conspiracy theory, two other reasons for the failure of "Atlas Shrugged" appear considerably more likely. Either (a) the community of people intrigued by libertarian fantasy is quite a bit smaller than Aglialoro anticipated or (b) the word-of-mouth was nonexistent because the film sucked every bit as much as the critics said it did.

Yeah, and the book sucked too! Ahahahaha!

h/t crooksandliars.com and Scarce

President Obama's smack-down of the villager idiots in the 'lamestream media'

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Lovin' it! (Take that Chuck Todd).

An embarrassment to the country

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Adam Serwer at The Plum Line expresses how I feel about the "Birther" conspiracy nonsense pretty well. Let's just call it for what it is -- racism. This is about people who believe in white privilege and that no black man will ever be good enough to enjoy equal status on merit and ability to any white man. Donald Trump and Pat Buchanan can go f#&k themselves. And NBC should fire them.

Here is Serwer's post. An embarrassment to the country - The Plum Line - The Washington Post:

Wednesday morning [became] one of the most surreal and ridiculous moments in the history of American politics when the White House decided to release copies of President Barack Obama’s “long form birth certificate,” in an attempt to quiet conspiracy theorists who believe the president was born elsewhere. The president had already released a version certified by the state of Hawaii, but because of the “volume of requests” for the birth certificate, the president asked the state to make an exception and release the original document.

It’s tempting to make this simply about reality television personality Donald Trump, who rocketed to the top of the Republican presidential field by promoting the slander that the president wasn’t born in the United States. But there are a number of other factors that created the current situation. Chief among them is that Trump’s lunacy emboldened conservative media sources to fully embrace birtherism. According to Media Matters, Fox News has spent over two hours promoting false claims about Obama’s birthplace across 54 segments, and only in ten did Fox News hosts challenge those claims. This isn’t just about Trump. All he did was encourage the communications wing of the conservative movement to go into overdrive in an attempt to make birtherism mainstream.

Aside from being one of the most idiotic moments in American political history, this marks a level of personal humiliation no previous president has ever been asked to endure. Other presidents have been the target of crazy conspiracy theories, sure, but few have been as self-evidently absurd as birtherism. None has been so clearly rooted in anxieties about the president’s racial identity, because no previous American president has been black.

This whole situation is an embarrassment to the country. Yesterday Jesse Jackson described birtherism as racial “code,” but there’s nothing “coded” about it. It’s just racism. I don’t mean that everyone who has doubts about the president’s birthplace is racist. Rather, the vast majority have been deliberately misled by an unscrupulous conservative media and by conservative elites who have failed or refused to challenge these doubts.

And birtherism is only one of a number of racially charged conspiracy theories that have bubbled out of the right-wing swamp and have been allowed to fester by conservative elites. Those who have spent the last two years clinging to the notion that the president wasn’t born in the United States, who have alleged that the president wasn’t intelligent enough to write his own autobiography or somehow coasted to magna cum laude at Harvard law, are carrying on new varieties of an old, dying tradition of American racism. Similar accusations dogged early black writers like Frederick Douglass and Phyllis Wheatley, whose brilliance provoked an existential crisis among people incapable of abandoning myths of black intellectual inferiority.

Whether this farce ends or continues is entirely dependent on those who nurtured the rumors in the first place. This is an opportunity for conservative elites, who have finally come around to the possibility that the outsize hatred of the president they’ve cultivated as an asset for the past two years might actually hurt them politically, to purge birtherism from mainstream conservative discourse.

Sadly, those who fostered doubts about the president’s citizenship are unlikely to relent in the face of factual proof, because birtherism was never about the facts. For its most ardent proponents, it was and is about their inability to accept the legitimacy of a black man in the White House. Nothing about the decision to release the president’s birth certificate can change that.

Help put the Recall Russell Pearce campaign over the top

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The campaign to recall "King" Russell Pearce is very close to filing. Help put them over the top with a cushion of verified eligible voter signatures on recall petitions by getting out there this weekend to collect the final signatures. Let's make history.

It has been a few weeks now since "King" Russell Pearce said he had receipts for his Fiesta Bowl junkets; we're still waiting to see those receipts. Where are the receipts? (Hint: There are none. He lied.)

 

Citizens for a Better Arizona have a web site Recall Russell Pearce (http://recallpearce.com/). The web site has a download page for petitions. Petitions Recall Russell Pearce | Recall Russell Pearce.

Citizens For A Better Arizona, P.O. Box 41232, Mesa, AZ, 85274-1232
Phone: (480) 748-8991, Email: info@recallpearce.com.

Citizens for a Better Arizona needs to collect 7,756 signatures in District 18, Mesa Arizona.

Now get out there and get those final signatures!

Call the Governor, tell her to veto HB 2650

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Sometimes the Arizona Daily Star shows flashes of its former greatness with an editorial reminiscent of what it used to publish in its glory days. Today is one of of those flashes of greatness. Kudos. Merit system of employment needs to remain:

A bill that essentially scraps the merit system of employment in all county governments (except Maricopa County) makes exactly zero sense to us. It would reopen the door to old-style patronage political governance.

The governor must veto HB 2650.

To begin: Why would the merit system remain in place in one county, but effectively be ended in all the others? It's unclear how that happened, because the bill took its final form in the wee hours of the Legislature's last session before adjournment on April 20. There were no public hearings or debate on the measure as passed.

That's one major problem with the HB 2650. But the other problem also is monumental:

Remember Tammany Hall? The Pendergast machine in Kansas City? The Daley organization in Chicago? All these notorious, often-corrupt political organizations were built atop a foundation of political patronage - insiders taking care of insiders who in turn were beholden to the bosses who protected them.

Remember Waldon V. Burr? He was Pima County sheriff from 1958 to 1971. Toward the end of his tenure, a deputy revealed that he'd paid Burr $600 for his job.

Then following an investigation, in 1971, a grand jury indicted Burr on 22 felony charges, including accusations of taking bribes and selling appointments to Sheriff's Department positions. The charges were dropped when Burr, who died in 1988, resigned.

One of the commanders who had also faced charges in the case, Albert M. Felix, later told the Tucson Citizen that his eight years under Burr were like "a political circus."

"Every two years, you were threatened with the loss of your job unless you supported the sheriff for re-election. It was a monster created by society itself," Felix said.

That's because there was no merit system of employment in place during the Burr years; as a result politics and connections often reigned in making hiring decisions, and in evaluating and promoting employees.

And that's the patronage system that Legislature proposes to reinstate - or at least is inviting its re-emergence with this ill-conceived bill.

* * *

[T]he [merit-]system's protections are designed to ensure that hiring, promotion, demotion and firing decisions are based on performance in public service - to assure that county employees work for the taxpayers, not for bosses to whom they are beholden.

"The whole reason we have merit jobs in the first place is so you don't have people firing competent civil servants and replacing them with political supporters.

* * *

Merit-system protections are unquestionably imperfect. They create bureaucracies; they can stymie creativity.

* * *

We welcome carefully vetted reforms of the merit system. In Pima County, it's been in place since 1974, according to County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry.

But the mirror-image of a merit-based employment system is not the solution to its weaknesses. A wide-open, at-will approach to filling public-service jobs is dangerous - civil-service employment systems were designed to reform abuses. If HB 2650 becomes law, taxpayers would pay the price.

Gov. Jan Brewer has until Monday to act; she must veto HB 2650.

Call Gov. Brewer at 1-(800) 253-0883 (It's toll-free!) or visit her Web page to leave a message to veto HB 2650.

Birthers: Your Cordial Invitation to STFU

Posted By Michael Bryan

Now, if we hearing anything more about this, we will know two things for certain:

1) You have nothing of actual substance to offer the American people.

2) Your obsession denotes your ill-concealed racism, which you have no other means to express in public.

Birther Madness: Recall Them All!

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Sen. Steve Smith (TP-Maricopa) was a guest on Hardball with Chris Matthews this afternoon. Just as I predicted earlier today regarding the release of President Obama's birth certificate, this Tea-Publican was not willing to concede the issue and admit that Barack Obama is just as American as he is. Chris Matthews pounded him for his equivocation in this segment of Hardball (around 4:45 mark).

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

(Repost) Recall them all - Fight the Stupid!

The other day I suggested that a recall should be initiated against anyone who signed on as a cosponsor of the "Birther bill" by Rep. Judy Burges (R-Skull Valley) beginning with the "Birther Queen" herself. (Flashback) New Rule: Mental Competency Exams for Politicians:

The voters of this state should not have to suffer the ignorance of anyone who sponsors this bill. Enough is enough. Just pull the paperwork for a recall of anyone who signs on as a cosponsor of this Birther Queen's bill. Send a statement that "We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore!" It's time that we use the constitutional remedy of recall to fight the stupid.

Despite this, the "Birther Queen" went ahead and filed her "Birther bill" anyway. 41 Republicans cosponsored her "Birther bill," signifying that they are so delusional as to be mentally incompetent to perform the functions and duties of their office.

The Tucson Weekly has the list of 41 cosponsors. Recall them all, beginning with the "Birther Queen" herself, Judy Burges. Enough is enough. Fight the Stupid! The 41 Arizona Legislators Who Still Want to See Obama's Birth Certificate:

(Sponsors of HB 2544, which was substituted as a strike everything amendment into HB 2177, the "Birther bill" vetoed by Governor Jan Brewer.)

House:

Brenda Barton
Judy Burges
Chester Crandell
Jeff Dial
Karen Fann
Eddie Farnsworth
John Fillmore
Doris Goodale
David M. Gowan, Sr.
Rick Gray
Jack W. Harper
Peggy Judd
John Kavanagh
Debbie Lesko
Nancy McLain
Javan "JD" Mesnard
Steve B. Montenegro
Justin Olson
Terri Proud
Carl Seel
David Burnell Smith
David W. Stevens
Steve Urie
Jim Weiers
Kimberly Yee

Senators:

Sylvia Allen
Frank Antenori
Andy Biggs
Scott Bundgaard
Ron Gould
Linda Gray
Gail Griffin
Lori Klein
Al Melvin
Rick Murphy
John Nelson
Russell Pearce
Steve Pierce
Don Shooter
Steve Smith
Steve Yarbrough

'But that is not intended to be a factual statement'...

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

For those of you who are attending The Daily Show filming at Tucson's Shanty on 4th Ave this evening, if you say something that you think will make you or your hometown appear ridiculous enough to wind up on The Daily Show, PLEASE REMEMBER to immediately add "but that is not intended to be a factual statement" with a smile and a wink, or air quotes if you must.

The Daily Show correspondents are quick enough to follow your lead. Let's get some more mileage out of Jon Kyl.

Who needs Medicare? 870,000 Arizona seniors do

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Press release from the Arizona Democratic Party:

Who needs Medicare? 870,000 Arizona seniors do

AZGOP congressmen vote to dismantle system - and anger a powerful voting bloc

PHOENIX – Arizona seniors don't want their Medicare. Either that, or Arizona's GOP congressmen have just voted to make themselves more vulnerable in 2012.

House Rep. Paul Ryan's budget proposal would dismantle Medicare as we know it, replacing it with private-insurance subsidies. Even Republicans like House Speaker John Boehner and former Speaker Newt Gingrich are now distancing them from the proposal -- yet it was embraced by every single GOP congressman from Arizona.

The budget vote has sparked protests and angry responses from seniors across the nation. Here in Arizona, one-third of voters in the 2010 elections were 65 or older. These congressmen have a lot of explaining to do:

• How will Jeff Flake win over senior voters in his U.S. Senate race? Or will he flip-flop on this issue before the primary, as he did on comprehensive immigration reform?
• David Schweikert made a campaign-trail commitment to "protecting seniors." Can he explain to them how dismantling Medicare protects Arizona seniors?
• Paul Gosar told a tea party crowd on Oct. 3 that he was "looking creatively about how seniors can stay active in the workforce" and that he's "working till the day I die." Is dismantling Medicare his creative solution for Arizona seniors?
• Oh, and can Ben Quayle explain how dismantling Medicare for Arizona seniors shows he is "knocking the hell out of Washington"?

"It's only April, but we've already seen enough from this new Republican Congress," said Luis Heredia, Arizona Democratic Party executive director. "These Republicans must be held accountable by the press and public for voting against the quality of life of Arizona seniors. This vote will come back to haunt them."

###

 

GOP Budget Plan: It's Not Selling Very Well

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

New video from the DNC:

From Wisconsin to Florida and everywhere in between Republican House Members are under fire from angry constituents at town hall meetings for voting for a budget that slashes critical initiatives for seniors, the young, the poor and working families while preserving subsidies for major oil companies and tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. Much of the anger being expressed at GOP House Members stems from Republicans’ effort to end Medicare as we know it and require seniors to pay thousands of dollars out of pocket to preserve tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans.

While the President’s plan calls for shared sacrifice, the GOP plan put forward by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan and passed by the Republican dominated House, places the burden for getting our fiscal house in order on middle and working class Americans, seniors and young people while protecting the wealthy and big oil. It’s no wonder the GOP budget plan isn’t selling very well back home.

What is up with the Star's obsession over campaign signs?

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Arizona Daily Star, like regular clockwork, will publish stories complaining about political campaign signs every election. I guess they have a problem with the First Amendment for anyone but corporate media, who knows?

But recently the Star has been obsessed over campaign signs that have not yet been taken down from the previous election. Today's editorial I believe is the third such mention of this in the Star during the last month or so. Candidates must get rid of illegal campaign signs.

I agree that candidates should be responsible and have their campaigns remove their signs shortly after election day.

What's entirely missing from the Star's complaint about campaign signs, however, is the illegally posted campaign signs for the current election. I have seen campaign signs for Republican mayoral candidate Shaun McClusky posted in the right-of-way along Broadway Boulevard in front of the Williams Center. Those signs may still be there. (Send me a photo, I will add it to this post).

Why does McClusky get a pass from the Star? Doesn't he merit the Star's first article of this election cycle complaining about campaign signs?

A textbook example of extreme bias in political reporting

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Oh, I am definitely going to use this report from the Arizona Daily Star the next time I teach a political science class. This is a textbook example of extreme bias in political reporting.

As you know, I have been encouraging the Star to send one of its Clueless political reporters to interview our local Congressman Raúl Grijalva about the People's Budget from the Congressional Progressive Caucus that he co-chairs. The People's Budget has been receiving favorable reviews from serious economists and in the national news media, but barely a mention in the Arizona Daily Star.

Until today. Check out the Star's creative headline writer's handiwork, again: Grijalva gets seniors to talk about Ryan's bill (subheadline: "Budget Blueprint Would Transform Medicare, Medicaid"). "Transform"? This is a GOP talking point -- It would "end" the program.

The reporting is worse than the creative headline. The People's Budget of the Congressional Progressive Caucus is never mentioned in the article. The reporting is all about Rep. Paul Ryan's Roadmap to America's Ruin, a plan dismissed by serious economists as "not serious." Tea-Publican members of Congress, including Rep. Ryan himself, are facing hostile constituents back home for having voted to end Medicare. This plan is not popular, even with Republicans and self-described Tea Party types in polling.

The closest the reporter comes to mentioning the People's Budget, the plan whose name shall not appear in print in the Arizona Daily Star, is this one papragraph:

Grijalva agreed, urging attendees to suggest Congress explore closing oil and gas subsidies, bring the troops home from the Middle East and raise taxes on the very rich. And he said they shouldn't just contact Republicans, either, but the White House, too, to make sure there isn't any caving in negotiations, such as agreeing to try some of the changes for a time-certain. "Once you open the box, it's going to be difficult to put the lid on it," he said.

The reporter tells you absolutely nothing about the People's Budget from the Congressional Progressive Caucus that Grijalva co-chairs, despite having him available for an interview.

This extremely biased reporting ends with a regular feature of the Clueless political reporting in the Arizona Daily Star, which really pisses me off. The Star does not get their "fair and balanced" quotes from Pima County Republican Party Chair Brian Miller, oh no. The "speed dial" quote always comes from the equally clueless Trent Humphries, who leads one faction of the Tea Party here in Pima County (he does not speak for all the Tea Party groups, and they would be the first to tell you that Humphries does not speak for them).

Here is the gratuitous "money quote" from Teabagger Trent Humphries:

Tucson Tea Party co-founder Trent Humphries blasted congressional Democrats for punting on a budget blueprint in 2010. Critics at the time speculated Democrats didn't want to deal with deficit figures in an election year. Democrats said it wasn't realistic to pass a budget without first seeing a deficit commission's plans for reducing the deficit.

"The last person I want to hear about budgeting from is Raúl Grijalva," Humphries said. Cuts are going to be necessary. "If we don't pay attention to what's going on now, there won't be anything left later. We have to understand we're going to have a huge problem."

Humphries is full of it, of course, but the reporter does not fact check him. You're shocked, I'm sure.

The House passed the 2011 budget on time and under projections in the summer of 2010. Rep. Grijalva did his job. It is true that the U.S. Senate delayed consideration of the 2011 budget in September, a foolish political move by Sen. Harry Reid with which I vigorously disagreed, opting to wait for the "bipartisan" recommendations from the president's Catfood Commission that failed to produce any recommendations (the chairmen's mark report is not the recommendations that the Catfood Commission was statutorily tasked to produce, we have been over this previously).

The 2011 budget was then held hostage in the U.S. Senate for extension of the Bush tax cuts for the 'two percenters" and, as part of the negotiated deal for other legislation to pass during the lame duck session in December, the budget was carried over to the new Congress because Republican leadership insisted that it wanted to make additional cuts. Both parties were equally to blame.

The Ryan Roadmap to America's Ruin does nothing to reduce the deficit because it gives the savings derived from ending Medicare to tax cuts for corporations and the "two percenters" at the top. Humphries should read the analyses from serious economists that I have been posting here about Ryan's plan, as should any reporters who should be fact checking the nonsense coming from clueless politicians like Trent Humphries.

White House releases the 'holy grail' birth certificate - Birthers question it (but of course)

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The "lamestream media" is all atwitter this morning because the White House has released President Barack Obama's "long-form" birth certificate, the "holy grail" to Birther conspiracy theorists fueled by World Nut Daily.

The "lamestream media" has given racist demagogue Donald Trump unlimited access to all of its programming in recent weeks to spew his racial invectives simply because he is a "reality TV show star" celebrity. I hope there is a special place in hell for all those in the "lamestream media."

From the White House blog, President Obama's Long Form Birth Certificate | The White House:

In 2008, in response to media inquiries, the President’s campaign requested his birth certificate from the state of Hawaii. The state sent the campaign the President’s birth certificate, the same legal documentation provided to all Hawaiians as proof of birth in state, and the campaign immediately posted it on the internet. That birth certificate can be seen here (PDF).

When any citizen born in Hawaii requests their birth certificate, they receive exactly what the President received. In fact, the document posted on the campaign website is what Hawaiians use to get a driver’s license from the state and the document recognized by the Federal Government and the courts for all legal purposes. That’s because it is the birth certificate. This is not and should not be an open question.

The President believed the distraction over his birth certificate wasn’t good for the country. It may have been good politics and good TV, but it was bad for the American people and distracting from the many challenges we face as a country. Therefore, the President directed his counsel to review the legal authority for seeking access to the long form certificate and to request on that basis that the Hawaii State Department of Health make an exception to release a copy of his long form birth certificate. They granted that exception in part because of the tremendous volume of requests they had been getting. President Barack Obama's long form birth certificate can be seen here (PDF):

President Obama's Long Form Birth Certificate

View more documents from White House

I would love to be able to say this is the STFU! moment to all of those Birther conspiracy theorists who live at World Nut Daily, but we all know better than that. For conspiracy theorists there is always yet another layer of conspiracy to be layered on top of their delusional conspiracy. It has already begun, led by "The Donald" in an interview this morning that I will not dignify here. (Why this racist demagogue still has a job at NBC and is treated as a serious person by the "lamestream media" is beyond comprehension.)

Don't believe me? here are some screen shots of the headlines at World Nut Daily this morning after the White House announcement.

Adams resigning as House Speaker

By Craig McDermott, cross-posted from Random Musings

 

From the Arizona Republic -

State House Speaker Kirk Adams will leave the chamber's top leadership post, his spokesman said Tuesday, and representatives will pick a new speaker to serve out the rest of Adams' two-year term.

Adams did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but spokesman Daniel Scarpinato confirmed that Adams planned to step down as speaker Thursday.

Scarpinato declined to say whether Adams also plans to resign his state House seat.

The move isn't really a surprise, as the worst-kept secret in Arizona politics is that Adams is going to run for Congress next year.

Things *could* get interesting if Adams tries to hang on to his House seat - while Arizona's "resign-to-run" law is all but toothless, it could still impact his ability to raise money between now and the beginning of 2012. 

I expect that he will ultimately resign from the House, not just give up his speakership, because regardless of what the district maps look like, he is likely to face significant primary opposition for the open seat. 

He's smart enough to know better than to give the other candidates a big head start, and the duties of even a rank-and-file member of the legislature could get in the way of serious campaigning.

Anyway, House Republicans are expected to choose Adams' successor as speaker on Thursday.  The Republic article speculated that they will choose either Rep. John Kavanagh (R-LD8), chair of House Appropriations, or Rep. Eddie Farnsworth (R-LD22).  Two other names that could possibly percolate in watercooler talk are Reps. Andy Tobin (R-LD1), the current House majority leader or Jim Weiers (R-LD10), a former speaker.

Still, the Republic's speculation is probably in the ballpark - both Kavanagh and Farnsworth are viewed as ambitious, having aspirations to higher office.  A speakership entry on the political resume could definitely help either one in that regard.

Later...

Daily Show filming at Tucson's Shanty on 4th Ave

Posted by Michael Bryan

Want to see a Daily Show taping in Tucson? Thursday at 5pm at the Shanty on 4th Ave. Daily Show correspondents will be filming an upcoming episode on the movement to separate Southern Arizona from wing-nut dominated Maricopa AZ. Hoist a few for our new state! Maybe get your mug on TV.

Then come back to the Shanty on Sunday to have drink with Jon Rothschild, Democratic candidate for Mayor (and who knows, maybe the first governor of Baja AZ?) at the weekly Drinking Liberally gathering.

See you there!

Don’t get fooled again! Tea-Publican legislators voted against public education 100% of the time

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

This is an argument I have every two years with organizations that endorse candidates for the legislature on education issues, including the teachers'unions and the author of the study below, the Arizona Education Network. I always hear the same argument that "it's a safe Republican district and we have to work with them, so we will endorse the Republican incumbent." How's that working out for ya?

Every two years GOP candidates will send out glossy campaign fliers telling you how much they support education, and run television and radio ads telling you how much they support education. What they fail to disclose is that they are systematically gutting public education and trying to privatize education to benefit for-profit businesses, like the STO organizations that Sen. Yarbrough profits from.

The Arizona Education Network has its report card out today, and the Tea-Publicans in the Arizona legislature get a failing grade. Arizona Education Network Releases Legislative Voting Report | The Range:

From their press release today:

Of Arizona's 90 legislators, 59 voted against public education funding 100 percent of the time.

"We encourage Arizona voters to look closely at this list," said Jen Darland, an Arizona Education Network researcher who tracks education legislation. "These are the legislators who are voting to close our schools; cram children into super-sized classrooms; fire teachers, librarians and counselors; deny children access to all-day kindergarten; strip schools of basics like paper, books and pencils and make our universities unaffordable for middle-class students."

Legislators say they had no other option but to cut $454 million from our schools, community colleges and universities - bringing the three-year total in cuts to $1.3 billion. However they had other options, including following the Governor's original budget proposal, which had $116 million less in education cuts.

In addition, legislators could work to close the more than $10 billion in tax loopholes that prevent the state from raising more revenue. By just closing the luxury tax loopholes, which exempt users of luxury services, such as spa treatments, from paying taxes and equalizing the state liquor tax, the state could bring in $438 million more a year.

Adding insult to injury, legislators voted for TABOR (HB 2720), locking in the current recession-level cuts to education, preventing our schools, colleges and universities from rebounding as the economy improves. 

For more information on AEN and the Legislative report, visit their website here.

Go to the jump to read the list of state Legislators who voted against education funding 100 percent of the time in 2011.

NLRB to sue Arizona over Prop. 113 "secret ballot" referendum

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I warned you at the time that the Prop. 113 "secret ballot" referendum that the legislature sneaked onto the ballot in a special session, after the "Save Our Secret Balot" ("SOS") initiative, Prop. 108, was ruled ineligible by the court, was preempted by federal law.

This was an anti-union "turn out our wingnut base" ballot measure that is preempted by federal labor law. Voters approved it anyway in 2010.

The federal National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) immediately stepped in. Negotiations for a settlement have fallen through. NLRB will sue Ariz., SD over union laws:

The National Labor Relations Board says it will move ahead with lawsuits seeking to invalidate state constitutional amendments in Arizona and South Dakota that require workers to hold secret ballot elections before a company can be unionized.

The move comes after months of negotiations that failed to reach a settlement with attorneys general for the two states, according to an April 22 letter from the agency's acting general counsel, Lafe Solomon.

* * *

Solomon told state officials he has directed staff to file the lawsuits against Arizona and South Dakota "shortly." He claims the amendments conflict with current federal law that gives employers the option to recognize a union if a majority of workers simply sign cards, a process known as "card check."

Solomon also claims the state amendments are pre-empted by the supremacy clause of the Constitution. That clause says federal law prevails if there is a conflict between state and federal law.

Demonstrating, once again, that he is unqualifed to serve as Arizona's Attorney General, Tom Horne said the NLRB had no legal basis to file a lawsuit.

"There's no statute that says people can't have secret ballot elections, so there's no preemption," Horne said.

Tom Horne clearly is outside his comfort zone of legal knowledge and expertise. I would suggest that he study federal labor law before making such a definitive - and entirely incorrect - statement of law.

And it would be a good rule of thumb for reporters to call an expert in an area of law on which Tom Horne comments to put a legal expert's opinion in your reporting to balance his comnments, instead of just giving him the freedom to say whatever he wants without challenge.

The Arizona AFL-CIO has issued the following press release:

Federal Labor Board Files Suit Against the State of Arizona
Over Unconstitutional Anti-Union Law

Arizona AFL-CIO Praises Tough Action Backing Rights of Arizona Workers

Phoenix, AZ – On Friday, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) announced it would pursue legal action against the State of Arizona to invalidate a 2010 state constitutional amendment (Proposition 113) that restricted the rights of Arizona workers to form unions through majority sign-up, or card check. Rebekah Friend, Executive Director and Secretary/Treasurer of the Arizona AFL-CIO, issued the following statement on the NLRB’s announcement:

“Arizonans deserve a path to unionization that is fair and free of coercion. But because corporate CEOs want to make it harder for workers to bargain for better wages and benefits, they mounted yet another political attack on our rights at work with this unlawful constitutional amendment banning unionization by majority sign-up.

“The big business groups and anonymous, out-of-state donors backing this law never intended to protect workers’ freedoms. After all, these same groups pushed the repeal of collective bargaining rights in Wisconsin and Ohio. The ballot measure that attempted to ban card check was merely a political stunt that took advantage of Arizona’s referendum process to promote a national anti-worker agenda.

“We knew from the start that this anti-union amendment was superseded by federal law, and I am pleased to see that the NLRB will be continuing its defense of workers’ rights in Arizona. Attorney General Tom Horne knows as well that this law is unconstitutional and cannot stand, but continues to defend this anti-union law on behalf of his corporate campaign supporters. I urge Horne to drop this charade and save valuable taxpayer resources for pursuing crimes like mortgage fraud, which continue to affect thousands of Arizona homeowners.

“More than ever, Arizonans need better wages and benefits, job security and safer workplaces. The Arizona AFL-CIO urges business groups to stop their political attacks on unions and work together with us to restore the American middle class.”

The Arizona AFL-CIO is a voluntary federation of labor unions in the State of Arizona, representing affiliates with over 185,000 members. To learn more, visit azaflcio.org.

###

Ezra Klein on The People's Budget

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I suppose I should consider it a moral victory that the Arizona Daily Star published today the opinion by Paul Krugman that I posted about yesterday. Still no interview of our local Congressman Raúl Grijalva, co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus which drafted the People's Budget. I will keep trying to keep them honest.

The Washington Post's Ezra Klein was a guest on The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell on Monday night to discuss the People's Budget. His only real criticism is that it does not go far enough -- Klein would like to see an "energy tax" (carbon tax) in the plan. Now who is being overly optimistic?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Ezra Klein had posted about the People's Budget earlier in the day. The House Progressive Budget - Ezra Klein - The Washington Post:

The legislation would let most of the Bush tax cuts expire — a major difference from Obama’s budget, which would extend most of the Bush tax cuts — and add a few new brackets for millionaires and multimillionaires, not to mention a stronger and more progressive estate tax. Capital gains and dividend income would be taxed as normal income, corporate taxes would be raised, and a financial transaction tax would be passed. The payroll cap would be raised on the employee side and abolished on the employer side, taking care of most of Social Security’s shortfall, and the Defense Department would see $1.8 trillion in cuts over 10 years. There’d be a public option added to the health-care system and Medicare would get more power to negotiate drug prices. There’s room for $1.4 trillion in new investments, and according to the HPC’s numbers, their budget does more deficit reduction over the next 10 years than either Obama or Ryan’s budget. Paul Krugman calls it “the only major budget proposal out there offering a plausible path to balancing the budget.”

So does it all add up? Sort of, said the experts I consulted. “In the same way that Ryan’s plan is useful for showing how you could do this/what one would have to do on if you do it all on the spending side,” says William Gale, co-director of the Tax Policy Center, “the House Progressive Budget shows how one might do this/what one would have to do to do almost all of it on the tax side of the ledger.” Gale thought their proposal probably went a bit far in new upper-income taxes, and treating capital gains as normal income might erect a barrier to investment. It would have been wiser, he thought, to be even a bit bolder in terms of new taxes and propose either an energy tax or a value-added tax. “Still,” he said, “I think it would be interesting to get this plan out in front of the American people and see how they react to it versus Ryan.”

Len Burman, who previously led the Treasury’s tax analysis division and is now at Syracuse University and the Urban Institute, had a broadly similar, though slightly more negative, take. “Glad to see more progressivity, but there’s little real tax reform and really, really high tax rates on high-income people,” he says. “I doubt that many capital gains would be realized at a 49% tax rate (or even a 45% one).” He worried that the various provisions would lead to a large increase in tax evasion strategies, including more self-employment, gifts, an increase in C corporations and a lot more offshore financial dealings. He thought that once you added all that in — and particularly once you considered the way the various taxes would stack and interact — the plan would raise less money than the House Progressive Caucus assumed. “I wish they’d thought more about simplification and reforming the tax expenditures that they retain,” he said. “The plan could have been made more progressive and raised more revenue without raising top tax rates.” He suggested looking at the Bipartisan Policy Center’s plan for a model of how to do a lot more tax reform while raising revenues.

Robert Frank, an economist at Cornell University, is one of the more innovative tax thinkers I know. In particular, I’ve always been partial to his proposal for a progressive consumption tax (pdf). So I ran the plan by him, as well. “The progressive budget proposal is of course an enormous improvement over the bizarre Ryan budget,” he said, “which for all its chest thumping about facing up to the hard choices, does nothing — absolutely nothing — to reduce long-run deficits.” But like Gale and Burman, Frank wanted to see more simplification and reform. In particular, he wanted more attention given to what we tax with an eye toward two-fers: raising more money off of things we want less of. . . “Taxing such activities kills two birds with one stone: It generates much needed revenue, and it curtails activities that cause more harm than good. Because these taxes make the economic pie bigger, it makes no sense to object that we can’t afford them.” He recommended this piece (pdf) for more on those ideas.

So even if you were going to rely heavily on taxes, the particular set of taxes recommended by the House Progressive Caucus probably isn’t the set you’d rely on. But Burman, Gale and Frank all thought the proposal compared very favorably to Ryan’s budget. For one thing, its savings ramp up more quickly. Ryan puts his biggest reforms off until 2022. The House Progressive Budget begins almost immediately. For another, it tries to balance the budget in a largely progressive fashion — a worthwhile goal given that the current deficits are largely the product of the financial crisis and a set of tax cuts that were embarrassingly tilted toward upper-income Americans. The House Progressive Budget is also willing to make some deep changes in the Defense Department and block off some new money for much-needed investments. Gale noted that if you think of Ryan’s budget as one end of the spectrum and this budget as the other, Obama’s proposal is probably closer to Ryan’s than to the House Progressive Caucus’s.

I’d add that over the long-term, this budget isn’t particularly strong on health care. A public option would be helpful, and so too would letting Medicare bargain down the price of pharmaceuticals. But I’d have liked to see much more radical ideas for controlling health-care costs. [Klein's personal favorite ideas for controlling health-care costs.]

* * *

But overall, this is a smart contribution to the negotiations, in part because it’s organized very intelligently. It’s a menu of separate — and separable — options for reducing the budget deficit in a progressive fashion, rather than one or two massive ideological efforts to remake the safety net. If Ryan had been writing the House Progressive Budget, it would’ve proposed single-payer health care and a value-added tax and called it a day. The House Progressive Caucus didn’t do that — and they were smart not to.

Instead, they designed their budget to make it easy for the negotiators to lift some of their proposals into a final deal. It’d be simple to grab the new millionaire’s brackets out of this budget, or snatch some the defense savings and the public option, without embracing everything else. That also makes it easy for progressives to choose a few of these items and really organize behind them. The measure of this budget’s success won’t be in whether it passes, but whether a few of its specific suggestions are able to shoulder their way into the conversation.

In other words, the People's Budget is the appropriate starting point for any serious discussion about balancing the federal budget, not the Ryan Roadmap to America's Ruin nor President Obama's less aggressive approach to the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

Ezra Klein has two related posts worth reading: why the media often ignores the best budget proposals; and a reminder: The public option makes insurance cheaper, RyanCare makes it more expensive.

Tucson to defy SB 1331 and the Tea-Publican tyranny

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

In an earlier post I told you that Ted Vogt tried to dictate to the City of Tucson to benefit his brother Tyler:

Since the Court of Appeals ruled this week that the citizens of Tucson -- a Charter City whose City Charter takes legal precedence over acts of the legislature on matters of purely local concern, i.e., local elections -- are permitted to conduct partisan elections as their City Charter provides, SB 1331 is in direct conflict with the holding of the Court of Appeals.

Should Gov. Brewer sign this bill into law, the City Attorney should immediately file a lawsuit to challenge the law on the same basis of the case he just won a victory in the Court of Appeals over the equally authoritarian "Paton's law."

City Attorney Mike Rankin says he will advise the City Council that the ruling applies equally to the bill awaiting the governor's signature. City won't scrap all-mail vote:

City officials say that if Gov. Jan Brewer signs a bill outlawing Tucson's planned all-mail election, the city will do it anyway.

SB 1331 says cities, towns and school districts may conduct a mail-in ballot election only for nonpartisan elections.

Because Tucson is the only city in Arizona that holds partisan elections, it is the only one affected by the bill sponsored by Republican state Rep. Ted Vogt of Tucson, whose brother is a candidate in the upcoming city election.

The bill would effectively mean Tucson could not have an exclusively mail election, even though the mayor and City Council earlier this month voted to move in that direction. Council members, noted that 65 percent of voters already cast mail ballots in the 2009 city election and the 2010 general election, suggested the move would save money, increase turnout and make it easier for more people to vote.

* * *

City Attorney Mike Rankin said he will advise the City Council that the ruling applies equally to the bill awaiting the governor's signature.

"It could result in more litigation. That wouldn't be a surprise," Rankin acknowledged. "But it is going to be my position we have the charter authority to do this and the Legislature is overstepping its authority."

Rankin points to the recent court ruling saying lawmakers can't force the city to strip party labels off its ballot. In a ruling that came the same day the Legislature closed up shop for the session, the court said how the city runs elections is a matter of local - not statewide - concern.

Rep. Ted Vogt responded with a series of bullshit statements not worth dignifying here. He got caught red-handed trying to sneak through a law in the dead of night to override the Tucson City Charter to try to benefit his brother who is running for Tucson City Council. Both brothers should be soundly defeated for their blatant abuse of our democratic process and disregard for the rule of law.

Baja Arizonans have had enough of this authoritarian abuse at the hands of Tea-Publican tyrants serving our imperialist colonial rulers from the state of Maricopa. Our colonial oppressors are stripping us of our basic freedoms of democratic elections, local control and self-determination to try to force us into submission. They are oppressing Tucson and Pima County from the Capitol in Phoenix. The state of Maricopa may be trying to swallow us whole, but Baja Arizonans are not going down without a fight to defend our freedom!

CNN's John King interviews Gov. Jan Brewer

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

CNN's John King interviewed Gov. Jan Brewer (R-AZ) about the "Birther bill" she vetoed last week. I am surprised she ventured outside of the protective bubble of FAUX News Fraudcasting.

In the full interview that I watched (I cannot find a copy) John King went on to ask Gov. Brewer about her position on whether she will proceed in court after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the U.S. District Court of Arizona in striking down most of SB 1070, and Brewer of course responded that Arizona would proceed in court.

Brewer also continued to demagogue on her reasons for wrapping herself in the hatred of SB 1070 and fear mongering over immigration last year in order to get elected governor. Listening to Jan Brewer and other Tea-Publican candidates for office last year tell it, there was a "horde" of "illegal" immigrants "invading" Arizona causing a "crime wave" in Arizona.

This demagoguery is refuted in this recent report in the Arizona Daily Star, Drop in illegal crossings leaves border agents bored:

Wild foot chases and dust-swirling car pursuits may be the adrenaline-pumping stuff of recruitment efforts, but agents on the U.S.-Mexico border these days have to deal with a more mundane occupational reality: the boredom of guarding a frontier where illegal crossings have dipped to record low levels.

Porous corridors along the 2,000-mile border do remain, mostly in the Tucson area, requiring constant vigilance. But beefed-up enforcement and the job-killing effects of the Great Recession have combined to reduce the flood of immigrants in many former hot spots to a trickle.

Apprehensions along the U.S.-Mexican border overall dropped from 2000 to 2010, from 1.6 million to 448,000, and almost every region has lonely posts where agents sit for hours staring at the barrier, "watching the fence rust" as some put it.

"When the traffic stops ... of course it's going to be difficult for the agents to stay interested," said Supervisory Agent Ken Quillin, from the agency's Yuma sector. "I understand guys have a tough time staying awake. ... They didn't join the border patrol to sit on an X," Quillin added, using the slang term for line watch duty.

Read the whole article. It makes Jan Brewer and others who demagogue on immigration look ridiculous.

The Daily Show in Tucson this week for an episode on 'Baja Arizona'

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Paul Eckerstrom, co-chair of Start Our State, i.e., the Baja Arizona as the 51st state movement, was the guest speaker at a meeting of the Saguaro Eastside Democrats on Monday night. Eckerstrom announced that The Daily Show would be in Tucson Wednesday and Thursday of this week to film an episode on Baja Arizona for The Daily Show.

Eckerstrom did not disclose whom the correspondents are from The Daily Show coming to Baja Arizona.

Arizona has been a target rich comedy environment for The Daily Show because of our lunatic fringe Tea-Publican legislature and governor. The Daily Show has even created an "Arizona" tag for all of its video episodes mentioning Arizona. Videos Tagged "Arizona" | The Daily Show with Jon Stewart | Comedy Central.

So let's be on our best behavior people. Let's be clear that "the crazy" comes from our bullying neighbor to the north, the state of Maricopa. It is the Tea-Publicans who voted for the long discredited pre-Civil War theories of nullification of federal laws and secession from the United States.

Baja Arizona wanted no part of this. Baja Arizonans are loyal Americans. Baja Arizona is following the example of West Virginia in the Civil War and is exercising its constitutional prerogative under Article IV, Section 3 of the United States Constitution for the legal process of partition and separation from the state of Arizona:

"New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress" (emphasis added).

The non-binding resolution that Start Our State wants to put on the ballot in 2012 is simply a petition to the Arizona legislature and the Congress for consent to establish our own state. It is our way of saying that we have had enough of "the crazy" from our bullying neighbor to the north, the state of Maricopa.

Reminder: Blog for Arizona is running a contest for you to design the new flag of the state of Baja Arizona (or whatever state name is chosen). Flying Our Freak Flag - Blog For Arizona:

We thought it might be fun to ask BlogFor(Baja&Alto)Arizona.com readers to help design our new State Flag. . .

Please submit your designs, or design ideas (we don't expect everyone to be a graphic designer) to BlogForArizona@gmail.com with the subject line 'FLAG CONTEST' (or something reasonably similar) by June 1st, 2011 and our staff, in consultation with the leaders of the Start Our State movement, will select a winner. . .

Here are some resources to get you started and help you make your design not suck: NAVA (the North American Vexillological Association) has a good site on flag design; Design My Own Flag has a nifty online doodad for making mockup flags; and, of course, Wikipedia has a nice entry on vexillology. Get designing!

See the "Baja Arizona Flag Contest" box on the right-side of the blog page.

Steve Benen (and others) on The People's Budget

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

For those of you planning to attend the PDA meeting Monday night in Tucson, Steve Benen at The Washington Monthly addressed The People's Budget last week:

This week, the budget proposal from the Congressional Progressive Caucus is suddenly getting some attention, and I'm glad. Does it stand any chance of becoming law? Of course not. But does Paul Ryan's plan have a shot at passing? Despite gaining House approval, it does not.

Matt Miller got the ball rolling a few days ago, noting in passing that the Congressional Progressive Caucus' budget plan "wins the fiscal responsibility derby" against its competing proposals because "it reaches balance by 2021 largely through assorted tax hikes and defense cuts."

This one sentence seemed to have let much of the political world that the CPC plan exists. The Economist noted today:

Have you ever heard of the Congressional Progressive Caucus budget plan? Neither had I. The caucus's co-chairs, Raul Grijalva of Arizona and Keith Ellison of Minnesota, released it on April 6th. The budget savings come from defense cuts, including immediately withdrawing from Afghanistan and Iraq, which saves $1.6 trillion over the CBO baseline from 2012-2021. The tax hikes include restoring the estate tax, ending the Bush tax cuts, and adding new tax brackets for the extremely rich, running from 45% on income over a million a year to 49% on income over a billion a year.

Mr Ryan's plan adds (by its own claims) $6 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, but promises to balance the budget by sometime in the 2030s by cutting programs for the poor and the elderly. The Progressive Caucus's plan would (by its own claims) balance the budget by 2021 by cutting defense spending and raising taxes, mainly on rich people. Mr Ryan has been fulsomely praised for his courage. The Progressive Caucus has not.

I'm not really sure what "courage" is supposed to mean here, but this seems precisely backwards.

Bingo. Trying to restore tax rates to levels that were pretty normal in the America John Boehner grew up in takes some courage, because it challenges the powerful and the elite to sacrifice. Republicans are doing the opposite -- as President Obama put it the other day, "Nothing is easier than solving a problem on the backs of people who are poor, or people who are powerless and don't have lobbyists or don't have clout."

Paul Krugman also had an item on this today, noting some of the policy specifics.

The CPC plan essentially balances the budget through higher taxes and defense cuts, plus some tougher bargaining by Medicare (and a public option to reduce the costs of the Affordable Care Act). The proposed tax hikes would fall mainly on higher incomes, although not just on the top 2%: super-brackets for very high incomes, elimination of deductions, taxation of capital income as ordinary income, and — the part that would be most controversial — raising the cap on payroll taxes.

None of this is economically outlandish. Marginal tax rates on high incomes would rise substantially -- enough to make even liberal economists slightly uncomfortable -- but the historical evidence suggests that the incentive effects wouldn't be too severe. Overall taxes as a share of GDP aren't given, but they would clearly remain well below European levels.

Also note, the CPC numbers add up -- which is more than we can say for the House Republican plan -- actually dealing with the problem conservatives claim to care about.

In case this isn't obvious, it's important to have competing ideas in the larger conversation.

* * *

There are a variety of credible alternatives, and Obama's vision may represent the center, but there's a sensible, sound liberal approach that deserves to be in the mix.

Ethnic studies resolution updates

by David Safier

The Star's editorial came out in favor of the resolution TUSD Board President Mark Stegeman will present at the Tuesday Board meeting. The spirit of the editorial is reasonable, but there is a huge flaw in logic similar to Stegeman's -- the idea that you simultaneously downgrade the MAS history courses to electives while you begin the process of making the standard American History courses more inclusive. The result: the changes to MAS go into effect in September, and the proposed changes to the American History courses go into effect . . . whenever. They will happen in dribs and drabs over the years, moving through study committees and public hearings. The quality of the results is far from guaranteed.

It makes no sense to gut MAS, with its proven record of success, based on a loose promise of better core courses sometime in the undetermined future.

In a separate article, Alexis Huicochea presents an accurate picture of the current situation with MAS and Stegeman's resolution, and it lends an insight into Stegeman's flawed logic regarding the negative impact of making the MAS history course an elective. He admits fewer students will take the class as an elective, but he believes the students who need it will still take it.

Though Stegeman admits there will likely be a decline in enrollment as a result, he doesn't see it as the demise of the program.

"We've heard from all kinds of students how wonderful these courses are," Stegeman said. "If the students believe that to be true, those who really are getting something out of it will choose to take it."

My sense from that statement is, Stegeman is far removed from the thought process of less-than-academically-inclined high school students. That's not surprising, since he's a university prof and was likely a conscientious, high achieving high school student. So let me shed some light, based on my experience teaching low achieving students and struggling to motivate them, on the differences between the UA students Stegeman interacts with and the struggling students "who really are getting something out of [MAS]."

University profs often complain about the poor motivation, study habits and skills of their students, yet they are drawn from the top ranks of high school grads. When you move to students who graduate with reasonable grades but don't have the academic ability it takes to go to UA as well as those who barely graduate and those who drop out, you're talking about problems with motivation, study habits and skills university profs have no concept of.

To imagine students who need an academic and motivational boost will choose to burden themselves with extra work in the form of a second, elective history class shows a lack of understanding of these students. A major problem for these students is, they are not making good educational choices. If they were, they would be paying careful attention in class, doing their homework and generally maximizing their academic potential -- more like the students who make it to UA. The first task with low achieving students is to place them in a situation where they are given that extra motivation, that extra push, to help them come closer to realizing their potential. If you put an obstacle in their path by making MAS an elective they have to take on top of the required history class, you're going to eliminate many of the students who would most benefit from the program.

Stegeman is an educator, but he works with a different group of students than the garden variety high school student, let alone those who struggle to pass AIMS or to graduate. He and other Board members should consider the value of the MAS program as it currently stands and the damage they will do if they vote to turn the history courses into electives rather than making them core courses. They should vote against the resolution.

(Update) The new corporate business model: higher profits, fewer jobs

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

In a story I did not get to last week while the Tea-Publican Arizona legislature was laying waste to our state, the Wall Street Journal reported Big U.S. Firms Shift Hiring Abroad (subscription) summarized at the Huffington Post, U.S Multinationals Increasingly Hiring Abroad, Firing At Home:

In the last decade, American multinational corporations, which together employ one-fifth of all U.S. workers, decreased domestic employment by 2.9 million workers while adding 2.4 million jobs overseas, the Commerce Department reported on Monday.

In 2009, a devastating year for the global economy, U.S. multinational companies' worldwide employment shrunk by 4.1 percent to 31.3 million workers. But the cuts were much sharper at home than abroad. Domestic employment by the same companies shrunk by 5.3 percent, leaving 21.1 million with jobs, while their overseas counterparts lost 1.5 percent of their workforce, with 10.3 million still employed.

"Emerging markets [are] growing at two-and-a-half times the speed of industrialized countries, which has made it imperative for companies to look abroad for opportunities," said Lynn Reaser, chief economist at Point Loma Nazarene University in San Diego.

For large American multinationals, the geographical calculus is simple: Follow the money.

"[The report] is not surprising at all. It is harder and harder for companies in the U.S. to find the right skilled labor at the right price point," said Dave Niles, president of SSA &Co, a global operations consulting firm.

Because for multinational corporations it's always about exploiting "cheap labor." They, of course, deny this:

General Electric Chief Executive Jeffrey Immelt [the company that paid no U.S. income taxes] also told the WSJ moving abroad was less about cheap labor than about deploying resources in countries with growing demand for their products. In 2000, GE conducted 30 percent of its business in other countries; today, that figure reaches 60 percent.

This is true, but how exactly does this help Americans who are unemployed?

The Commerce Department's report cuts to the heart of a crucial question about the state of the American economy, economists say. Can growth abroad for U.S. corporations be good for both companies and consumers?

Some argue the trend toward hiring workers abroad benefits both groups. Firms enjoy lowered manufacturing costs and an increased access to foreign markets, while consumers can purchase cheaper goods.

"It's good for companies and its also in someways the unfortunate reality of our economy. Is it good for consumers? Yeah. Because you're getting higher quality product at a lower price," Niles said.

Wait for it, here comes the "Obvious Man" moment of "Doh!":

But other economists point out an apparent Catch 22. Even if some goods become more affordable, consumers' spending power is undercut when jobs disappear from the American economy.

"The long point of all of this is that those jobs that were generating solid wages are very few and far between in the United States now. You look around and ask yourself, where is the middle class? Where are they working and how much are they making?" asked Ken Perkins, president of the RetailMetrics LLC research firm. "The middle class is really what led to the boom of the retail industry ... Where is the American consumer going to get money to spend more?"

And here is the cold hard reality of the new corporate business model: higher profits, fewer jobs:

"One of the things that's generating the huge rebound in profits in the United States -- a rebound that is so astonishing that profits exceed what we saw at the peak of the last economic expansion -- is that the profits of these companies are more and more divorced from their actual operations here in the United States," said Gary Burtless, a economist at the Brookings Institute. "So now we can this situation where companies' profits are going gangbusters even though the U.S. economy has 8.8 percent unemployment."

* * *

"Most of the [new] employment that we will be seeing will be multinationals hiring in developing economies. That's where we'll see the most dynamic activity; that's where economic momentum will remain very strong."

Which begs the question, "why are we giving tax breaks to multinational corporations?" Lower corporate taxes won't create more jobs - Fortune Finance:

One of [Paul Ryan's] key proposals is to lower the income tax rate paid by corporations, from 35% to 25%, by eliminating several tax loopholes and deductions. Simplifying the tax code would certainly remove a lot of uncertainties from today's highly complex tax system. Executives have often complained that one of the reasons they've been holding off on new investments and more hiring is the unpredictable tax environment. But how will lowering the tax burden for companies that are already flushed with record levels of cash really going to make the average American better off?

Compared with other advanced economies, companies doing business in the U.S. already pay low taxes. It's true that at 35% the corporate tax rate is technically higher than most major economies. But because of loopholes and other deductions, most companies pay significantly less – so the effective rate (or the percentage of corporate profits that is paid in federal corporate taxes) is about 13% to 15%, which is relatively low even by international standards. [And less than the rate you pay.]

* * *

[W]hat will lowering the corporate tax do?

For one, it likely won't create much more investment or create many more jobs, says Robert Lynch, economics professor at Washington College, who has done extensive research into taxation and economic development. In a 2004 study, Lynch found that firms don't necessarily relocate or expand to an area more just because it has lower taxes. What's more, while a lower tax rate reduces costs for companies and creates some positive effects on local economies, it doesn't necessarily create substantial jobs.

* * *

What worries the economist is that any cuts to corporate taxes would take funding away from other public services such as education, new roads and infrastructure projects that companies and the overall economy might gain more from. [The short-sighted approach the Tea-Publican Arizona legislature just adopted,]

"Companies aren't suffering from a lack of investment funds," Lynch says, pointing to record cash levels held by America's biggest companies. "What they're suffering from is lack of profitable investment opportunities."

Even as many non-financial companies sit on an estimated $2 trillion at a time when interest rates have remained at nearly 0%, executives still aren't hiring much. Indeed, much of that capital is sitting overseas and there's a coordinated push among some of America's biggest companies to bring those funds home at lower costs. Cisco (CSCO), Apple (AAPL), Duke Energy (DUK) and Pfizer (PFE) are leading an effort for a one-year tax holiday on foreign earnings that would allow companies to repatriate money at a much lower tax rate of about 5%.

Wait for it, here comes the next "Obvious Man" moment of "Doh!":

But while the idea of bringing more capital into the domestic economy sounds like a good thing, it won't likely mean much for the average American. In 2004, Congress approved a one-year tax holiday as part of a jobs package, resulting in companies bringing back $362 billion. But, as Fortune's Tory Newmyer pointed out in February, studies have shown that most of the funds went to shareholders. Even while Congress passed several rules to make sure the funds would get invested back into the companies, not very much went to research, investment or hiring.

* * *

If history tells us anything, [increased wages are] unlikely. The effective corporate tax rate has been steadily declining for decades. Corporations paid more than 49% of their profits in federal taxes in the 1950s, 38% in the 1960s, 33% in the 1970s and 25% in the 1980s. All the while, U.S. wages have been stagnant for years even as productivity has risen. Between 1989 and 2010, U.S. productivity grew by 62.5% -- far outpacing wages, which grew by only 12% during the same period, according to a March 2011 study by the Economic Policy Institute.

So what will a lower corporate tax rate do?

It will make the über-rich even richer and usher in the new order of corporatocracy and serfdom for the rest of us. If we don't reverse the tide now, it may be too late.

Ad campaigns against the GOP vote to end Medicare

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

In a significant escalation of the progressive campaign to make Republicans pay a political price for voting to end Medicare, the progressive advocacy group Americans United for Change will run broadcast TV ads in the districts of Reps. Steve King (R-IA), Sean Duffy (R-WI), Chip Cravaack (R-MN), and Paul Ryan (R-WI). Significant New Progressive Ad Campaign Targets Republicans For Voting To End Medicare:

"What are House Republicans thinking asking millions of seniors, the less fortunate and the disabled to make more sacrifices and the richest among us to make less," says AUC executive Tom McMahon in a statement.

If Republicans have their way, there would be no more guaranteed Medicare benefits for America's seniors, only a guarantee of paying more and more out of pocket for less care after being left to the mercy to the private insurance industry. There would only be a guarantee that millions of Americans would lose their jobs - only a guarantee that America's poor and disabled will live sicker and die younger while millionaires get another tax break they don't need and the nation cannot afford. This is not a path to prosperity, only a path to bankrupting seniors so Paris Hilton and BP can have another tax break. And there's nothing courageous about that.

The five-figure buy will begin Tuesday and run through the end of the week. [Here is the ad running in Rep. Paul Ryan's district:]

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) is running a paid advertising and grassroots campaign to hold 25 vulnerable House Republicans accountable for choosing to end Medicare rather than end taxpayer giveaways for Big Oil making record profits or tax breaks for the ultra rich. DCCC Launches Latest Drive for 25 Campaign | DCCC:

“This is a defining moment for House Republicans: they chose to end Medicare rather than end taxpayer giveaways for Big Oil or tax breaks for the ultra rich. We will go district by district to hold Republicans accountable for the wrong choice they made,” said DCCC Chairman Steve Israel. “Seniors who pay a lifetime into Medicare deserve the benefits they’ve earned. Under the Republican plan, if you make over a million dollars, you win the lottery. If you’re a senior, you lose your Medicare. That’s not right.”

The ad is scheduled to air in the district of Rep. Paul Gosar (AZ - CD1).

UPDATE: This morning, the DCCC has a new web ad video emphasizing a related but distinct message: "House Republicans promised to protect Medicare. They lied." The Washington Monthly:

The point of the video is to emphasize an angle the GOP would prefer voters forgot about: Republicans spent much of 2010 running on a pro-Medicare platform, with the party's candidates vowing to be Medicare's protectors and champions. Three months into the new Congress, these same Republicans voted to eliminate the program altogether and replace it with a privatized voucher scheme.

The video is pretty compelling -- high-profile Republican candidates really did say one thing and almost immediately after getting to Washington, did another.

The People's Budget praised by serious economists, dismissed by the clueless Arizona Daily Star

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Oh geezus, the Arizona Daily Star finally got around to mentioning our local Congressman Raúl Grijalva's "People's Budget" from the Congressional Progressive Caucus, but it was only a mention in the godawful "political notebook" where stories that the Star has not reported on go to die in one paragraph dismissive tones and attempted snarky humor. This is what passes for political reporting in the Star, Political notebook:

Congressional love

U.S. Rep. Raúl Grijalva would be forgiven if he's getting a case of the lonelies.

When the political director of the National Republican Congressional Committee recently ticked off a list of Democrats they hope to unseat in 2012, Grijalva was right at the top.

Partly, Grijalva acknowledges, the GOP might be sniffing vulnerability because of the too-close-for-comfort margin last cycle. But, he suggested, it's also because "they really just don't like me."

Those closer to his own political persuasion haven't exactly been blowing kisses, either.

The Democratic caucus whipped up opposition to the Grijalva-backed progressive budget alternative, "The People's Budget," which tried to eat into the deficit by cutting military spending, taxing the rich and putting back on the table a public health-care option. Party leaders didn't want it in the mix, muddying up the vote by splitting the caucus.

Then he raised some eyebrows when he told a national reporter the party needs to line up a viable U.S. Senate contender, maybe even within weeks, instead of waiting to see if U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, long considered the heir apparent, wants it. He clarified Wednesday, after it hit the fan, he meant someone to carry on the fight until she decided whether she wants it. But the longer the party waits, the more of a free ride Republican U.S. Rep. Jeff Flake gets.

At least on Monday Grijalva will find himself on friendly ground as the keynote speaker at the local progressives' meeting. And can we say, we think we know somebody who could use a hug.

Every story in the Star about Congressman Raúl Grijalva must, of course, contain the GOP-spin. The Star's Clueless political reporters must still be taking their lede from their former associate, Daniel Scarpinato, who is flacking for the Arizona GOP these days.

The editorial news filter at the Star may dismiss the Congressional Progressive Caucus "People's Budget" because it will not pass in the Tea-Publican Congress, but the same is also true for the "courageous" (sic) Paul Ryan Roadmap to America's Ruin - it is DOA in the Senate. So if the Star is going to waste ink and pixels writing about the Ryan budget plan, equal time is due to the Congressional Progressive Caucus budget plan, which is by the way, the only budget plan that serious economists have given praise (they universally dismissed the Ryan budget plan as "not serious").

Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman - certainly more knowledgeable than any of the news filters at the Arizona Daily Star - writes in the New York Times today, Let’s Take a Hike:

The core of the Ryan proposal is a plan to privatize and defund Medicare. Yet this would do nothing to reduce the deficit over the next 10 years, which is why all the near-term deficit reduction comes from brutal reductions in aid to the needy and unspecified cuts in discretionary spending. Tax increases, by contrast, can be fast-acting remedies for red ink.

And that’s why the only major budget proposal out there offering a plausible path to balancing the budget (emphasis added) is the one that includes significant tax increases: the “People’s Budget” from the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which — unlike the Ryan plan, which was just right-wing orthodoxy with an added dose of magical thinking — is genuinely courageous because it calls for shared sacrifice.

True, it increases revenue partly by imposing substantially higher taxes on the wealthy, which is popular everywhere except inside the Beltway. But it also calls for a rise in the Social Security cap, significantly raising taxes on around 6 percent of workers. And, by rescinding many of the Bush tax cuts, not just those affecting top incomes, it would modestly raise taxes even on middle-income families.

All of this, combined with spending cuts mostly focused on defense, is projected to yield a balanced budget by 2021. And the proposal achieves this without dismantling the legacy of the New Deal, which gave us Social Security, and the Great Society, which gave us Medicare and Medicaid.

But if the progressive proposal has all these virtues, why isn’t it getting anywhere near as much attention as the much less serious Ryan proposal? It’s true that it has no chance of becoming law anytime soon. But that’s equally true of the Ryan proposal.

The answer, I’m sorry to say, is the insincerity of many if not most self-proclaimed deficit hawks. To the extent that they care about the deficit at all, it takes second place to their desire to do precisely what the People’s Budget avoids doing, namely, tear up our current social contract, turning the clock back 80 years under the guise of necessity. They don’t want to be told that such a radical turn to the right is not, in fact, necessary.

But, it isn’t, as the progressive budget proposal shows. We do need to bring the deficit down, although we aren’t facing an immediate crisis. How we go about stemming the tide of red ink is, however, a choice — and by making tax increases part of the solution, we can avoid savaging the poor and undermining the security of the middle class.

Maybe one of the Clueless political reporters at the Star will be assigned to interview our local Congressman Raúl Grijalva about the People's Budget tonight at the PDA meeting of which they are aware.

And maybe the Tucson Weekly could send a reporter to interview Congressman Raúl Grijalva about the People's Budget, just in case.

The GOP war on public employees: Special Session coming

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I have told you about Frank Antenori's secret plan to end civil service merit selection system for county employees, and Craig gave you a preview of Coming Attractions: A "special" session of the legislature to turn every state job into a political patronage job.

The only solid reporting on Jan Brewer's behemoth bill to end the civil service merit selection system as we know it and to return to the spoils system of political patronage and cronyism has been in the Arizona Capitol Times. Public employees would have an incentive to keep working for politicians and their party — as opposed to a system of awarding employment on the basis of some measure of merit independent of political activity.

The Arizona Capitol Times (subscription required) reported Outline reveals details of Brewer personnel plan:

A proposal by Gov. Jan Brewer would uncover employees from the state’s merit system, remove terms of office for agency heads, and alter the way employees may appeal disciplinary actions, according to a summary of a 300-page-plus bill that the governor wanted the Legislature to pass this session.

* * *

Under the plan, new hires and supervisors would be uncovered, and current employees would have to forgo merit protection in order to get a salary increase. Employees who voluntarily accept new assignments will also be uncovered. [This is what HB 2650 does to county employees (excluding the State of Maricopa), a bill currently on the governor's desk.]

* * *

The proposal would also eliminate “terms of office” for heads of state agencies, essentially moving to a system where they serve at the pleasure of the governor. [aka, the spoils system.]

When is this Special Session going to occur?

“The governor is intent on getting this done. If not this session, than sometime between now and next year,” Benson said.

Benson did not say when the special session would take place, but presumably it would be in time for the scheduled implementation of the plan on Oct. 1.

The most current Arizona Capitol Times (subscription required) report is Republican lawmakers eager to take on merit system:

[T]he most drastic change yet for state employees looms just over the horizon.

Brewer plans to overhaul the merit protection system that state employees have enjoyed for decades, and she wants the system in place before the end of the year. And there appears to be little standing in the way.

The governor’s plan, according to an outline obtained by Arizona Capitol Times, would eliminate merit protection for most state employees. More than 25,000 of the state’s 35,000 employees are covered by the merit system.

New employees and supervisors would be employed at-will, meaning they would not be covered by the merit system and would not be able to appeal disciplinary actions, while current employees would be forced to forego those protections to get pay raises and promotions.

* * *

The Governor’s Office refused multiple requests to discuss details of the plan, which has not been released to the entire Legislature.

* * *

The Governor’s Office briefed House Speaker Kirk Adams and Senate President Russell Pearce on the plan in February, according to sources with knowledge of the meeting who could not comment publicly. And, for the most part, Republican lawmakers are eager to revamp the personnel system.

* * *

Brewer’s plan would also:

• Prohibit agencies from using seniority or tenure as a factor in determining layoffs.
• Raise Personnel Board member pay to $200 per meeting from $30.
• Require ADOA to establish uniform procedures and forms for agencies to verify education and work history of job applicant.
• Limit overtime pay to law enforcement and probation personnel, except where mandated by federal law.
• Eliminate the performance evaluation system for Arizona Department of Education employees, as well as a teacher salary study conducted by the department.

I have said before that Tea-Publicans want to repeal the 20th Century. This is clearly a return to the worst practices of the 19th Century. HB 2650 (County Employees) should be vetoed. The Governor's plan (State Employees) should be defeated. It is an uphill fight against both of these bad bills and the radical extremist Tea-Publicans behind them.

Here is a Thomas Nast cartoon depicting William M. "Boss" Tweed and the Tamanny Hall corruption of political patronage and cronyism. Will Arizona's political cartoonists revive Nast's tradition for Jan Brewer and her Tea-Publican cronies?

Marshall Home™, Billionaire Democratic Mayoral Candidate, is None of the Preceding Things

By Arizona Roadrunner

Tonight I witnessed an interesting meeting at Drinking Liberally with Tucson Democratic (sic) Mayoral candidate Marshall Home™. That's not a typo: Marshall has trademarked his name. And that is the tip of the weird iceberg that is the Marshall Home™ worldview.

If I told you that someone admired Michael Savage and Neal Bortz as really smart and courageous men, and that someone thought the only person on the Tucson City Council who isn't a corrupt idiot is Steve Kozachik, and that someone thinks that Obama is a Marxist, you probably would conclude that this person is not a Democrat. Well, that person is Marshall Home™.

Marshall told the gathering at Drinking Liberally that he decided to run as a Democrat because that's where the votes are in Tucson. He doesn't actually believe in the party system and identifies as an independent, but given that the majority of Tucsonans are registered Democrat, he figures that he stands the best chance of winning by competing for the Democratic nomination. I only wish it were that straight-forward: how to explain Mayor Walkup were that calculation correct?

Regardless of his, shall we say, utilitarian Democratic affiliation, Marshall is what I would call an extreme idiosyncratic constitutitionalist; the sort of person who claims we are all sovereign citizens. He believes citizens are not subject to statutory laws or taxation (unless you are an employee of the government), in radically reduced government, that the Federal Reserve should be abolished, government debt is a fraud, and judges are merely administrators of the federal corporation FDR declared bankrupt as part of the New Deal. In other words, he is one of the those people who wholly rejects the legitimacy of the Federal government and the entire modern bureaucratic state, a.k.a. a nut. Nice enough fellow, but certifiably a nut.

Marshall claims to be a multi-billionaire. I very much doubt that this vast wealth exists outside his own mind and a slew of specious default judgments obtained through the very court system he considers corrupt and illegitimate. He claims to have made his vast fortune by forming partnerships with people who have debts and then proving those debts to be fraudulent and taking a fee for his service. In this way, he represents litigants before the courts without having to be an attorney.

He claims to have a series of $500 million dollar default claims against a series of Arizona public officials, including Brewer, Bennett, and Martin, totaling $3.5 billion. He admits that he considers these judgments as part of his estate. Marshall also claims to have a default judgment against the city itself for $5 million dollars: I guess he doesn't need to worry about drawing a salary if elected, he can just enforce his judgment. In short, reports of his personal wealth are exaggerated at best, and more likely wholly fictive. I look forward to his financial disclosure, if he actually gets that far.

Asked what his aspirations are should he be elected Mayor, his main concern seems to be to "discharge the debt of Tucson", whatever that might entail. He can't be specific because he has to "study the documents" and he has to be Mayor to get an audit of the city finances to figure out how to deliver the people of Tucson into "solvency". He seems to think that he will discharge all of Tucson's liabilities by proving them fraudulent and the result of corruption.

His campaign literature lays out the basics of his platform. They include (a photo of his own flier):

 

While he presented these profundities to the folks at Drinking Liberally, he wore a golden plastic crown throughout the entire presentation to "remind folks that they are the sovereigns". To sum up: sovereign citizenship, voluntary compliance with laws and taxation, Grand Juries open to anyone to present indictments, jury nullification, abolish most debts as fraudulent. If these are your ideas, then Marshall Home™ is your candidate for Mayor.

Here's a shot of Marshall hosting one of his Independent Rights Parties. Note that several folks are wearing their crowns, denoting their sovereignty, presumably.

 

That Marshall Home™ could be reported by local media as a legitimate Democrat, a billionaire, and a serious candidate for Mayor simply illustrates how the press-release driven media culture has fundamentally undermined serious reporting. Two minutes of conversation with Marshall would reveal to anyone with a lick of goddamn sense that he is not a Democrat, not a billionaire, and not a serious candidate for anything other than king of his own world of make-believe.

 

Time to update the Arizona constitution: A few modest proposals

By Craig McDermott, cross-posted from Random Musings.

Apologies for the delay in posting this one here - turns out that venting isn't good for my speeling.  Had to correct a bunch of typos first.  Hope I caught them all. :)

 

This state is in serious trouble, the kind of trouble that won't be cleaned up for generations (if ever) and even then only if we started in on the mess right now. 

And, pardon my cynicism, I don't expect that to happen anytime soon.

As much as I would like to lay the blame for the mess we're in at the feet of the Republicans in the legislature (and their ideological and corporate masters), they're just a particularly odious symptom of the greater issue.

Voter apathy.

Too many voters don't pay attention to politics or the actions and votes of elected officials until an election is nigh by which time, the rhetoric is less about a calm and honest discussion of facts and more about people screaming into a TV camera - "MY CANDIDATE WALKS ON WATER!" "NO HE DOESN'T!  HE KICKS KITTENS AND DROWNS PUPPIES! - and most casual observers (and many not-so-casual ones, too) are thoroughly turned off and angry.

They look for someone to blame, and end up voting for whichever candidates or party provides them with a bumpersticker-simple slogan that best expresses/stokes their anger, and gives them a convenient target or two to direct their anger toward (i.e. - Russell Pearce, Jan Brewer, John Kavanagh, et. al. and their targeting of immigrants in general and Mexicans in particular).

As such, we end up with a legislature like the one that recently adjourned - corrupt, bigoted, and absolutely opposed to responsible governance.  I'd call it the most craven Arizona legislature ever, but something tells me that this was just a warm up for next year.

I freely admit that it will take someone brighter than me to figure out how to crack the voter apathy problem, but I do have a few ideas for reining in the baser urges of Pearce et. al. and their future equivalents


FIrst up, the BIG ONE:  Fiscal Responsibility and Stability
This is an iffy one because it relies on the same voters I've just criticized for apathy, but it's necessary.

1. The voters need to temporarily suspend the provision in Article 9, Section 22 of the Arizona Constitution that requires a 2/3 vote of the legislature to raise taxes.  When it is re-implemented, it should be with a matching provision that would require a similar 2/3 vote by the legislature to do anything that reduces state revenue, being through repeals, rate reductions, credits, incentives, or whatever.

Simply put, even the "good" members of the legislature are rank amateurs who are heavily influenced by the pressures and vagaries of short-term political need and almost always forego proposals and plans that involve incurring near-term costs while reaping long-term benefits.

It should not be easy to raise taxes (hence the temporary suspension, not a permanent repeal), but that 2/3 provision has been used cripple the state's fiscal stability.  For more than a generation, the state's Republicans have lowered taxes, particularly for the wealthy and corporations, via a simple majority vote, but a small cadre of ideologues has used the 2/3 provision to block any attempts to correct the state's fiscal and revenue situation.

Finally, to make this work, the voters will need to elect Democrats for at least the four years of the suspension.  Some will say that is just my partisanship speaking, but in this case, my thinking is rooted in simple political reality.

It will take at least 47 members (31 House, 16 Senate) to make up the legislative majority needed to do this, and there aren't 47 Republicans in the state with the juice to make it through a primary and the spine to do what's right for the state, much less 47 who'll stand for office.

In very practical terms, the Democrats are needed.

2.  Related to #1, the voters should pass a referendum to require that each and every current legislatively-granted tax credit, reduction, deduction, etc. be referred to the voters over the following three election cycles.  If a particular provision isn't approved by the voters, whether through direct disapproval or because it didn't go before the voters, that provision ceases to exist.  The recipients of special interest tax breaks would have to stand before hundreds of thousands of voters to justify their special treatment, not just slip a few bribes campaign contributions and "educational trips" to a few lawmakers.


Other provisions (some could be done in statute, but others would have be be changes to the AZ Constitution) -

- When speaking or writing or otherwise communicating on public matters, all elected officials and all active candidates for office should be considered to be under oath until Election day (if they lose the election) or until the end of their terms (if they win).  Too much bad public policy is justified on the basis of propaganda and outright lies.

Violations would result in a perjury charge, and conviction on that charge would result in removal from office (or removal from the ballot, in the case of candidates) and ineligibility for elected office for the next two complete election cycles.

-  Any measures passed during "special" sessions need a 2/3 vote of each chamber to pass

- Appropriations and revenue bills cannot be considered or passed during "special" sessions of the lege.

- The budget must be balanced and passed by the end of the first business day in April.  If it isn't balanced and passed by then, all consideration of non-budget measures is suspended until it is done.

- If it isn't complete by the end of the first business day in May, all consideration of non-budget measures ceases for the duration of the legislative session.

- If the budget isn't complete - balanced, passed, and signed into law - by the end of the first business day of June, the governor and the 90 members of the legislature shall be incarcerated until a balanced budget is passed and enacted.  They will be held in a temporary holding facility constructed on the grounds of the Capitol Mall. 

Think Arpaio's tent city, just without the creature comforts, and located at Wesley Bolin Plaza.  And with bleachers set up outside the fence so that the public has the opportunity to observe the legislature in its natural environment.  :))

I figure they hold out for a maximum of three nights, spent try to get some sleep while learning which of the Weiers brothers snores the loudest and trying to ignore the wonderful aroma from the bank of porta-potties wafting through the tent.  :)

- With the exception of ballot referrals specifically required by the voters (such as the affirmation/overturning of special interest tax breaks above), the legislature shall refer no more than five measures to the ballot in any one two-year period, including measures for which a special election is called.

- "Emergency" measures, those that go into effect immediately upon the signature of the governor, currently require a 2/3 vote of each chamber to enact the "emergency" clause.  Unfortunately, the word "emergency" has changed in meaning to that of "politically expedient." 

Witness HB2191, a bill to bar the award of punitive damages to undocumented immigrants. 

It was designed to protect a specific rancher who unlawfully held a number of immigrants at gunpoint and was later ordered to pay damages.  This concept deeply offended the nativists in the legislature, and they used their positions to railroad through this bill in time to exempt the rancher from having to actually pay his debt.

Because of the abuse of the "emergency" clause, it's time to move the enactment threshold to a 3/4 vote.  If the abuse continues, we'll have to move the threshold to a unanimous vote.

- No "suspension of the rules" regarding time requirements would be allowed during special sessions.  Under most circumstances, it takes at least three days to pass a measure.  However, by a 2/3 vote, the rules, such as those requiring a certain amount of notice before a bill can be considered, can be suspended.  Too many bad bills have been all-but-completely-hidden from public view and input by passing them during one day special sessions.

- In cases where a legislator invokes or is granted immunity from arrest for an act committed during the legislative session, the prosecution "process clock" (the best term this non-attorney can come up with) is suspended for the duration of the legislative session.  In most cases, prosecutors have a limited amount of time to bring a case forward and losing 2, 3, or even 4 months to inaction because of "legislative immunity" can potentially impact their ability to seek justice.  Prosecutors with a legitimate case should not be penalized because a defendant is an elected official.

Yes, this is squarely pointed at Sen. Scott Bundgaard's domestic abuse incident.

- If the legislature passes and the governor signs or otherwise allows to become law a measure that is later overturned in federal or state court as unconstitutional, the legislators who voted for the measure and the governor shall be personally liable for the costs that the state incurred defending the measure.  A "good faith" exception would be made for measures that garnered at least a 3/4 vote in each chamber of the legislature.

- Measures cannot be considered by the legislature between the hours of 9 p.m and 7 a.m...this is one that I believe that most sitting legislators won't have an objection to...Particularly ones who have experienced one or more of the lege's infamous overnight sessions.

-  Lastly (for now), ethics and corruption laws would be significantly, even harshly, tightened up.  The lobbyist gift limit, currently set at $10, would become zero.  Meals, even those offered to every legislator, would be disallowed.  Inducements, such as trips and junkets, even "educational" ones, would be completely barred.

Violations would be Class Two felonies for both the givers and the recipients.  Convictions would carry a minimum sentence of five years in state prison per violation, and the terms for multiple offenses would have to be served consecutively.

It's one thing to disagree with an elected official on policy matters - it's politics, and politcs is all about disagreement.  If someone can't accept that with at least a little aplomb and maturity, they should consider staying away from politics entirely.

However, it's another thing entirely when the elected officials involved have no credibility because people have evidence that the electeds are dirty, crafting public policy based on "inducements" (aka - "bribes") from special interests.

Right now, Arizona government in general, and the state legislature in particular, is viewed as unprofessional, petty, and corrupt.

It's long past time to restore the honor and credibility of state government, even if the participants don't like it...and trust me, they won't.


...Thank you for allowing me to vent.  I'm under no illusions here - most of these ideas have no chance of ever becoming law.  However, one of my reasons for starting my own blog was to serve as an outlet for expressions of frustration with what is wrong with Arizona.

After watching this legislature in action since January, some frustration has built up.

Mari Herreras comments on Ethnic Studies resolution

by David Safier

The Weekly's Range has an extensive comment by Mari Herreras on the Ethnic Studies resolution proposed by TUSD Board President Mark Stegeman. Among the concerns she raises about the resolution is the question, why now?

While Stegeman, Pedicone and the board's particular brand of "support" for ethnic studies often seems downright odd, the timing of this resolution from Stegeman is peculiar, too. The lawsuit filed last year by the 11 TUSD Mexican-American studies teachers only had its first day in court this week. Current state Superintendent of Public Instruction John Huppethal's audit of the classes won’t be completed until mid- to late-May.

Why can’t changes to Mexican-American studies, if any, be discussed after Huppenthal’s audit or after the lawsuit? Logically, it would make sense to wait.

I agree. Pull the resolution from the Tuesday Board meeting (4 p.m. at TUSD Headquarters, 1010 E. 10th St.) and wait to see what happens in the lawsuit and the audit. A preemptive compromise, which to my way of thinking is more of a preemptive surrender, doesn't make sense as a way of dealing with the Huppenthals, Hornes and Pearces of the world, and it especially doesn't make sense when there is a reasonable chance the outcome of the lawsuit against the anti-ethnic studies bill will change the situation dramatically.

Herreras also writes about one of the intangible values of the MAS program, which can't be measured directly by standardized tests or graduation rates:

Auggie Romero, who is responsible for putting together the Mexican-American studies program, told me the secret to MAS isn't just teaching students a bigger part of the story; it's also teaching them with love, compassion and an interest in everything about their students — their lives, their families and their dreams.

Rather than focusing on trying to figure out how to dilute what exists, why aren’t critics and the board thinking of ways to expand these concepts in classrooms and departments throughout the district? After all, MAS has been proven to work for students of all races as classes of academic substance.

The final paragraph is a plea for locals to get involved as they have in other efforts to make TUSD more responsive to community needs.

Miguel Ortega, a member of the MAS community advisory board, has explained that the greater community is the missing piece. Those who fought to have a program like University High School, those who came out to save schools from closing three years ago and helped begin projects like the Arizona Education Network, and those who say they care about public education and work to protect it—all of you should join the students, parents and teachers who've been showing up on their own to save these classes. They need you now.

You can read my post about problems with the resolution here. The complete resolution is at the end of that post.

Blog for AZ issues a challenge: If you think you can do a better job of running this city, then you run for office and let the voters decide

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

"Of course you realize, this means war!"
— Groucho Marx, then later Bugs Bunny

I have had enough of the constant bashing of the City of Tucson by its local daily newspaper, the Arizona Daily Star. Ever since Lee Enterprises bought what was once a great local newspaper, the Star has degenerated into a rag resembling Rupert Murdoch's New York Post. It is gradually drifting towards becoming the Weekly World News (of "Bat Boy" fame).

The systematic destruction of a once great local newspaper should be considered a crime in a country that enshrined the media as the only business expressly given constitutionally protected rights in the U.S. Constitution. The editors and publisher of the Arizona Daily Star are abusing this sacred trust.

The problem as I understand it from speaking to people familiar with the operations of the Arizona Daily Star is "Metro Team Leader" editor Joe Burchell, and his boys frick and frack: "news" reporter Rob O'Dell, whose reporting contains so much editorial commentary it belongs on the opinion page, and "opinion" columnist Josh Brodesky whose column runs in the news section instead of on the opinion page where it belongs. The Star has erased the traditional firewall between news content and opinion content -- following the FAUX News Fraudcasting model.

These three individuals hold a mighty high opinion of themselves and believe that they can do a better job of running the City of Tucson than anyone else. Well, Blog For Arizona issues a challenge: If you think you can do a better job of running this city, then you run for office and let the voters decide. Resign from the Star and file to run for office on Monday morning. Seriously. Let's hear your solutions instead of your constant sniping from the sidelines. Face the voters.

There is a bizarre unsigned editorial opinion in the Sunday Arizona Daily Star (the author should take ownership and identify him or herself), that is gratuitous Tucson bashing in an opinion ironically captioned Tucson needs you to quit carping and get involved (the author should take a hard look in the mirror):

These days there are few things that pull Tucsonans together better than a good old Rio Nuevo or City Council bashing.

The city's perpetual state of dysfunction can be a politically unifying force. It's a conversation point where most of us can set aside our differences and agree the city is in a sorry state.

This is, in fact, the Arizona Daily Star's business model for selling newspapers. "Always with the negative waves." And it is an entirely false premise. The Arizona Daily Star can get away with pushing this false narrative because it entirely fails to report any news from the great state of Maricopa. If you want an example of truly dysfunctional government, Maricopa County and its satellite cities have offered up a smorgasbord of political corruption, scandals. investigations, lawsuits, recall elections, etc. over the past several years. Regular readers of The Arizona Republic are well aware of this drama. If you only read our sad small-town newspaper the Arizona Daily Star, however, you would be completely unaware of these facts because the Star fails to report relevant news.

By comparison and contrast to our bullying neighbor to the north, Pima County and the City of Tucson are a model of civility and efficiency in government. Tucson is an island of serenity compared to the drama of our bullying neighbor to the north. Context is everything. By failing to report any of the drama that has been playing out in the great state of Maricopa for years, the Star can frame a false narrative to serve its own economic and political agenda -- which I will suggest is driven by its major advertising partners.

[T]his kind of civic schadenfreude does nothing to make things better. Complaining doesn't change things. Outrage only goes so far. There is no joy in our failures.

The only way to change the course of the city is for quality people to run for office and get involved. So ask yourself, has that happened? Maybe we get the elected officials we deserve.

Once again, the author should take a good hard look in the mirror. If you think you can do a better job of running this city, then you run for office and let the voters decide.

The opinion devolves into gratuitous Tucson bashing and more of the Star's false narrative to sell newspapers (see above), by quoting from the Viceroy of Tucson, Jonathan "Payday" Paton, whom the author clearly has a crush on (we know that the Star's major advertisers do):

Former state Sen. Jonathan Paton summed up the cynical condition of our city and its politics eloquently in last Sunday's Star. Paton was explaining why he won't be running for mayor, despite some Republicans asking him to join the race.

"I guess it's sort of like, the position itself is set up to lose," he told the Star's Rhonda Bodfield. "It's a very weak form of government, and I really don't see myself as a ribbon-cutting kind of guy."

As a state senator, Paton had no problem injecting himself in city politics, crafting the now-rejected law that would have forced the city into non-partisan elections. He believed that law would improve city governance, and even in defeat this week he was quick to lob a volley at the city.

"If you look at Tucson, it is easily the worst-run city in the state," he told Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services after the Arizona Court of Appeals overturned his law.

Given his comments - that he believes the city is the worst-run in the state, and that he is not into ribbon cutting - perhaps Paton should consider running for City Council. After all, Paul Cunningham is up for re-election in Paton's ward. Regina Romero and Shirley Scott are also up for re-election.

Once again, by comparison and contrast to our bullying neighbor to the north, Pima County and the City of Tucson are a model of civility and efficiency in government. Tucson is an island of serenity compared to the drama of our bullying neighbor to the north. Context is everything. By failing to report on the drama that has been playing out in the great state of Maricopa for years, the Star can frame a false narrative to serve its own economic and political agenda.

And I would suggest to the author that someone who is so openly hostile to the City of Tucson as Jonathan "Payday" Paton has no business serving on the Rio Nuevo Development Board. He can only be a divisive force who actively seeks to undermine the City of Tucson - that's what he was appointed by state of Maricopa politicians to do. If he truly cared about the City of Tucson, he would do the right thing and resign.

The author winds up his or her woeful lament with this missive:

Compared to all of the other non-candidates we have out there on the sidelines - who love to complain about the city, but won't get involved - maybe Asta's the kind of mayor we deserve.

Once again, the author should take a good hard look in the mirror. If you think you can do a better job of running this city, then you run for office and let the voters decide. Or stop your "always with the negative waves" whining.

Political Calendar: Week of April 24, 2011

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

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

Today, of course, is Easter Sunday. For all who celebrate today, have a Happy Easter!

Political Calendar For The Week of April 24, 2011

Sundays, 6:00 p.m.: Drinking Liberally, at The Shanty, 401 E. 9th Street (at 4th Avenue). An informal, inclusive progressive social group, and lively discussion. This week our special guest will be Marshall Home, Democratic Candidate for Mayor of Tucson, promptly at 6:00 p.m. Contact: www.livingliberallytucson.org.

Monday, April 25, Noon: Democrats of Greater Tucson luncheon, Dragon's View Restaurant (400 N. Bonita, South of St. Mary's Road between the Freeway and Grande Avenue, turn South at Furr's Cafeteria), buffet lunch costs $8.50. Featured speaker is Nancy La Placa, Policy Advisor to Arizona Corporation Commissioner Paul Newman: Securing Arizona’s energy future. Visit DGT's web site at www.tucsondemocrats.org. Next Week: Rep. Steve Farley (LD 28) and Rep. Marcario Saldate (LD 27) for a legislative update.

Monday, April 25, 6:00 p.m.: Legislative District 27 meeting, at the Main Library, 101 N. Stone Avenue (parking in basement under library). Tentative speaker is Supervisor Richard Elías. For more information please contact Greg Wagner, (520) 784-8355 or gregory.m.wagner@gmail.com.

Monday. April 25, 6:30 p.m.: PDA Tucson Chapter Spring Membership Meeting, at the Hotel Tucson City Center, 475 N. Granada Avenue (junction of St. Mary's Road and Granada, just East of I-10). Doors open at 6:30 p.m., meeting at 7:00 p.m. Featured speakers are Congressman Raúl M. Grijalva on the "Progressive's Strategy for Upcoming Budget Debate," and Andrea Witte from MoveOn.org and Connect The Dots on "Budgets and Deficits and Debt, Oh My!" Suggested donation of $5. Public is invited to atttend. For more information please contact Phil Lopes at (520) 861-7654 or lopesphil@gmail.com.

Monday, April 25, 6:30 p.m.: Saguaro Eastside Democrats meeting, at the New Spirit Lutheran Church, 8701 E. Old Spanish Trail (northeast corner of Camino Seco). Featured speaker is Paul Eckerstrom, Co-Chair of the Start Our State movement to make Pima County (Baja Arizona) the 51st state, will speak on the non-binding referendum for the 2012 ballot. Q & A to follow. Socializing with light refreshments begins at 6:30 p.m. Program at 7:00 p.m. Meetings of SED are free and open to the public. You do not have to be a member to attend. For more information please call Pat Wiedhopf at (520) 850-6755.

Monday, April 25, 6:30 p.m.: AZ Democratic Legislative Caucus Legislative Salute fundraiser, at the Arizona Historical Society in Papago Park (Phoenix). This exciting event will feature "A Taste of Arizona" highlighting food and beverages from local restaurants, many of which will be prepared for guests as they watch. This unique reception-style event will offer guests excellent one-on-one interaction with our legislators. We can’t wait to come together to honor our Democratic state legislators. Hope to see you there! Please RSVP to Aaron latham at alatham@azdem.org or (602) 234-6828.

Tuesday, April 26, 6:00 p.m.: You are warmly invited along with multitudes of fellow friends of Harry to celebrate Harry Mitchell and his legacy of service to our community with food, laughter, and of course beer, at the Tempe Center For The Arts, 700 W. Rio Salado (Tempe). Cost: Sponsor $1,000, Co-Host $250, individual $50 per ticket. Proceeds to benefit the Arizona Democratic Party. Click here to purchase tickets or RSVP to Reed Adamson at radamson@azdem.org or (602) 234-6836.

Tuesday, April 26, 6:30 p.m.: Legislative District 21 State Budget Forum, at the Downtown Library, 2nd Floor, 22 S. Delaware Street (Chandler). An opportunity for progressive citizens to respond to the Republican-dominated Legislature's budget priorities and to offer priorities of their own. For more information please contact William Gates at (480) 883-7410 or billgates@wbhsi.net.

Tuesday, April 26, 7:00 p.m.: Legislative District 26 meeting, at Metro Water (Board Room), 6265 N. La Cañada Drive. Note change of date (this month only). Featured speaker is U of A professor John Schwarz. For more information please contact Brian Clymer at (520) 323-1234.

Wednesday, April 27, 6:00 p.m.: Legislative District 25 meeting, at the Wheeler Taft Abbett, Sr. Library, 6800 N. Schisler Drive (Marana). Featured speaker is David Fitzsimmons, cartoonist and humorist for the Arizona Daily Star. For more information please contact Jeff Lawrence at AZLD25@aol.com. See Legislative District 25 Democrats Special Event.

Wednesday, April 27, 6:00 p.m.: Pima Young Working Democrats meeting, at A Whole Lot of People for Grijalva Campaign office, 452 S. Stone Ave. (Tucson). For more information please contact Greg Wagner at (520) 784-8355 or gregory.m.wagne​r@gmail.com.

April 27 - May 1: Verde Valley Fair, at 800 E. Cherry Street (Cottonwood). This year the theme is "Cowboy Boots and Country Roots." For more information call (928) 634-3290 or see Verde Valley Fair.

Thursday, April 28, 4:00 p.m.: Worker's Memorial Day vigil, at the Tucson Federal Building, 300 W. Congress Street (Tucson). Join the United Steelworkers and other unions of the Pima Area Labor Federation as we honor the dead and fight for the living. Workers Memorial Day honors those workers who went to work at the start of their shift and did not come home safely. We will be at the Federal Building for a vigil to remind the Department of Labor the members of Congress that Safe Jobs Save Lives. For more information see FB page http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=160295774032122&ref=mf. From the AFL-CIO blog: April 28 was chosen as Workers Memorial Day because it is the anniversary of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the date the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) went into effective. This year is the 40th anniversary of both, and the law has saved an estimated 431,000 lives since 1970. As part of the 22nd annual Workers Memorial Day, workers across the country will honor those killed on the BP Deepwater/Horizon rig and the thousands more killed on the job each year. (Click here to find a Workers Memorial Day event near you or to register an event).

Thursday, April 28, 5:30 p.m.: Tucson City Council Member Paul Cunningham Campaign Kickoff, at the Nimbus Bistro, 6464 E. Tanque Verde Road. Please RSVP to (520) 339-1983 or RSVP@CunninghamforCouncil.com.

Thursday, April 28, 7:00 p.m.: Heritage Highlands Democrats meeting, at the Dove Mountain clubhouse (Marana). Guest speaker is Penelope Jacks of the Children's Action Alliance, who will discuss efforts in early childhood development in Arizona with a focus on children's health-care issues. No contact information.

Space Shuttle Endeavor Launch Watch Party With The Cactus Roots Team

Friday, April 29, 11:00 a.m.: Mark Kelly will command the Space Shuttle Endeavor as it heads to the International Space Station on Friday, April 29, and while we all can't be at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida to see him and his crew lift off into space, we can watch together here in Tucson. Please join us, and if you have any little astronauts of your own -- bring them along. Every child who comes out will receive an official STS-134 mission patch! We will be cheering for both Mark and Gabrielle as we watch the launch at the Trident Grill, 2033 E. Speedway Blvd. (East of Campbell Avenue). Appetizers will be served, and the rest of the menu will be available at a discount. All are welcome, and we hope to see you there. Please sign up here to let us know you’ll be joining us on April 29th for the Watch Party!

Friday, April 29, 6:30 p.m.: LD 19 Democrats Arbor Day Celebration, at Tia Rosa’s Restaurant, Back Lawn Area, 3129 E. McKellips Road (west of Arboleda), Mesa. Delicious Buffet; Raffle Prizes; Music. Please join us for a beautiful evening under the trees with musical guest Rodney Glassman. Come and meet your local officials, former & future candidates and your Mesa neighbors and help raise funds to get “eco-friendly” candidates elected in 2012. Tickets are available to order online at www.ld19dems.org for $25 each prior to the event. You can also pay $30 at the door but tickets are limited to the first 100 people to RSVP. Please RSVP to: Connie Finneman at connie@ld19dems.org or Kit Filbey at kit@maxion.us by April 15th.

Saturday, April 30, 8:00 a.m.-Noon: Bisbee Earth Day in Vista Park. Mule Mountain Democrats and the Cochise County Democratic Party will work a booth together at the event. For more information please contact Sandy Hummingbird at Sandyhummingbird@cs.com or Rich Brownell at seelifedive@gmail.com.

Saturday, April 30, 9:00 a.m.: The League of Women Voters of Greater Tucson host a moderator training workshop, at the Sam Lena Branch Library, 1607 S. Sixth Avenue. The deadline to reserve a spot is April 27. To RSVP and for more inforamtion please contact (520) 740-5779.

Saturday, April 30, 5:30 p.m.: Coconino County Democratic Party's Annual Roosevelt-Kennedy Dinner fundraiser, at the High Country Conference Center, 201 E. Butler Avenue (Flagstaff). Keynote Speaker is Felecia Rotellini. Reservations are $85 per person, $100 after April 22nd. Tables of 8 are available. Make reservations online at our webpage or by mailing a check to: CCDEMS, P.O. Box 701, Flagstaff, AZ 86002 (please provide the names of attendees and meal choices). For more information please contact Kelsey Blakley at (928) 214-0393 or kelseyb@ccdem.org.

Note: for additional Democratic Party events around the state see http://azdem.org/events/Calendar/

Special Announcements:

Tucson May 1st Coalition Presents May Day 2011 March and Rally

Sunday, May 1, 9:00 a.m.: Tucson May 1st Coalition presents the May Day 2011 March, meet at Greyhound Park (SE corner 4th Avenue and 36th St.) at 9:00 a.m., and we will march to the Rally at Armory Park (SE corner of 6th Avenue and 13th St.) at 11:30 a.m. For more information please visit: www.tucsonmay1st.org.

Sun City Grand Dems - Fiesta Mexicana

Sunday, May 1, 5:30 p.m.: Sun City Grand Dems Fiesta Mexicana dinner, at the beautiful golf course home of Guy & Karen Maestas. Musical Stylings by our own Selma Stoorman. Tickets on sale now $25.00/person. For more information please contact Catherine Andrews at (623) 256-6038 or cathy.andrews@cox.net. Or mail your check made payable to Grand Dems to: Cathy Andrews, 15006 W. Cooperstown Way, Surprise 85374.

Monday, May 2, 6:30 p.m.: Pima County Democratic Party Executive Committee meeting.

Tuesday, May 3, 7:00 p.m.: Greater Huachuca Area Democrats meeting, at Cochise County Democratic Party HQ, 1010 Fry Blvd. (Sierra Vista). For more information please contact Margaret "Maggs" Burkert-Smith at 520-378-0152 (home) or 480-650-7657 (cell).

Wednesday, May 4, 7:00 p.m.: Legislative District 28 meeting, at Pima County Democratic Party HQ, 4639 E. 1st Street (one block South of speedway, West of Swan). Legislative update from our LD 28 legislators. For more information please contact Ted Prezelski at (520) 326-3716 (leave message) or prezelski@aol.com.

Saturday, May 7, 10:00 a.m.: Legislative District 30 meeting, at  location TBD. For more information please contact Andre Mixon at (520) 990-1682 or remix8@yahoo.com.

DCSRA Discussion Group

Wednesdays, 10:30 a.m.: Democratic Club of the Santa Rita Area hosts a Current Events Discussion Group at Democratic Headquarters - Green Valley, Continental Shopping Plaza, 240 Continental Road (Green Valley). Join us at the weekly meeting of the Democratic Headquarters Current Events Discussion Group. We'll talk about some of the major events of the previous week, including but not limited to political topics, and try and go behind the news for a deeper understanding. For more information please contact Kathy at thekilleens@gmail.com.

Legislative District 9 Cinco de Mayo Fiesta at Sun City Democratic Club

Thursday, May 5, 5:30 p.m: Manny Cruz and his mother are cooking his famous tacos and her delicious enchilada casseroles for the Cinco de Mayo Fiesta at the Sun City Democratic Club, at Sundial East Hall, Sundial Recreation center on Boswell and 103rd (in Sun City). Members of this 52 year old club are delighted that Manny Cruz, now heading up his Foundation for Safe Closures of Abandoned Mines, agreed to serve as chef and main attraction at the club's last meeting of the season. Shirley McAllister will serve margaritas to those dining at the Fiesta. Tickets are $10 per person. For more information and reservations plese contact Shirley McAllister at (623) 876-9198 or sunmacaz@cox.net. The public is invited.

Emerge Arizona Annual Fundraiser

Friday, May 13, 6:00 p.m.: Emerge Arizona Annual Fundraiser at the Wyndham Hotel Phoenix, 50 E. Adams Street (Phoenix). Keynote speaker is Gloria Feldt. "Gloria Feldt is a nationally renowned activist and author, whose passion for social justice has propelled her life’s work. Her new book, No Excuses: 9 Ways Women Can Change How We Think About Power... reveals why women are stuck at 18% of top leadership roles and through both inspirational stories and practical tools, shows how women can redefine power, lead themselves with intention, and reach parity..."; We will be honoring our Woman of The Year, Rep. Anna Tovar, for her efforts to preserve organ donor transplant funding. General admission is $75 in advance, $100 at the door. Sponsorship Opportunities are available. Please email EmergeAZ@gmail.com or (602) 697-4905 for more information.

Cochise County Democratic Party Picnic

Saturday, May 14, Noon: The tradition of the Cochise County Democratic Party Picnic returns at the home of Victor and Susan Walker (Sierra Vista). Keynote Speaker will be Sen. Paula Aboud (LD 28). Tickets are $15 individual, $25 family. Silent auction and a 50/50 raffle. The menu will be brats and veggie burgers, potato salad, baked beans, chips and drinks. DJ music. Tickets may be purchased at www.actblue.com/page/cochisepicnic11. In addition to the basic $15 and $25 ticket options, you will find Aboud, Bratwurst, and Victory levels. For more information please contact Victor and Susan Walker at walkers80@cox.net.

Pinal County Democratic Party Fun, Food & BBQ Fundraiser

Saturday, May 14, 5:00 p.m.: Pinal County Democratic Party Fun, Food & BBQ Fundraiser, at the Orlenda's Home, 8125 W. Bartlett Road (Casa Grande). Come have fun, food & BBQ, entertainment provided. Cool & casual. Please RSVP to Pinal County Democrat's office at pinaldemocrat@gmail.com.

LD 15 May's Just Desserts

Saturday, May 14, 6:30 p.m.: LD 15 May's Just Desserts fundraiser, at 910 W. Willetta Street (Phoenix). May’s Just Deserts is our annual fund raising event where we all get together with special guests and eat lots of tasty deserts. If you like chocolate and such you won’t want to miss this event. Our Special Guests this year will be, LD 15 Representatives Katie Hobbs and Lela Alston. State Senator Kyrsten Sinema and Mayoral Candidate Greg Stanton. Cost: General $15, Seniors, Students, Veterans $10. For more information see the LD 15 Event and Meeting Calendar.

Political Cartoon of The Week

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Arizona's "Birthers" were apoplectic this week that Gov. Brewer vetoed their beloved "Birther" bill. Republican members of Congress holding town halls during the Easter break are coming under hostile questioning from constituents as they try to defend their vote to end Medicare as we know it and "trickle up" the savings in tax cuts to the "two percenters." And on the one year anniversary of the worst oil spill in American history, it is clear that we have learned nothing from the experience.