Blog For Arizona

Ethnic Studies Forum Wednesday, 6pm

by David Safier

The Ethnic Studies forum on Wednesday, June 1, is not to be confused with the forum TUSD Superintendent Pedicone has talked about. This is being put together by the Mexican American Studies Advisory Board. It's purpose is to present the Ethnic Studies perspective. After a number of speakers, the last half hour or more will be devoted to a question and answer session.

The forum will be held at Most Holy Trinity Catholic Church, 1300 North Greasewood (west of I-10, just north of Speedway). It begins at 6pm and will probably run at least until 8pm.

I plan to be there. Come by and say hi.

A good day to be an Arizonan

by David Safier

AZ Blue Meanie already posted about the Recall Pearce petitions being submitted to the Secretary of State's office, but I want to say Wow. And Yippee. A Hooray is in order as well.

The Meanie showed a photo of Rany Parraz holding a Recall Pearce poster. Here's a shot of the first petition submitted, held by one of the generation of people who could benefit most from the toppling of our petty tyrant and running a few of his cronies out of town the Capitol. (Both shots are by Ryan Cook in the Capitol Times article. Very nice work.)

Four points worth making.

One, Chad Snow is the chair of Citizens for a Better Arizona. He's a Republican and a Mormon. This isn't some Democrats-only drive. I heard stories of people who had voted for Pearce and couldn't wait to sign the petitions.

Two, the recall vote won't be Pearce running against token Republican opposition in the primary with only Republicans voting, then running against a Democrat in the general. This time, he can be challenged by a Republican, and everyone in the district, Ds, Rs and Is, will be able to vote, and lots of people who hadn't voted in previous elections could make it to the polls. Pearce is far from a sure thing.

Three, the group turned in 18,315 signatures, even though they only need 7,756 for the recall to happen.That represents more votes than Pearce got in the general.

Four, the media loves this story, at least in the Phoenix area, which is great, because it means this won't fly below the voters' radar. If the Star doesn't give it decent coverage in a prominent position in the paper tomorrow, it will be shameful on their part. Pearce is important to all Arizona, not just Mesa.

Expect some very devious maneuvers by Pearce and his cronies before this thing is over. The success of the recall effort is humiliating to these folks, and a vote that ousts Pearce would be much, much worse -- or much, much  better, depending on your perspective.

Arizona’s Failure of Leadership

By Karl Reiner

During the nearly forgotten Cold War, the Berlin Wall was seen as a symbol of oppression. Successive U.S. presidents often used the wall as a speech site. For years, Americans cheered when brave souls managed to cross the formidable barrier to seek freedom and safety in West Germany. The wall was an ugly part of a terrible Communist system, one that that shot people for trying to escape to a better life in the West.  In Arizona, the thinking regarding border walls has reversed itself over time.  They have become a necessity for the state.

Although they were mostly unconcerned during the years federal border controls tightened in the states to the east and west of Arizona, our astute lawmakers recently decided to have Arizona build its own wall to stem the flow of illegal border crossers. When the law becomes effective in July, residents will be able to make contributions to the project on a website. The state is presently unable to devote more funding to the effort because the legal bills arising out of the SB 1070 entanglement have to be paid.

The federal government (with long experience in Berlin) knows that border security does not come cheap. Well over a $1 billion has been spent on border technology since 2005.  It is estimated it will cost another $750 million to secure Arizona’s border, the work spread over a four year timeframe. It is unclear how the federal project and Arizona’s state-built wall will be coordinated.  We should hope that the erection of duplicate barriers along Arizona’s border can be avoided.

Arizona’s Border Security Advisory Committee is composed of house and senate members, plus the governor’s appointees. It recently met and rejected a request for help from Arizona’s businesspeople. The business group had the audacity to seek the committee’s support for increasing the staff at Arizona’s busy ports of entry. The businesspeople fear Arizona will see commercial traffic move to other states because the lack of customs officers is keeping many truck and car inspection lanes closed. By rejecting the plea, the petulant committee made it plain it cares little for Arizona’s trade with Mexico.  The committee would rather focus on the border barrier.          

The federal government is going to start an advertising campaign designed to encourage more immigrants to become American citizens, to become integrated into society. The effort hopes to reach the 7 million immigrants who are eligible to file applications to become naturalized citizens but haven’t done so.  It is part of a program approved by Congress, costing $3.5 million over three years.  It is doubtful if the effort will get support from Arizona’s leadership.

In the 4.5 years the Mexican government has been campaigning against the drug trafficking cartels, nearly 35,000 people have been killed.  The violence has escalated to the point that demonstrations against it have been held across the country. People are demanding that the government act to improve the safety of the country’s common citizens.  The demonstrators are also urging the United States to do more to stem the flow of weapons going to the drug cartels.   Since they seem to view Mexico as a hostile foreign power, Arizona lawmakers don’t appear to have any reason to tighten the controls on weapon purchases made in the state.

A corrosive culture of suspicion has taken hold in the U.S., especially in Arizona.  The country is growing brittle and less tolerant.  A nation whose prosperity was built on openness to the world now cringes in fear, clamoring to shut down its borders.  Unfortunately, it is locking out many of the eager immigrants needed to keep the American economy functioning in the future. Leaders at all levels blithely continue to ignore the fact that the nation’s workforce has to be maintained.  Someone has to pay for the retirement benefits going to the baby boomers.

Improving relations with neighboring countries, reducing prison populations and promoting the rule of law have been proven to save governments money. A respect for private property, a stable business environment, reasonable regulation and high levels of education are additional factors giving economies a good boost.

Arizona’s leadership could support private or federal programs aiming to change Mexico’s economic climate, thereby creating jobs on both sides of the border. Corruption has always been a drag on economic development, but palm-greasing to get things done is a fact of life in Mexico. Transparency International estimates endemic corruption in Mexico forced the country’s residents to pay about $2.5 billion in bribes in 2010. Showing a little support for Mexico’s reformers would not be a bad thing.       

Income inequality has been a problem in all of Latin America. It is where many of the world’s most unequal countries are located. In Mexico, the richest 20% of households account for nearly 60% of national income. The bottom 20% of Mexican households gets around 5% of the nation’s income. Mexico’s income inequality contributes to the migration problem so worrying to Arizona’s lawmakers. It also hampers economic development.  

Improving infrastructure, allowing more competition and loosening the grip of inefficient state-run monopolies would improve Mexico’s economic prospects, creating jobs and trade. Instead of ignoring the need, Arizona’s leaders could bestir themselves to promote involvement in those areas. It would be a much better investment than building the Arizona wall.  

 

The Affordable Care Act and the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP)

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

For your information via Cheri.

The Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP) was created under the Affordable Care Act to ensure more Americans with pre-existing conditions have access to affordable health insurance and serves as a bridge to 2014 when insurers will no longer be allowed to deny coverage to people with any pre-existing condition, like cancer, diabetes, and asthma. Changes to the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan in Your State | HealthCare.gov:

In 23 states and the District of Columbia, the PCIP program is federally-administered.  The remaining states operate their own PCIP programs using federal funds provided by the Affordable Care Act.

Reducing Premiums and Easing Eligibility

On May 31, 2011, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced new steps to reduce premiums and make it easier for Americans to enroll in federally-administrated PCIP programs: 

• Premiums will drop as much as 40 percent in 17 states and the District of Columbia.  These premium decreases help bring PCIP premiums closer to the rates in each state’s individual insurance market; in the six states where PCIP premiums were already well-aligned with state premiums, premiums will remain the same.
• Eligibility standards will be eased in all 23 states and the District of Columbia where PCIP is federally-administered to ensure more Americans with pre-existing conditions have access to affordable health insurance. Starting July 1, 2011, people applying for coverage can simply provide a letter from a doctor, physician assistant, or nurse practitioner dated within the past 12 months stating that they have or, at any time in the past, had a medical condition, disability, or illness.  Applicants will no longer have to wait on an insurance company to send them a denial letter.  Applicants will still need to meet other eligibility criteria, including that they are U.S. citizens or residing in the U.S. legally and that they have been without health coverage for six months.

In the chart below, you can find how PCIP premiums will be changing in states with federally-administered PCIP programs.

State	PCIP Premium Reduction
Alabama	-40.0%
Arizona	-40.0%
Delaware	-40.0%
District of Columbia	-18.3%
Florida	-40.0%
Georgia	-15.5%
Hawaii	No Change
Idaho	No Change
Indiana	-26.2%
Kentucky	-40.0%
Louisiana	-24.8%
Massachusetts	No Change
Minnesota	-38.3%
Mississippi	-2.1%
Nebraska	-20.5%
Nevada	-37.5%
North Dakota	No Change
South Carolina	-14.7%
Tennessee	-18.4%
Texas	-23.6%
Vermont	No Change
Virginia	-40.3%
West Virginia	-15.8%
Wyoming	No Change

HHS also sent letters today to the 27 states running their own programs to inform them of the opportunity to modify their current PCIP premiums.

Increasing Outreach with Partners

Beginning this fall, HHS will begin paying agents and brokers for successfully connecting eligible people with the PCIP program.  This step will help reach those who are eligible but un-enrolled. 

* * *

HHS is working with insurers to notify people about the PCIP option in their state when their application for health insurance is denied.

HHS is also reaching out to a coalition of providers and consumer advocates in each state. 

* * *

Similar outreach efforts this spring helped raise PCIP enrollment by nearly 50% since February 2011.  Currently, 18,313 individuals receive coverage through PCIP.  For state-level enrollment data as of March 31, visit HealthCare.gov/news/factsheets/pcip05062011a.html.

About the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan

PCIP provides comprehensive health coverage, including primary and specialty care, hospital care, prescription drugs, home health and hospice care, skilled nursing care and preventive health and maternity care.  It limits annual out-of-pocket spending and does not carve out benefits the people need.

Premiums will vary depending on the state you live in, and what plan you choose.  But as an example, if you live in a state where the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services provides coverage, the premium for an age 50 year old enrollee may range between $214 and $559, depending on State of residence and plan option.  Medical and drug deductibles vary by plan option.  For an estimated premium range for your state, go to www.HealthCare.gov/law/provisions/preexisting.

For more information, including eligibility, plan benefits and rates, as well as information on how to apply, visit www.pcip.gov and click on “Find Your State.” Then select your state from a map of the United States or from the drop-down menu. The PCIP Call Center is open from 8 a.m. to 11 p.m. Eastern Time. Call toll-free 1-866-717-5826 (TTY 1-866-561-1604).

Celebrate Recall Russell Pearce Day!

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

To all the naysayers who said it couldn't be done, here is today's press release from Citizens for a Better Arizona. Congratulations to all those who contributed to this effort -- you have made Arizona history! This is the first step in ending our long nightmare of this hateful demagogue who has made Arizona a pariah state and the laughingstock of the nation. Today is the first day of a brighter future for the state of Arizona.

Citizens for a Better Arizona Makes History and files Record Number of Signatures to Recall Senate President Russell Pearce

What:   Record Number of Signatures to be delivered to Secretary of State’s Office to demand the Recall of Senate President Russell Pearce, District 18

Who:    Citizens for a Better Arizona, Citizens for a Better Arizona Leadership and Volunteers

Where: 1700 West Washington, Senate Lobby and Secretary of State’s Office.

When:  Tuesday, May 31st. Brief remarks will be made at 11:45 in the Senate Lobby then will move to the Secretary of State’s to deliver petitions and make remarks and answer questions.

On January 31 - Recall petitions were taken out and they must be returned within 120 days, or May 31st. Despite all the political pundits who said it had never happened and could not be done, volunteers with Citizens for a Better Arizona continued to talk to voters to demand that Senate President Russell Pearce be recalled. They never gave up and they kept talking to voters to give them a voice in democracy. Not only did they collect 7,756 signatures they continued to engage voters in every precinct in LD 18 and they gathered more signatures than Russell Pearce received votes in 2010.

Volunteers recruited other volunteers and they engaged people to be part of history to recall Russell Pearce and his extreme agenda that has done nothing to stop foreclosures, help businesses or restore jobs. Citizens for a Better Arizona will officially name May 31st Recall Russell Pearce Day.

There will be plenty of photo opportunities, and opportunities for individual interviews.

###

-- This story will dominate your local news coverage this evening.

Arizona Capitol Times » Group submits 18,000 signatures to recall Pearce:

If enough signatures are verified, the special election could happen either on November 8 or March 13.

That depends on how quickly the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office can verify the signatures.

Also, the governor must also call for the special election.

Russell Pearce opponents file recall petitions (The Arizona Republic).

Pearce opponents file petitions for recall vote - East Valley Tribune h/t Howard Fischer photo.

Pearce thinks a man with felony convictions for violence is a good choice for the Child Support Committee

by David Safier

Add this to the growing list of jaw-dropping statements and actions by Russell Pearce. He appointed Terry Decker to serve on the Child Support Committee, according to a Capitol Times article (subscription only), a man with a felony conviction for trying to take his children out of school even though his custody agreement forbade it, then punching a teacher who tried to stop him.

Here are some of the charges which have been made against Decker:

• He "pled guilty in 2008 to aggravated assault and interference with or disruption of an educational facility" when "he punched a teacher while taking his children out of school, in violation of his custody agreement."
• In 2003, "his ex-wife reported to Scottsdale police that he opened the door to his home holding a handgun, but not pointing it at her."
• In 1982 he was convicted of aggravated assault "for firing shots at the passing car of his newspaper deliveryman as he threw the Wall Street Journal on his driveway."

Decker has explanations, of course. He was defending himself against the teacher. The shots he fired at the newspaper deliveryman were "precipitated by business rivals throwing fire bombs at his business and house." And his ex-wife's report of his coming to her house with a handgun was a lie (claims Decker).

For the past five years, Decker "has been unemployed and receiving Social Security disability payments for mental health issues."

This is the man Russell Pearce -- who is known for his temper and in 1974 broke down his wife's front door when they were separated and he wanted to prove there was a man in the room with her -- thinks is fit to be a member of a committee that makes recommendations about child support policies.

In the interest of fairness, I have to point out that background checks are not run on people appointed to the committee, so Pearce may not have known about Decker's violent past when he made the appointment.

But Pearce has a never-back-down policy, so, when confronted by the information about Decker, Pearce said this:

“I have every reason to believe Mr. Decker will be a strong voice for noncustodial parents and an excellent member of the Child Support Committee,” Pearce said in the statement.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the most powerful politician in Arizona who -- I hope with every fiber of my being -- will be recalled once the Recall Pearce petitions are counted and validated.

Tea-Publican Tyranny in Wisconsin Update: And Then There Were Six

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Last week, Wisconsin's Government Accountability Board certified the recall of 3 Tea-Publican state senators. Today, the Government Accountability Board certified the recall of 3 more Tea-Publican state senators. Elections board gives approval for three recall elections:

[The Government Accountability Board] gave the final approval to three recall petitions targeting three GOP senators, making it all but certain that those senators will face recall elections this summer.

The Government Accountability Board rejected the challenges made to recall petitions targeting Republican Sens. Dan Kapanke of La Crosse, Randy Hopper of Fond du Lac and Luther Olsen of Ripon. They also voted to file paperwork by June 3 that will allow elections to be called for July 12.

[The other Republican lawmakers facing recall elections are Sens. Sheila Harsdorf of River Falls, Alberta Darling of River Hills and Robert Cowles of Green Bay.]

* * *

While the board voted 5-1 to have staff review the registration forms used for recalls, it unanimously rejected the GOP challenges and found each petition sufficient with almost no discussion. While some challenges to individual signatures were accepted, each petition had thousands more than the minimum required.

McLeod said he disagreed with the board, but "respects their decision." He said he and his clients have not yet discussed whether the senators will challenge the decision in court. [Once recall elections are certified, the senators have seven days to sue to try to stop them.]

* * *

Even if they do, a lawsuit isn't likely to delay the recall elections, Levinson said.

The date of the recall election, however, may still be delayed beyond the July 12 scheduled date due to legal challenges filed to recall petitions against 3 Democratic state senators. Democrats have challenged the validity of the petitions targeting their senators, alleging that out-of-state circulators hired by Republicans committed widespread fraud and misrepresentation in collecting the signatures (one example: "shots for signatures" in local bars). Wisconsin Recall Fight Heats Up As Democrats Complain Of 'Shots For Signatures' Deals (AUDIO).

Shane Falk, an attorney for the board, said the board has been working overtime to review all the petitions, with half a dozen board employees working on them over the Memorial Day weekend. But they have not had time to fully analyze the challenges to the recalls against Democrats, which are based on different arguments than the Republican challenges. GAB OKs recalls against 3 more Republicans - JSOnline:

Now, board officials plan to return to court to ask for another extension because they say they can't meet the Friday deadline for the three Democrats. Falk said a court hearing was likely Wednesday or Thursday, and at that time the board will request permission to certify any additional recall elections next week.

The board had been working under a plan to hold all recall elections on July 12. If there were more than one challenger in any race, the July 12 election would become a primary and the general recall election would be Aug. 9.

If the judge agrees to the new deadline, and the board found recall elections should be held against the Democrats, those elections would be held a week later - on July 19. If there were multiple challengers, the July 19 election would become a primary and the general recall election would be Aug. 16.

The court, however, could change the schedule, either by delaying the Republican recall elections or ordering the board to complete work on the petitions against Democrats by Friday's deadline.

* * *

[B]oard members were emphatic that politics did not play a role in their decisions, though board Chairman Thomas Barland said he was concerned about public perception.

"Politics has never been part of our interest or part of our agenda," said accountability board member Thomas Cane.

The board is composed of six retired judges and was designed by the Legislature to be as nonpartisan as possible. Three years ago, it replaced the Elections Board, which was appointed by elected officials and political parties.

* * *

Reviewing the latest challenges by the Republicans was relatively easy because the board had already considered the same arguments when it considered the challenges to other Republicans last week. But the challenges to the Democratic signatures have not been fully analyzed[.]

Tea-Publicans, of course, howled in protest at the board's decision, calling on the board's director, Kevin Kennedy, to resign.

Kennedy said the board has not and will not violate the court order. He has been the state's chief election official since 1982, and he reacted coolly to the call for his resignation.

"It's an easy call for people to make - 'Kill the ref,'" Kennedy said. "It happens in every sport."

Democrats need a net gain of 3 seats in the Wisconsin senate to regain control of that chamber. "At no time in U.S. history have attempts been made to recall so many legislators at the same time over the same issue."

It's funny until you lose your democracy

Posted by AzblueMeanie:

Bob Newhart made famous the one-sided telephone conversation stand-up comedy routine. "The Button Down Mind of Bob Newhart" added to Library of Congress.

The Minnesota Loon, Rep. Michelle Bachmann, claims she has a "calling from God himself" to run for President. I would pay good money to see Bob Newhart perform this "call from God" stand-up routine. Bachmann's Prayers Answered: 'I've Had That Calling' To Run For President | TPMDC. It is not the first time Bachmann has made this claim:

The last time Bachmann sought a higher national office, in 2006, when she was a state senator running for an open U.S. House seat, she famously told a mega-church audience that she had communicated with God, receiving through fasting and prayer the command to run:

"And in the midst of that calling, God then called me to run for the United States Congress. And I thought, what in the world would that be for? And my husband said "You need to do this." And I wasn't so sure. And we took three days, and we fasted and we prayed. And we said "Lord, is this what you want? Is this Your will?" And after -- along about the afternoon of day two -- He made that calling sure. And it's been now 22 months that I've been running for United States Congress. Who in their right mind would spend two years to run for a job that lasts for two years? You'd have to be absolutely a fool to do that. You are now looking at a fool for Christ. This is a fool for Christ."

Bachmann is not the only Republican who claims to have God on speed dial. Remember this? Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas performing his version of Bob Newhart's stand-up routine at a Republican Governor's Association fundraiser in 2004 in which God calls him.

You can laugh, but there is a serious dark side to this "calling from God" stuff that Republican politicians like to engage in that the political reporters of the corporate media fail to recognize or choose to ignore. These politicians are speaking in code to Dominionist Christians who want to impose a theocracy in the U.S.

Susie Madrak at crooksandliars.com explains in Sarah Palin And The 'Fire In Her Belly' Is About Installing Theocratic Government In America:

Sarah Jones at PoliticusUSA points out that Sarah Palin uses terms that sound vaguely religious but have very specific meanings to the dangerous cult of Dominionists (her use of the term "Restoration" for her bus tour is a good example):

I’ve been saying for a while now that the mainstream media doesn’t “get” Sarah Palin. Last week, when the astute Lawrence O’Donnell equated her with Trump, I understood his reasoning, but disagreed with the premise. Sarah Palin isn’t Donald Trump, and when she speaks of a “fire in her belly” she’s not using that term politically, but religiously. She means she has a fire of God in her belly to lead the country to Jesus. She means she is anointed to lead us.

She has a fire in her belly alright, but it’s not the fire of politics as the pundits know it.

Leah Burton, of “God’s Own Party” made the following Fire in the Belly video:

And it’s not just Sarah Palin.

As Leah explains, “She is joined by many who share her biblical “call to service in the name of Jesus Christ” such as Tim Pawlenty, Mitch Daniels, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann, and a whole host of frightening – albeit not as recognizable – theocratic politicians who are aggressively working to re-write our Constitution and anchor it in Old Testament Mosaic Law.”

The Dominionist politicians might use words that remind you of your own church, or your friends’ churches, but these are not mainline Christians. They seek Dominion over the government, and indeed over what they term the “seven mountains” of culture. Their goal is to return it to the earth to Jesus, and the US to biblical law.

[...] Welcome to the new game of politics, where religion plays the role the founders sought to protect us from, a state sponsored religion or an official state religion. The next time you laugh at Sarah Palin because you think she’s dumb, remember that it isn’t that she doesn’t believe in science, it’s that she doesn’t CARE about science. It is irrelevant to her, because the sooner the planet explodes, the sooner Jesus comes back. And when you’re done laughing at her, realize that there are many more, less charismatic Sarah Palins out there, like Governor Scott Walker, whose ability to inflict harm via his beliefs is quite real. And some of them will run for President as moderate Republicans.

Time for an Apollo Project 'energy independence race' with Germany

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The U.S. failed to enact a comprehensive energy bill in the last Congress because the energy industry and its allies in Congress have a vested financial interest in maintaining the status quo. Now that the era of peak oil has arrived, dwindling oil supplies and higher demand means higher profits for the oil companies.

The Tea-Publican Congress recently blocked all Democratic Party attempts to end the tax subsidies to oil companies at a time of record profits.

Part of the problem lies in the conservative alliance between corporate America and the fundamentalist Christian Right that preaches a heady mix of capitalist Calvinism (the world's resources exist for man to exploit for profit) and rejection of science, i.e., the modern-day Flat-Earthers who are climate change deniers and who also have convinced themselves there is an unlimited supply of oil resources to be expoited. "Drill, baby, drill!" Besides, Armageddon is coming soon, so why bother?

This combination of greed and ignorance is causing the U.S. to fall behind the rest of the world in the development of renewable energy -- something for which the U.S. should lead the world. President Obama outlined an "Apollo Project" program to develop renewable energy resources to reduce our dependence on oil by 2025, but it is Europe's industrial leader Germany -- already the world's leader in solar energy production -- that is embarking upon an actual "Apollo Project" for renewable energy independence. Germany to abandon nuclear power by 2022:

Europe's economic powerhouse, Germany, announced plans Monday to abandon nuclear energy over the next 11 years, outlining an ambitious strategy in the wake of Japan's Fukushima disaster to replace atomic power with renewable-energy sources.

Chancellor Angela Merkel said she hopes the transformation to more solar, wind and hydroelectric power serves as a roadmap for other countries.

"We believe that we can show those countries who decide to abandon nuclear power - or not to start using it - how it is possible to achieve growth, creating jobs and economic prosperity while shifting the energy supply toward renewable energies," Merkel said.

Merkel's government said it will shut down all 17 nuclear power plants in Germany - the world's fourth-largest economy and Europe's biggest - by 2022. The government had no immediate estimate of the transition's overall cost.

The plan sets Germany apart from most of the other major industrialized nations. Among the other Group of Eight countries, only Italy has abandoned nuclear power, which was voted down in a referendum after the 1986 Chernobyl disaster.

* * *

Merkel, who holds a Ph.D. in physics, said industrialized, technologically advanced Japan's "helplessness" in the face of the Fukushima disaster made her rethink [nuclear] technology's risks.

Phasing out nuclear power within a decade will be a challenge, but it will be feasible and ultimately give Germany a competitive advantage in the renewable-energy era, Merkel said.

"As the first big industrialized nation, we can achieve such a transformation toward efficient and renewable energies, with all the opportunities that brings for exports, developing new technologies and jobs," Merkel told reporters.

The government said the renewable-energy sector already employs about 370,000 people.

* * *

While Germany already was set to abandon nuclear energy eventually, the decision - which still requires parliamentary approval - dramatically speeds up that process.

Environment Minister Norbert Roettgen said there are no provisions that would allow a later policy reverse.

"We don't only want to renounce nuclear energy by 2022, we also want to reduce our CO2 emissions by 40 percent and double our share of renewable energies, from about 17 percent today to then 35 percent," the chancellor said.

Whatever happened to America's "can do spirit" of innovation and enterprise, and our national pride? We are behaving like Luddites trying to stop the advance of industrialization to preserve our economic self-interest in maintaining the status quo and our way of life. Since when do Americans fear the future? Americans embrace it! We waged a "space race" with the Soviet Union in the 1950s and 1960s, now it is time for an Apollo Project "energy independence race" with Germany. We can win this race and lead the world in technological innovation and enterprise. Let's make America proud again.

Debt Ceiling Up For A Vote Tomorrow; Nationwide Default Imminent

Posted by Craig McDermott, cross-posted from Random Musings

After weeks of posturing and playing chicken with America's economic stability (and fiscal credibility), House Republicans are bringing H.R. 1954, raising the government's debt limit, to the floor for a vote Tuesday evening.

It's a vote designed to fail - they're bringing the bill to the floor under "suspension of the rules," meaning that it will require a 2/3 vote to pass.

There are 432 members of the House right now, and 2/3 of that total is 288.  That means that if all 192 Democrats in the House voted to raise the debt limit, the measure would still need 96 Republicans to vote for it in order to pass.

However, not every D will vote for it  (though the vast majority will) plus some will be absent (i.e. - Gabby Giffords).  In other words, H.R. 1954 will need the support of somewhere between 102 and 106 Rs to pass.

Probably not going to happen.  Most of them are more interested in adhering to their economic nihilist ideology than in actually governing.

The move to require a 2/3 vote, however, frees up any Republican who is from a district that is more moderate than they are to vote for raising the debt ceiling without, you know, actually raising the debt ceiling.

The vote is scheduled for ~6:30 p.m. Eastern, or ~3:30 p.m. Arizona time.  The debate on the matter will be earlier in the day, late morning or early afternoon Arizona time.

Government Executive magazine, a publication of the National Journal, offers a list of likely ramifications of default here.  For readers who believe that ultimately the Republicans will do the responsible thing here, read the list.

There's nothing on the list that the Republicans harbor any serious objections toward.

A comment well worth reading

by David Safier

Regular commenter Phillip D has once again written a fabulous comment about education, filled with terrific stats. It's a continuation of my post about the misconception that our achievement is going down when the more important fact is that we're keeping more students in school than ever before. He has some illuminating insights into our scores on international tests. Read it if you're interested.

Mesa becomes political epicenter of immigration issue

by David Safier

The Recall Russell Pearce group, Citizens for a Better Arizona, is nearing the date to turn in its signatures. That's scheduled for Tuesday. To put the event in historical perspective, it will be the first time a legislator has been recalled in Arizona's nearly 100 year history, and it will be the first recall of a state Senate President in the history of the country. It's not a done deal, of course, until the signatures are counted, but I'm convinced, anything near an honest count will result in a recall.

Good times. (Man, it's nice to be able to say that once in awhile!)

But Mesa also has another distinction. It is the first city in Arizona considering adoption of the Utah Compact, a sane, caring statement about immigrants which was endorsed by Utah liberals and conservatives -- mayors, the state attorney general, former governors and a former U.S. senator as well as Salt Lake City's Roman Catholic Diocese and the Chamber of Commerce -- and was given a "statement of support by the Mormon Church. (Here's my post on the Compact, and a lengthier piece in Latino Perspectives about the Arizona movement to bring the Compact here.)

A group calling itself East Valley Patriots for American Values has spearheaded the campaign to get Mesa to give its official support to the Compact (and yes, Pearce and his cronies HATE the group's name. They think they own the trademark on terms like Patriots and American Values). And now the Human Relations Advisory Board has chimed in as well.

The Human Relations Advisory Board last week voted to recommend that the Valley's second-largest city apply the document's principles to address what the compact calls "the complex challenges associated with a broken national immigration system."

The City Council isn't unanimous one way or another. But however this turns out, it's another sign that Pearce may not be the favorite son in his home town.

A note to trolls

by David Safier

I assume anyone who writes comments on BfA indiscriminately on a wide variety of posts day after day, focusing more on snark and put-downs than content, is either being paid by the comment (I don't know the going rate), on the staff of someone who expects them to make these comments, or suffers from a severe case of obsessive compulsive disorder.

That person is a classic troll, and comments by that person will be deleted.

If on the other hand, anyone wants to comment on the occasions when he/she has something to say, even if it's completely contrary to what I have written, even if it's snarky, that person is welcome to comment, so long as the comment is reasonably germane to the post and isn't vile or threatening.

Who will make the decision which is which? I will.

Please feel free to comment on this or any other post, so long as you don't fit the profile described in the first paragraph. We love our commenters here on BfA, with a few, rare exceptions.

Is our high school graduation rate too high?

by David Safier

It's true, we're graduating a sizable number of high school students whose academic skills are low. It's also true, a sizable number of students have lousy attitudes toward school.

But here's something most people forget, or don't know: Those low skilled, bad attitude kids would have dropped out if they had been in school 40 or more years ago.

The moral of the story: If you want guaranteed higher achievement, kick the low achievers out of school.

Yeah, yeah, I know. We want to raise students' achievement, not kick them out. I agree. But if current education trends continue, putting greater emphasis on high stakes tests to determine graduation and making those tests more rigorous (and the tests will get more rigorous in the next few years unless something changes) will result in fewer students graduating.

People like to talk about how much more serious students were back when they were in school, and how much "smarter" they were. Some of those people attended schools in reasonably affluent neighborhoods and/or they were in college prep classes, so their concepts of what students were like are skewed. But still, they're at least partially right, especially if they graduated before 1970. Students were more serious, and possibly "smarter" back then, because the less serious, educationally challenged students dropped out.

Look at the chart. In 1940, just under 25% of the adult population had high school diplomas. In 1970, the number was just over half. It wasn't until the mid 1970s that our graduation rates reached the level they are today -- a bit above 80%. (The numbers on the chart are a bit deceptive because they include all adults, including older people who went to school -- or dropped out -- decades earlier. The graduation rate hit about 80% in the late 1960s/early 1970s and hasn't moved a whole lot since then).

For the past few decades, we've been trying to do something that has never been tried before: get all students to graduate high school. That includes students with learning disabilities, most of whom would have dropped out by the 8th grade in earlier decades. They're still in school, demanding a great deal of time and resources. It means students who have bad attitudes are counseled to stay in school, suspended then brought back to school, expelled then urged to re-register, and so on. That's lots of time and money spent on students who are likely to bring down the achievement curve.

(Question #1: Which students were the most likely to drop out when graduation rates were low? Answer: Students from lower income families. Question #2: Which students are most represented in the low performing groups? Same answer: Students from lower income families.)

We're expending phenomenal amounts of money and energy trying to keep the hardest-to-teach students in school. And when you see the "Public schools stink" documentaries, those are always the students who are spotlighted.

In a perfect world, we want to raise low performing students' achievement. In the real world, closing the achievement gap will take years, more likely decades, and it will never be completely successful (I'm not being cynical here. I'm just being honest). In the meantime, if we keep raising "standards," we're going to see our high school attendance and graduation rates drop.

For the record, I want as many students stay in school as possible. I taught lots of students who might have dropped out if they weren't helped along, then woke up in their junior and senior years and performed admirably.

Though they will say I'm wrong, the truth is, conservative educators and many of their corporate philanthropic sponsors would be happy to see graduation rates drop or place the lowest performing students in low cost, low education holding facilities. Progressives who believe the No Child Left Behind protestestations of conservatives are, unfortunately, enabling their agenda are helping move education in the wrong direction.

There goes the neighborhood

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Update to 'They loaded up the truck and they moved to...' Scottsdale? I am giving fair warning to Scottsdale Fashion Square -- remember this from the 2008 McCain-Palin campaign? Highlights: Newsweek's Special Election Project - Newsweek (November 5, 2008):

NEWSWEEK has also learned that Palin's shopping spree at high-end department stores was more extensive than previously reported. While publicly supporting Palin, McCain's top advisers privately fumed at what they regarded as her outrageous profligacy. One senior aide said that Nicolle Wallace had told Palin to buy three suits for the convention and hire a stylist. But instead, the vice presidential nominee began buying for herself and her family—clothes and accessories from top stores such as Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus. According to two knowledgeable sources, a vast majority of the clothes were bought by a wealthy donor, who was shocked when he got the bill. Palin also used low-level staffers to buy some of the clothes on their credit cards. The McCain campaign found out last week when the aides sought reimbursement. One aide estimated that she spent "tens of thousands" more than the reported $150,000, and that $20,000 to $40,000 went to buy clothes for her husband. Some articles of clothing have apparently been lost. An angry aide characterized the shopping spree as "Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast," and said the truth will eventually come out when the Republican Party audits its books.

* * *

McCain himself rarely spoke to Palin during the campaign, and aides kept him in the dark about the details of her spending on clothes because they were sure he would be offended. Palin asked to speak along with McCain at his Arizona concession speech Tuesday night, but campaign strategist Steve Schmidt vetoed the request.

h/t photobucket.com

Sad, but true, the Wasilla Hillbillies are moving to the snotty rich digs of Snobsdale, er, Scottsdale, AZ. Even the New York Times ran a piece about it this week. Scottsdale, Ariz., Offers Sarah Palin Guidance on Her New Home - NYTimes.com:

Moving from the tundra to the desert will be a dramatic change for the former Alaska governor and vice-presidential nominee, who this week confirmed that she had purchased a $1.7 million property in this remote and exclusive community of ranch homes — real ranch homes — on the outskirts of Phoenix. So her new neighbors have plenty of advice for her.

* * *

The Palins bought the Scottsdale home on May 13 through Safari Investments, a limited liability company that was set up the day before, to shield the transaction from the public.

* * *

Despite its rustic flair, there is nothing ordinary about Ms. Palin’s new neighborhood, one of the most elite in the Phoenix area and a place that some refer to derisively as “Snobsdale.”

The Arizona Republic today has the local reaction to the new neighbors. Scottsdale residents react to Sarah Palin's likely move:

Azcentral.com broke a story a week ago Saturday reporting that all signs pointed to Palin as the buyer. Since then, national media have swarmed the topic - including a piece in the New York Times that offered plenty of references to things such as rattlesnakes and "cactus rustlers."

But around some of the shopping centers near the home, which is located near Hayden Road and Dynamite Boulevard, reaction Friday ranged somewhere between ho and hum.

* * *

During several trips to the home in the past week, Republic staffers saw little in the way of activity, other than a handful of workers around the property. "No trespassing" signs are posted outside the home. The 8,000-square-foot northern Scottsdale home, which sits on more than 4 acres, has a six-car garage, large swimming pool and five bathrooms, azcentral.com reported May 21. Safari Investments LLC paid $1.695 million cash for the home in a deal that cloaked the identity of a high-profile buyer, azcentral .com reported. Palin grew familiar with Arizona during the 2008 presidential campaign, when she campaigned as Sen. John McCain's running mate, and more recently, her daughter Bristol purchased a home in Maricopa.

Scottsdale is no stranger to vice presidents.

Dan Quayle attended Scottsdale High School and lived in Paradise Valley. Democrat Thomas Marshall, vice president under Woodrow Wilson, had a winter home in Scottsdale.

Note to The Arizona Republic: Sarah Palin is not now nor ever has been a "vice president." She was a candidate for vice president, and lost badly in a landslide.

Vice President John Nance Garner once described the vice presidency to Lyndon B. Johnson as "not worth a bucket of warm spit" (sometimes quoted using "piss," which would fit the colorful personality of Cactus Jack Garner). Losing an election for vice president by a landslide I imagine is something far less attractive.

Political Calendar: Week of May 29, 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.

Monday is Memorial Day, a day to honor those who made the ultimate sacrifice in giving their life in service to our country. And let's not forget our veterans and all those who currently serve our country in the U.S. Armed Forces.

Political Calendar For The Week of May 29, 2011

Sundays, 6:00 p.m.: Drinking Liberally, at The Shanty, 401 E. 9th Street (at 4th Avenue). Come to Drinking Liberally this Sunday for a free beer tasting (donations welcome!). An informal, inclusive progressive social group, and lively discussion. Contact: www.livingliberallytucson.org.

Monday, May 30, 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. No DGT this Monday in observance of Memorial Day. Visit DGT's web site at www.tucsondemocrats.org. Next Week: Lea Marquez Peterson, President/CEO Tucson Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.

Wednesday, June 1, 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). For more information please contact Ted Prezelski at (520) 326-3716 (leave message) or prezelski@aol.com.

Saturday, June 4, 8:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m.: Pima County Democratic Party HQ Fix-Up Fiesta, at 4639 E. 1st Street (one block South of Speedway, West of Swan). Volunteers needed to help spruce up headquarters inside and out for the coming election season. Stay as long as you can. FREE BREAKFAST AND LUNCH for volunteers. Please RSVP to Cheryl Rodgers at (520) 326-3716 or cookie58moore@yahoo.com.

Saturday, June 4, 10:00 a.m.: Legislative District 30 meeting, at the Miller-Golf Links Branch Library, 9640 E. Golf Links Road (Tucson). For more information please contact Andre Mixon at remix8@yahoo.com.

Saturday, June 4, 10:00 a.m.: Northern Cochise County Democrats meeting, at the Benson Community Center, 705 W. Union. Beginning at 10:15 a.m., there will be a showing of the documentary “Gerrymandering.” Presented by former state representative Pat Fleming, the movie illustrates how the process of redistricting has reshaped elections and the importance of competitive districts. Working with the Arizona Competitive Districts Coalition, a non-partisan coalition of individuals and 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations to promote competitive districts during the 2011 Arizona redistricting process, Fleming will discuss why district lines need to be drawn fairly, and why competitive districts are central to what will happen in our state as we prepare for the 2012 election season. The public is invited to attend. For more inforamtion please contact Kathleen Day Cain at kathleendaycain@yahoo.com or Mark Suagee at suagman59@hotmail.com.

Saturday June 4, 10:30 a.m.: Progressive Democrats of America meeting, at the Old Bisbee Y. Topics include Peace..."with Liberty & Justice for All," preparation for the Bisbee 4^th of July Parade, and organizing a presentation and discussion on the proposed national budgets. For more information, contact Alice Hamers at alicehamers@yahoo.com.

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

Special Announcements:

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

Monday, June 6, 7:00 p.m.: Douglas Area Democrats meeting, at Los Obreros Hall, 406 8th Street (Douglas). For more information please contact Corny Munoz at douglasrfl@hotmail.com or (520) 227-7125.

Tuesday, June 7, 5:30 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).

Thursday, June 9, 5:30 p.m.: Pima County Democratic Party Nucleus Club meeting, at the Viscount Suite Hotel, 4855 E. Broadway Blvd. Special guest speaker is Congressman Raúl Grijalva (CD-7). For more information and to RSVP please contact Martin Bacal at (520) 326-3716.

Saturday, June 11, 10:00 a.m.: Mule Mountain Democrats Club meeting, at the Hummingbirds’ home, 102 Silver Street (Bisbee). Sandy and Jess open their home for a potluck dinner. They will provide the meat and drinks, and ask others to bring a side dish or dessert. The club is inviting Progressive Democrats and others to participate in the discussion and planning for “Issue Forums.”  MMD will welcome the college scholarship winner.  For more information please contact Sandy at  Sandyhummingbird@cs.com or 432-7305.

Saturday, June 11, 1:00 p.m.: Democratic Club of the Santa Rita Area meeting, in Room 248, 2nd Floor, Continental Shopping Plaza, 240 Continental Road (Green Valley). For more information please contact Jane Wood at (520) 398-4367.

Monday June 13, 6:00 p.m.: Legislative District 29 meeting, at the Sam Lena Library, 1607 S. 6th Avenue. For more information please contact Matt Kopec at LD29Chair@gmail.com or (520) 400-3020.

Monday, June 13, 7:00 p.m.: Democrats of Oro Valley meeting, at the Oro Valley Library 1305 W. Naranja Drive (The library is located at the corner of La Cañada and Naranja Drive. The Democrats of Oro Valley will host Andrea Witte, of Connect the Dots for Democracy and owner of Witte Design, on Monday June 13, 2011 for a presentation on "Budgets and Deficits and Debts, Oh My!" What are the policies and trends that have resulted in our current economy? Are you concerned that the proposed cuts coming out of Washington are threatening the American Dream? Come learn more about America s finances in a fun, visual presentation. See www.ConnectTheD​otsUSA.com: Civics and policy basics for the busy majority. A question and answer period will follow the presentation. The meeting is open to the public at no cost. For more information please contact Mike Dayton at (520) 742-3774. Visit our website at www.demsov.org.

Wednesday, June 15, 7:00 p.m.: Pinal County Democratic Party meeting, at Pinal County Democratic Party HQ, 350 N. Main Street (Florence). For more information, please contact Joe Robison at pinaldemocrat@gmail.com.

Thursday, June 16, 6:00 p.m.: Casa Grande Democrats meeting, at  Eva's Mexican Restaurant, 2033 N. Pinal Ave (Casa Grande). For more information please contact Paula or Cecile at  (480) 983-7853.

Monday, June 20, 6:30 p.m.: Saguaro Eastside Democrats meeting, at the New Spirit Lutheran Church, 8701 E. Old Spanish Trail (northeast corner at Camino Seco). The meeting begins at 6:30 p.m. with light refreshments and time for socializing. The speaker begins at 7 p.m. Special guest speaker is Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik. The event is free and open to the public. For more information please contact (520) 850-6755.

Tuesday, June 21, 11:00 a.m.: Democratic Women of Southeast Arizona meeting, at Pueblo del Sol Country Club on St. Andrews Drive in Sierra Vista. Ms. Alessandra Soler Meetze, Executive Director, ACLU – Arizona, will be special guest speake, on the topic of “The (Ill) Health of the Bill of Rights in Arizona and Nationwide.”   Reservations are required. Cost $14. Please contact DWSEA Vice President, Pat Hickey, at (520) 459-1054 or jopath54@live.com for reservations.

Tuesday, June 21, 7:00 p.m.: Legislative District 26 meeting, at the Metro Water (Board Room), 6265 N. La Cañada Drive. For more information please contact Brian Clymer at (520) 323-1234.

Wednesday, June 22, 6:00 p.m.: Legislative District 25 meeting, at the Wheeler Taft Abbett, Sr. Library, 7800 N. Schisler Drive (Marana). For more information please contact Jeff Lawrence at AZLD25@aol.com.

Wednesday, June 22, 6:00 p.m.: Joint meeting of the Democratic Women of Southeast Arizona, Greater Huachuca Area Democratic Club, and Buena High School Young Democrats, at the Board of Supervisors Large Conference Room, 4001 E. Foothills Drive, Sierra Vista. Guest speaker is Jay Ziemann, Assistant Director, Arizona State Parks Board.  The State Parks Board mission is “Managing and conserving Arizona’s natural, cultural and recreational resources for the benefit of the people, both in our Parks and through our Partners.”  Mr. Ziemann will share information and give current situation on our state parks. The public is invited.  For more information, please call Pat Fleming at (520) 378-4386.

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

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 26 Margarita Madness

Sunday, June 12, 2:00 p.m.: Legislative District 26 Margarita Madness fundraiser, at the home of David and Joan Safier, 4125 E. Bujia Segunda (Tucson). Featuring live Mariachi music, Mexican cuisine, Lena Seradnik's marvelous margaritas, and special guest speaker Andrei Cherny, Arizona Democratic Party Chair. Cost is $26 per adult, under 18 yrs. of age free (sorry, no margaritas for you, but we will also have non-alcoholic drinks and sodas). Proceeds will be used to turn LD 26 Democratic in 2012. For more information and to RSVP, please contact Joan Safier at j.safier@comcast.net or (520) 615-7644.

Legislative District 20 Democrats Pool Party

Saturday, June 18, 4:00 p.m.: It’s Rae’s BIG 55 birthday week and Penny is opening her home for this poolside event. Rae and Penny make us proud to be Democrats, so let’s show our appreciation and celebrate! GREG STANTON Phoenix Mayoral candidate will join in the fun. Poolside poker and blackjack tables sponsored by the Young Dems, pool volleyball (it will be hot by then!), Trivial Pursuit, Apples to Apples and more! Food and soft drinks provided. Feel free to bring your own beer, wine, or other beverage. Suggested donation: $55 per couple, $30 per person, $10 for Young Dems For more information and to RSVP please contact Deb Papaleo at (480) 208-7331. See our web site at http://maricopadems.com/d20.

Legislative District 27 Summer Solstice Party

Saturday, June 25, 6:00 p.m.: LD 27 Summer Solstice Party, details TBA. Party will include food and beverage. For more information please contact Alex Soto at alx_007@hotmail.com.

Democracy for America - Grassroots Action Summit

July 13-14, 5:00-9:00 p.m.: The DFA Action Summit brings local activists, advocacy organizations and community leaders together for 2 nights of intensive issue advocacy training. Training at the Arizona Democratic Party HQ, 2910 N. Central Avenue (Phoenix). Professional trainer will help you plan and execute a winning grassroots strategy. Check out our training agenda at: DemocracyforAmerica.com/actionsummit.

Mohave County Democratic Party Annual Picnic

Saturday, August 6, 11:00 a.m.: Mohave County Democratic Party Annual Picnic at Metcalfe Park, 315 Beale Street (Kingman). Good food, music, games. Auction items and raffle Tickets. $20.00 per person, children under 12 yrs free. Guest Speaker to be announced. To purchase tickets please contact the Kingman office (928) 753-0004, the Bullhead City office (928) 704-2774, or the Lake Havasu City office (928) 855-4805.

Democratic Women of Southeast Arizona Women's Equality Day High Tea (Costume Party)

Saturday, August 13, 2:00 p.m.: Democratic Women of Southeast Arizona host an English high tea costume party on the theme of "suffrage and beyond," at the Casa de San Pedro Bed & Breakfast, 8933 South Yell Lane in Palominas on the banks of the San Pedro River. Cost per person: $30.00. You will get to visit with dynamic women (past and present) all in costume and hear about their contributions to women’s suffrage. For more information and to RSVP please contact DWSEA Vice President, Pat Hickey, at (520) 459-1054 or jopath54@live.com for reservations.

Save the Date! Arizona Democratic Party Summer State Committee Meeting - Flagstaff, AZ

Saturday, August 20, 9:00a.m.-5:00 p.m.: Arizona Democratic Party Summer State Committee Meeting in Flagstaff, AZ. Caucus meetings and general business session. Election of DNC national committeeman to fill the position vacated by the resignation of Fred DuVal. Details TBA.

Pima Area Labor Federation 15th Annual Labor Day Picnic

Monday, September 5, 10:00 a.m.-2:00 p.m.: Pima Area Labor Federation (PALF) 15th Annual Labor Day Picnic, at the Reid Park Bandshell, 1100 S. Randolph Way (Tucson). PALF, a subsidiary of the Arizona AFL-CIO, will host their 15th Annual Labor Day Picnic to honor Tucson’s working families and union members. With the phrase “WE ARE ONE” as our theme for Labor Day we are reminding the entire Tucson community that all of us standing together are a stronger force than any one of us alone. This event will allow all of us to celebrate with family, co-workers, and friends, the impact that solidarity has in our lives. It also serves as a voice and reminder to all of us the sacrifices and efforts of past and present union workers. The event is free and open to the public. Guests will enjoy hot dogs, musical acts, dancers, labor history exhibits, children’s activities, “Union Olympics” games, and more. For more information please contact Laura Hogan at (520) 388-4139 or visit http://az.aflcio.org/pimaalf/.

Equality Arizona 20th Anniversary Annual Awards Dinner

Saturday, September 24: Equality Arizona 20th Anniversary Annual Awards Dinner, at the Arizona Biltmore Hotel, 2400 E. Missouri Avenue (Phoenix). Every year Equality Arizona hosts an awards dinner which recognizes corporate and community leaders who have stood for LGBT equality. This year, the organization celebrates its 20th Anniversary. Local and national leaders are expected to attend. Further details TBA. Information will be available at Equality Arizona's website at www.equalityarizona.org.

UPDATED

Political Cartoon of The Week

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Free Beer Tasting at Drinking Liberally 5/29 at 7pm

Posted by Michael Bryan

What could be more liberal than free beer? Come to Drinking Liberally this Sunday at the Shanty on 4th Ave for a free beer tasting (donations welcome!). Drinking Liberally starts at 6pm and the tasting begins at 7pm, so don't be late!

Cheers!

Steve Benen: How to make the Medicare problem worse

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Steve Benen writes at the Political Animal - How to make the Medicare problem worse:

Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the debate over Medicare is the disconnect between the problem and proposed “solution.” The standard Republican line is that Medicare faces a serious financial shortfall in the future, with escalating costs threatening its viability. To deal with the problem, Republicans are pushing a plan that doesn’t deal with escalating costs at all.

Indeed, what’s often overlooked is the fact that the GOP plan to “save” money through Medicare “reform” actually costs more.

By now, the basics are probably pretty familiar. The Republican plan, as crafted by Paul Ryan, is to scrap Medicare and replace it with a privatized voucher plan. The voucher decreases in value over time, which produces “savings” for the government, not by controlling costs or addressing care delivery systems, but by transferring costs to you. And if the voucher doesn’t cover what you need, well, good luck.

For the GOP, this ruthlessness is just a fiscal necessity. The nation can’t afford Medicare anymore, so these “reforms” are unavoidable. This is absurd on its face, since Republicans intend to spend the difference on tax cuts, not debt reduction, but putting that aside, there’s the small matter of the GOP making care more expensive, not less. Peter Orszag explained the other day:

While more consumer cost-sharing would help reduce unnecessary care, the plan would not live up to its billing in cutting health costs for America. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, it would do the opposite. That’s right: The CBO found that the Ryan Medicare proposal would substantially increase total health-care spending. […]

On the critical metric of whether the Ryan plan would reduce total health-care costs, though, the CBO conclusion is shocking: The plan would not only fail to decrease health-care costs per beneficiary, it would increase them — by an astonishingly large amount that grows over time. By 2030, health spending on the typical beneficiary would be more than 40 percent higher under the Ryan plan than under existing Medicare, according to the CBO report.

Health-care costs would not be reduced on the backs of seniors; they would be raised on the backs of seniors. 

I can appreciate why this sounds ridiculous. The Republican plan to reduce the debt doesn’t really reduce the debt? The Republican plan to reduce health care costs increases health care costs? The Republican plan to save Medicare actually eliminates Medicare?

Actually, yes. None of this criticism is in any way hyperbolic.

What should be the point of Medicare “reform” is making the system cost less. The plan pushed by the GOP in the House and Senate makes the system cost more, only in this scenario, it’s seniors on a fixed income who’ll bear the increased burden. This, they assure us, is an example of fiscal responsibility.

It’s as if the whole party is taking crazy pills.

Media professionals who genuinely believe the Paul Ryan agenda is courageous and sensible haven’t taken the time to do their homework. It’s snake oil in a medicinal bottle.

Benen writes in a later post, Don’t use a scam to launch ‘a serious debate’:

I desperately wish credible media voices recognized Ryan’s Republican plan for what it is: a fraudulent scam. Using this con job as “a launching off point for a serious debate” is comparable to using alchemy as a launching off point for a serious debate about chemistry, or astrology as a launching off point for a serious debate about space travel.

Kevin Drum put it this way the other day, “You need to get the policy right. You need to actually care about controlling healthcare costs. You need to actually care about delivery systems. You need to actually care about what works and what doesn’t. You need to actually care about the details. Paul Ryan doesn’t. He’s a right-wing ideologue with a single right-wing solution for everything. But he’s sociable and friendly, not a fire breather, so everyone figures he’s not one of the tea party nutjobs. This is a serious mistake.” [He is an Ayn Rand acolyte.]

* * *

Paul Krugman recently explained, “Here’s an analogy: think of Medicare as a footbridge that is deteriorating and will eventually become unsafe. You could propose structural repairs to fix its faults; Ryan doesn’t do that. Instead, he proposes knocking the bridge down and replacing it with trampolines, in the hope that pedestrians can bounce across the stream.”

* * *

Overall, there are two broad ways of scrutinizing the GOP’s Medicare privatization plan. The first is to emphasize its needless cruelty towards seniors, which is problematic for those who believe Medicare beneficiaries deserve better. He wants to shift costs onto seniors and use the “savings” for tax cuts, all while pretending to care about a non-existent debt crisis.

The other is to note that Paul Ryan’s numbers simply don’t add up, making his approach unworthy of serious consideration. The combination of the two points to a proposal worthy of the trash heap, not “serious debate.”

The question isn’t why the left would treat this scam as “an object of derision”; the question is why others aren’t doing the same.

Yes,butter does melt in Horne and Brewer's mouth

by David Safier

Horne and Brewer swear up and down, they have no desire to kill the medical marijuana bill with their lawsuit. They're just seeking clarification, they say. That they worded the lawsuit in a way intended to force the judge to put the state law in conflict with the feds pretty much ends that argument. But now it turns out, the idea wan't even theirs. It came from Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery, who openly despises the medical marijuana law and figured out the Horne/Brewer strategy. So much for the "just seeking clarification" argument.

You probably haven't read about Montgomery's role in creating the lawsuit. That's because Horne and Brewer kind of failed to mention his name. Slipped their minds, I guess. The only place I've seen it is in an AZ Capitol Times article (subscription only).

Here's the money excerpt.

Although neither Brewer nor Horne made any mention of Montgomery or the meeting they had with him about a week before they announced the lawsuit, the decision to seek the suit was made after Montgomery laid out the reasoning he assembled in recent weeks to derail the implementation of the new program.

After reading the May 2 letter written by U.S. Attorney for Arizona Dennis Burke, which reiterated the conflict that has existed between any state-sanctioned medical marijuana laws and federal drug laws, Montgomery said he saw a new way to try to stop the law from going into effect, at least in Maricopa County.

“We have the letter from Burke, making it clear…that the Federal Controlled Substance Act does not provide safe harbor for county employees who facilitate cultivation and distribution sites,” Montgomery said.

Once Montgomery began preparing an argument for the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors that the county cannot issue any cultivation or dispensary permits for any areas under the jurisdiction of the county, he said he got a got a call from Brewer’s office asking for a meeting.

Montgomery explained to Brewer and Horne during a May 18 meeting how he arrived at the conclusion that Burke’s letter put county employees — and, by extension, state employees — at risk of prosecution for violating federal drug laws.

“After that meeting, the governor made the decision to have the attorney general seek the (declaratory judgment suit),” Montgomery said. “Am I driving this train? I can’t make that judgment. Ultimately, the decision was Brewer’s.”

I would remind BfA readers not to believe a word Horne or Brewer says, but most readers don't need reminding, and the others will read this with glee at the machinations of their clever prevaricators.

The fallacy of the latest right-wing 'Medi-Scare' attack: 'Democrats did it too!"

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Tea-Publicans are taking a beating from constituents back home for voting for the GOP budget plan that includes Rep. Paul Ryan's plan to end Medicare as we know it. So the right-wing noise machine has settled upon a post-vote plan to return to their "Medi-Scare" line of attack used successfully to confuse voters in the mid-term elections, claiming Democrats "cut" $500 billion from Medicare as part of the Affordable Care Act. "Democrats did it too!" (No Democrat has voted to privatize Medicare and to end Medicare as we know it).

What the right-wing noise machine will not tell you is that Rep. Ryan's plan retains this $500 billion in reductions under the Affordable Care Act, while increasing out-of-pocket costs for seniors. Tea-Publicans are simultaneously trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act, but for the $500 billion in reductions to Medicare which Rep. Ryan retains in his plan.

Since all but four Tea-Publicans in the House and all but five Tea-Publicans in the Senate just voted for the GOP budget, they just voted in favor of the very thing that they are using in their post-vote talking points to attack Democrats, in another attempt to confuse voters with a false equivalency. The Affordable Care Act strengthened Medicare and extended its fiscal soundness. RyanCare would end Medicare as we know it, and cost seniors more out-of-pocket money. Right-Wing Media Attack Obama Over Medicare "Cuts" As They Praise Ryan Plan, Which Includes Same "Cuts":

FactCheck: Cost-Saving Provisions Are "Not A Slashing Of The Current Medicare Budget Or Benefits." According to FactCheck.org:

Whatever you want to call them, it's a $500 billion reduction in the growth of future spending over 10 years, not a slashing of the current Medicare budget or benefits. It's true that those who get their coverage through Medicare Advantage's private plans (about 22 percent of Medicare enrollees) would see fewer add-on benefits; the bill aims to reduce the heftier payments made by the government to Medicare Advantage plans, compared with regular fee-for-service Medicare. The Democrats' bill also boosts certain benefits: It makes preventive care free and closes the "doughnut hole," a current gap in prescription drug coverage for seniors. [FactCheck.org, 3/19/10]

PolitiFact: Reductions "Aimed At Eliminating Parts Of The Medicare Program Seen As Ineffective Or Wasteful." From PolitiFact.com:

Under the act, Congress voted to reduce $500 billion in projected Medicare spending over the next 10 years, not in one substantial chunk. The reductions are aimed at eliminating parts of the Medicare program seen as ineffective or wasteful. For example, the plan phases out payments to the Medicare Advantage program, an optional program set up under the George W. Bush administration, where seniors could opt to enroll in a private insurance program and the federal government would subsidize a portion of their premium. [PolitiFact.com, 5/10/11]

PolitiFact: CBO Says "Spending For Medicare Will Continue To Increase Over The Next Decade." From PolitiFact.com:

On the surface, it may seem that lawmakers voted to cut Medicare spending under the new health law, but they instead cut the rate of growth. As a report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office notes, the amount of spending for Medicare will continue to increase over the next decade, from $499 billion in 2009 to $929 billion in 2020. [PolitiFact.com, 5/10/11]

PolitiFact: "Experts Say The Quality Of Care Should Not Be Shortchanged." From PolitiFact:

 [E]ven though $500 billion in spending is being reduced, health care experts say the quality of care should not be shortchanged.

"Some (reforms) increase Medicare spending to improve benefits and coverage," said Tricia Neuman, vice president and director of the Medicare Policy Project at the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, in a video on the foundation's website.

"Other provisions reduce the growth in Medicare spending to help the program operate more efficiently and help fund coverage expansions to the uninsured in the underlying health reform legislation," Neuman said. "Other provisions are designed to improve the delivery of care and quality of care." [PolitiFact.com, 5/10/11]

New England Journal Of Medicine: Affordable Care Act Eliminates "Substantial Overpayments" To Medicare Advantage Plans. From an article by Robert A. Berenson in The New England Journal of Medicine:

 [T]he currently projected savings come from two main sources: reduced payments to private Medicare Advantage plans and reduced payment updates for hospitals and most other providers. A phased elimination of the substantial overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans, which now enroll nearly 25% of Medicare beneficiaries, will produce an estimated $132 billion in savings over 10 years.

[...]

The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) has been calling for such fee reductions for years, to keep Medicare Advantage from undermining traditional Medicare.

The ACA also produces nearly $200 billion in savings by assuming that providers can improve their productivity as firms in other industries have done. On the basis of this presumed improvement, the law reduces Medicare's annual "market basket" updates for most types of providers -- a provision that has generated controversy. [The New England Journal of Medicine, 7/8/10]

FactCheck: Changes To Medicare Advantage Come With Extra Benefits For All Medicare Enrollees. According to FactCheck.org: 

The CBO has estimated that the move would change the value of the extra benefits Medicare Advantage participants get, but they would not receive fewer benefits than the rest of seniors who aren't on the Advantage plans. The bill does add some extras for Medicare beneficiaries, eliminating copays and deductibles for preventive services, for example. [FactCheck.org, 12/2/09]

* * *

PolitiFact: "Ryan's Plan ... Intends To Keep The $500 Billion In Reductions." From PolitiFact.com:

Ryan's plan, as noted in this news article from the Associated Press, also intends to keep the $500 billion in reductions that Republicans have criticized Democrats for approving under the Obama plan.

[...]

The vote taken by Congress was not to cut Medicare but to reduce the rate of growth by $500 billion by targeting inefficiencies in the program. That's a cost-reduction plan that Ryan himself kept intact in his own budget proposal. [PolitiFact.com, 5/10/11]

* * *

CBPP: CBO Found That Typical Medicare Beneficiary's "Annual Out-Of-Pocket Costs Would More Than Double." From the CBPP report:

Since the Ryan proposal would reduce the federal government's contribution for beneficiaries' health care costs even as it caused total costs to increase, beneficiaries' out-of-pocket spending would rise dramatically.

[...]

CBO also finds that this beneficiary's annual out-of-pocket costs would more than double -- from $6,150 to $12,500.  In later years, as the value of the voucher eroded, the increase in out-of-pocket costs would be even greater. 

The report included this graph showing the projected increase in seniors' health care costs under Ryan's plan:

[CBPP, 4/7/11, emphasis in the original]

UPDATE: Steve Benen explains at the Political Animal - A swing and a miss from Boehner on Medicare:

First, Dems didn’t really “cut” Medicare, so much as they eliminated a wasteful and unnecessary giveaway to insurance companies. This didn’t undermine the program, it did the opposite, extending the health of Medicare financing for nearly another decade.

Second, Boehner’s argument is self-defeating since the House Republican budget plan keeps those alleged cuts in place — and the GOP caucus just endorsed the House Republican budget plan. In other words, the Speaker said yesterday that “only people” who’ve cut Medicare are Dems through the Affordable Care Act, but Boehner and his fellow Republicans voted to keep those same cuts in place.

Third, Boehner would prefer not to look back on his own record, but over the last 20 years, he personally has voted to cut more than $800 billion from Medicare. (Sorry, Mr. Speaker, Google still exists, and your record hasn’t disappeared down a memory hole.)

And finally, Boehner and his party want to end Medicare altogether. Why start a fight over which side of the aisle loves the program more when one party wants to privatize the program away?

Republicans created quite a mess for themselves and now appear to be flailing...

No ruling yet on Ethnic Studies

by David Safier

Ed Supe John Huppenthal has pushed back the date he plans to rule on whether MAS violates the law. It was expected before the end of May. Now it sounds like it will come next Friday, at the earliest.

There are a bunch of possible explanations for the delay. Since none are spelled out in the Star article, let me suggest a possible strategic reason for Hupp to hold off on the ruling. School's Out For Summer.

On the last day of school, students promise to stay in touch, but as each day passes, their contact diminishes. That's doubly true for seniors whose thoughts move on to the next phase of their lives.

Teachers are still in the zone for a week or two after school ends. After that, they tend to drift toward down time and/or vacations and/or ways to earn money over the summer.

The longer school is out, the harder it may be to create a strong, sustained response to Huppenthal's ruling.

If this is Hupp's strategy, it may be effective. Then again, the Ethnic Studies/SES crowd is a tenacious bunch. Keeping the fight going may be the subject of many students' "What I did over summer vacation" essays. Time will tell.

Ezra Klein systematically dismantles Paul Ryan's arguments

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Ezra Klein posed a series of questions to Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) about the GOP plan to end Medicare as we know it, and Rep. Ryan responded to his questions. Ezra Klein systematically dismantles Rep. Ryan's arguments in this post, Responding to Ryan:

In this post, I’m going to focus on his two most important arguments: the one for why his plan will work, and the one for why other plans failed. The first argument can be summed up as “look at Medicare Part D,” the second as “look at the rest of the world.”  

”Our premium-support plan [government subsidies to health-care insurers] is modeled after the Medicare Part D prescription-drug program,” Ryan writes, “in which providers compete against each other for seniors’ business. Medicare Part D came in 40 percent below cost projections done at the time of enactment — that’s almost unheard of for a government program.” 

”Medicare Part D” is wonk-talk for the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit [government subsidies to Big Pharma]. Signed into law in 2003, Medicare Part D has been cheaper than originally estimated. But it hasn’t been cheap enough to make Ryan’s plan work, and nor is Ryan’s plan as closely related to Part D as he suggests.

Let’s start with the costs. Since 2006 — the first year of the benefit — Medicare Part D’s average premium has risen by 57 percent (pdf). Between 2010 and 2011, premiums rose by 10 percent. And going forward, the program’s actuaries expect (pdf) expenditures “to grow at an average annual rate of 9.7 percent for the 10-year period 2011 to 2020.” That may be an excellent performance when compared with the Congressional Budget Office’s initial projections. But it’s a lot faster than inflation, which is what Ryan needs for his plan to work. 

Moreover, Part D’s performance vis-a-vis the early projections has had less to do with the program itself and more to do with sectorwide trends in the pharmaceuticals market, where older drugs are slipping out of patent and the development of new drugs has slowed. As the actuaries write, “The reduced estimates reflect a higher market penetration of generic drugs and a decline in the number of new drug products that are expected to reach the market during this period.” That’s why the drug savings haven’t been limited to Medicare: National drug spending is 35 percent lower (pdf) than projected in 2006. Medicare Part D is part of, rather than the driver of, that trend. And that trend, of course, is a bad one: it’s lower costs through less innovation, which isn’t want Ryan wants and isn’t what I want.

Another reason that the program’s costs came in lower than expected is that fewer people signed up. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that 93 percent of Medicare enrollees would participate. Instead, 77 percent did. That meant costs were lower than projected, but not because the program was more effective than we thought it would be.

Finally, if you look at them closely, Ryan’s plan and Part D don’t look all that similar. For one thing, Part D only covers drugs, while Ryan’s plan covers all health-care services. It’s not at all clear how applicable the Part D experience is to, say, hospital insurance. But the bigger issue is that Ryan’s plan is capped while Medicare Part D isn’t. In Part D, the federal government pays, on average, 74 percent of program’s costs. And that support grows alongside the program’s costs. Ryan’s plan covers about a third of beneficiary costs, and that support grows at the rate of inflation — so much more slowly than the rest of the program, or than Medicare Part D. This has always been the main criticism of Ryan’s plan, and Medicare Part D’s structure shows what a radical decision he made to structure it like that.

Which brings us to the rest of the world. I asked Ryan how he could say that government control never works in health care when Germany, the Netherlands, France and other countries pay so much less, and get as much or more, than we do.

[Ryan's answer was] basically a dodge. First, he changed the countries: He moved to Canada and the United Kingdom rather than the examples I mentioned. And Canada and the United Kingdom, though more successful than we are, are not particularly successful health-care systems. But even so, Ryan’s wrong to draw an equivalence between our costs and theirs. In 2008, Canada spent about $4,000 per person, per year, on health care. The United Kingdom spent a bit more than $3,000. We spent about $7,400. They want to get their health-care costs down and we want to get our health-care costs down, but suggesting that we’re all facing the same sort of pressure is flatly wrong. The same goes for cost growth, where we are again outpacing the rest of the world:

This is the difference between someone who wants to lose 20 pounds and someone who is morbidly obese. Neither party is happy with their weight, but only one of them is in a position to contemplate gastric-band surgery.

And saying this is all about “who should make the decision” is too simple by half, or perhaps by three-fourths. Under Ryan’s plan, the relevant decisions are made by whether you have the money to pay for what you need, whether your insurance provider says “yes” or “no,” and whether Congress decides to increase or decrease the size of the subsidies. As he says elsewhere in his response, his plan is all about making Medicare less generous, about finishing off the open-ended, fee-for-service model he believes is driving costs.

* * *

In both of his major arguments, Ryan focuses on the wrong numbers. When defending Medicare Part D, he argues that it came in cheaper than expected, ignoring both the reasons behind that performance and the fact that growth in the program was nevertheless much faster than his plan could bear. When attacking the systems in other countries, he cherrypicks numbers to demonstrate they want to save money in the health-care systems but ignores the numbers showing that they spend half as much as we do. The result is that he gives people the wrong impression of both Medicare Part D and health systems across the world. 

The reality is that if Ryan’s plan held growth to the same rate as Medicare Part D, it would implode, while if it closed 50 percent of the gap between our system and the Canadian system, it’d be a wild, unmitigated, unbelievable success. But unhelpfully for Ryan, that points to the fact that the approach he’s trying has never controlled costs as dramatically as he suggests, while the approach he’s eschewing has working in a dozen other countries. As he says in his introductory remarks, we both agree that controlling health-care costs is an urgent priority, that maintaining and improving quality a necessary task, and that none of this will be easy. But that just underscores how important it is for us to be realistic about what we can do, clear-eyed about what has and hasn’t worked elsewhere, and open to ideas that don’t fit with our philosophical preferences.

Legislative Republicans Still Scheming To Topple Voter Protection Act

Posted by Craig McDermott, cross-posted from Random Musings

The 2011 session of the legislature just ended but the Republicans in the lege are already planning for 2011.

One of the few things, perhaps the only thing, preventing the legislature from laying complete waste to Arizona's already weak societal infrastructure has been the Voter Protection Act.  The VPA, also known as "Proposition 105" was an amendment to the Arizona Constitution approved by the voters that effectively bars the legislature from interfering with any voter-approved initiatives (there are exceptions, but it takes a 3/4 vote and must further the intent of the initiative).

That safeguard has prevented the legislature from utterly destroying public education, early childhood health care, and AHCCCS, Arizona's Medicaid program (though they are trying that last anyway).

The Republicans in the lege have made periodic attempts to circumvent or overturn the measure, but those attempts have been rebuffed each time.

However, those Republicans are nothing if not persistent.  They are talking about going after the VPA again next session.

From the Arizona Capitol Times, by Jeremy Duda -

The chorus of lawmakers calling for an overhaul of the Voter Protection Act quieted to a low murmur in 2011, but supporters say the dormant issue will be back on the Legislature’s agenda next year.

Several Republican legislators said they will revive their plans to change Proposition 105, the 1998 ballot measure that strictly limits the Legislature’s ability to tamper with voter-approved measures. Legislative wins on a pair of big-ticket ballot measures, along with a standard informal agreement to steer clear of referenda in non-election years, helped keep the issue on the shelf.

Rep. Chad Campbell, House Democratic leader, was quoted in the article.

“The voters have shown time and time again that they do not want the Legislature undermining their ability to run initiatives and protect their interests. And I don’t blame the voters for that. I would agree with them.”

That pretty much sums up my take on this.  The Republicans will posture all they want, and maybe do even more to cripple the state's fiscal situation in an attempt to scare the voters into rolling over for the anti-society agenda pushed by the GOP pooh-bahs. 

However, the voters haven't done so before now, and with the growing dissatisfaction with the cold-heartedness (cutting education to pay for tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy) and corruption (Fiesta Bowl junkets, anyone?), they aren't likely to trust any ballot measure the legislature pushes targeting the voters' will.

Note:  right now, the Cap Times' piece isn't behind a paywall, but it soon could be.

J.D. Hayworth labels Recall Pearce group "Socialist thugs who carry swastikas"

by David Safier

The Phoenix New Times has posted a fundraising letter from J.D. Hayworth supporting BAN AMNESTY NOW and the Conservative Leadership Coalition. It's one of those circular diatribes filled with drumbeats and repeated, all-caps pleas for money. Here's the money quote:

The very same socialist thugs who carry swastikas and call ALL
conservatives "Hitler" for wanting America's borders secure are
now uniting behind a dangerous political ploy to RECALL Senator
Pearce prior to the 2012 general elections.

It's a last-ditch, desperate political scam and we MUST join
together to protect an important American who never stops working
for us or our families.

Warning: Do not try to parse those first few lines if you have anything like a logical mind. "Does Not Compute. Does Not Compute."

The photo the New Times chose to accompany the column is, of course, Pearce with his arm around his one-time buddy and full time white supremacist, J.T. Ready. Unfortunately for Arizona, that photo Computes all too well.

Melvin wants to keep the border safe -- from commerce

by David Safier

Al Melvin said No to opening more lanes at the Nogales border. Mr. Jobs/jobs/jobs doesn't see the point in speeding up the flow of customers and trucks crossing from Mexico into the U.S.

In Marie Antoinette fashion, Melvin says, "Let them eat cake take trains."

The backstory here is, Melvin is co-chair of the state border security committee. Nogales businessmen asked him to OK a request to the feds for more customs officers to open more lanes. Right now, the wait to get across the border can be as much as 5 hours.

These are businessmen making the request, not those "lefty illegal immigrant lovers" Al despises. These guys want the money that flows across the border from legal traffic, and the jobs that come with it.

The businessmen – representing the produce, retail and logistics industries – told the Interim Joint Border Security Advisory Committee that wait times at the border are out of control. It’s affecting the bottom lines of business and government, they said, and it’s becoming a security risk.

Bruce Bracker, Jaime Chamberlain and J.B. Manson told the committee that legal traffic in Arizona accounts for approximately 60,000 jobs in the retail sector alone, that legal travelers from Mexico spend more than $7.3 million per day in the state, and that in Nogales, the sales tax generated by Mexican shoppers brings in almost $450 million a year.

Melvin and his fellow Republicans said No to signing a resolution supporting an increase in customs officers so all five lanes can be opened rather than three. Cost to Arizona? Zero dollars and zero cents.

Melvin's reason for not supporting the businessmen: he doesn't want any more government employees. This from the man who loves government border guards and national guard and is happy to spend gazillions to fence off every inch of the border. But he draws the line at bringing much needed money into the state.

Melvin's solution: put railroad tracks outside Nogales and load them with truck containers. Not a bad idea, maybe, but if we started now, when would it be up and ready to roll?

Melvin cares about his agenda and his ideology, period. His "Jobs, jobs, jobs" is nothing more than a smokescreen, as he's shown over and over again.

Vermont becomes first state to move towards a single-payer health care system

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The insurance industry and its allies in the GOP will do everything in their power to kill this plan in the crib. They can't have the existence of a cost-effective single-payer health care system take root at the state level, as Medicare and VA Care have done at the federal level. It would mark the beginning of the end for health-care insurance companies and the beginning of a National Health Care System.

Think Progress reports, BREAKING: Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin Makes History By Signing Into Law Single Payer Health Care:

Last month, the Vermont Senate passed legislation, approved earlier by the House, that would establish a single payer health care system in the state. The legislation would make Vermont the first state in the nation to, as Gov. Peter Shumlin (D) said, make health care “a right and not a privilege.”  

The governor’s office just confirmed for ThinkProgress that Shumlin signed the legislation into law this morning, making the state the first in American history to pass legislation that will establish a single payer health care system to provide care to all citizens. Now that the law is signed, Vermont will spend the next four years setting up the system and preparing it for implementation.

In order to actually enact the system, the state needs a waiver from the Affordable Care Act health reform law. Currently, the federal government will start handing out state waivers in 2017 — three years after Vermont wants to implement its system. Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT) has introduced an amendment that would move the waiver date up to 2014, an idea that President Obama has endorsed [and that the GOP will oppose].

RyanCare costs more than Medicare

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The GOP's self-proclaimed boy genius, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), rolled out a new video after his GOP Budget was defeated in the Senate on Wednesday, trying to better explain to you ignorant Americans just how his GOP Budget is genius -- genius, I tell ya! -- if only you ignorant people would accept his genius. It was just a messaging problem. Yeah that was it, that's the ticket!

The GOP strategy is what the GOP always does -- wedge issue politics to divide voters, this time along the line of age. The GOP's boy genius wants you to believe that if you are 55 years of age or older, nothing is going to change for you with Medicare. You're golden.

For those of you 54 years of age and younger, boy genius has a new "option" for you. He wants to end Medicare as a government guarantee and convert it to a privatized health-care insurance system in which you will receive vouchers (boy genius really hates that word) to subsidize part of your cost of purchasing private health-care insurance.

The GOP strategy essentially is the bumper sticker you often see on $200,000 RV's -- "I'm retired, and I'm spending my kids' inheritance." The GOP is counting on the elderly to be as narcissistically self-centered as GOP economic policy.

Joan McCarter at Daily Kos exposes the lie of the GOP plan. Daily Kos: Orszag: Republican Medicare plan 'raises costs on the backs of seniors':

Former White House budget director Peter Orszag writes an op-ed for Bloomberg, detailing the cost-shifts to Medicare enrollees in the Republican budget. But his words really can't compare to this picture:

By 2030, both the CBO and CBPP estimate, the Republican voucher proposal would cost nearly $9,000 more per beneficiary than Medicare. The great bulk of that—over $8,000—would be shifted to the beneficiary. In other words, all of us who are disabled or retired as of 2030. Those costs would increase because the Republican plan does nothing to contain costs, so as they rise the proposed voucher won't keep up, and an increasing burden is placed on enrollees. Which, by the way, is exactly what Rep. Paul Ryan wants.

Orszag writes:

[T]he plan would not live up to its billing in cutting health costs for America. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, it would do the opposite. That’s right: The CBO found that the Ryan Medicare proposal would substantially increase total health-care spending....

On the critical metric of whether the Ryan plan would reduce total health-care costs, though, the CBO conclusion is shocking: The plan would not only fail to decrease health-care costs per beneficiary, it would increase them –- by an astonishingly large amount that grows over time. By 2030, health spending on the typical beneficiary would be more than 40 percent higher under the Ryan plan than under existing Medicare, according to the CBO report.

Health-care costs would not be reduced on the backs of seniors; they would be raised on the backs of seniors.

How could this possibly be, when the point of reform is to reduce costs? The CBO points to two factors: Private plans have higher administrative costs than the federal Medicare program, and less negotiating leverage with providers.

No wonder it's such an unpopular plan. Ryan and his colleagues like to say that these facts and figures are just Democratic "Mediscare" tactics, but the CBO isn't a Democratic organization. It's awfully hard to argue with the ugly truth.

"Save Ethnic Studies" files Motion for Summary Judgment

by David Safier

According to a Media Release from Save Ethnic Studies,

On May 25, attorney Richard M. Martinez filed a motion for summary judgment in the case against HB 2281. The motion, filed on behalf of the 13 litigants in the case (11 TUSD Mexican American Studies instructors and two TUSD students), makes the case that the prohibitions outlined in HB 2281 are too vague and broad and violate the first amendment rights of teachers, schools and students. Since every provision of the law violates the constitution, the motion calls for the law to be overturned in its entirety.

You can read the whole MSJ here. I don't have the legal chops or the patience to wade through it myself. The Media Release does a good job of summarizing the points, which deal with the provisions of HB2281 and show how they can't be used against the MAS program exclusively. They are so broad, they would apply to many classrooms and seriously restrict the course content, discussion and even freedom of speech. An example:

In part b (promotes resentment toward a race or class of people), the motion uses the example of a possible discussion of jihad and the attacks of September 11. Could this promote bitterness toward Muslims and therefore make the topic off limits for discussion?  For that matter, might a discussion of the Apache raids in Arizona promote resentment toward Apaches?

You can read the whole Media Release after the jump.

Arizona's Employer Sanctions Law Upheld on 'Narrow' Grounds

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

When you need to know what really happened at the U.S. Supreme Court, you need to turn to the expert, Lyle Denniston at Scotusblog.com. Here is Mr. Denniston's take on Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, the challenge to Arizona's Employer Sanctions Law. Opinion recap: Shared role on aliens’ jobs : SCOTUSblog:

A divided Supreme Court on Thursday sent a strong signal that states will be free to experiment with new laws dealing with unlawful aliens living within their borders, at least when the states seek to control access to jobs.  The usual argument that immigration policy has to be uniform, across the nation, would appear to have a significant loophole. 

* * *

Arizona’s legislature and other state leaders have been in the forefront of a spreading effort — among states, as well as some local governments — to crack down more severely on aliens who are illegally in the U.S., especially in the wake of Congress’s unwillingness or inability to adopt new federal controls.  Those outside-of-Washington efforts proved successful legally in the decision just issued in Chamber of Commerce, et al.., v. Whiting, et al. (docket 09-115).

The decision technically did not go beyond the specific Arizona law at issue but, between the lines, seemed to have some broader themes.  There was even a hint that Arizona’s more controversial alien control law — now widely known as “S.B. 1070″ — may not fare as well as its worker control law now has, particularly its provision that gives police wide authority to arrest and detain any individual that an officer believes is an unlawful alien.  Arizona is preparing to file a new appeal, probably during the summer, to try to revive S.B. 1070 after key provisions were blocked in April by the Ninth Circuit Court.

The Court majority on Thursday — 5-3 on the main points, 4-3 on less significant points — rejected claims by business and civil rights groups that Arizona’s four-year-old Legal Arizona Workers Act intrudes upon federal immigration policy on aliens’ employment.  In legal terminology, the Court ruled that federal law did not expressly or by implication “preempt” the state statute.   Not the least significant of the Court’s declarations was a resuscitation of a 1976 precedent, DeCanas v. Bica, speaking broadly of a federal-state partnership on restricting aliens’ jobs.  But that ruling came down ten years before  Congress passed a sweeping new law that generally pushed aside state efforts, except for what had seemed since then to be a fairly narrowly worded exception.

The provision, centrally involved in the new decision, barred states and local governments from enforcing “any law” that imposed punishment on those who hired unlawful aliens, but it made an exception for punishment imposed by “licensing and similar laws.”

On Thursday, however, the Court majority read that “licensing” exception generously, finding that Arizona’s 2007 law imposing more onerous penalties than federal law does for hiring unlawful aliens “fall[s] squarely” within that opening.  That, in fact, was the main disagreement between the majority, led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and the three dissenting Justices. 

* * *

[Chief Justice] Roberts accepted every argument that the state of Arizona had made, about how narrow in scope its initiative was, about how it closely tracked the objectives of the 1986 federal law, about how it would in no way disrupt federal controls, and about how the federal government could adapt its own enforcement duties to accommodate new cooperative efforts it would have to take to help Arizona enforce its law.  Both the Breyer and Sotomayor opinions interpreted the state law as reaching well beyond the scope of federal controls, in ways that would actively frustrate federal efforts and compromise the need for uniformity in dealing with unlawful aliens.

The Chief Justice, responding to the complaints of business and civil rights groups (and of the dissenting Justices) about the supposed sweep of Arizona’s law, wrote that “Arizona has taken the route least likely to cause tension with federal law.”  After summarizing the perceived narrowness of what the state had done, the main opinion commented: “If even this gives rise to impermissible conflicts with federal law, then there really is no way for the state to implement licensing sanctions, contrary to the express terms of the savings clause” — that is, the clause providing a licensing exemption to general preemption of state worker laws.

* * *

There was no mention of S.B. 1070 in Thursday’s opinion.  Any reference to state laws other than the Arizona statute upheld was to worker control laws passed in 12 other states, all predating the 1986 federal immigration law.

It is far from clear that the same majority that assembled Thursday would come together in a decision on S.B. 1070. The controversy over that law  raises preemption issues, of course, but it also raises issued about potential racial discrimination based upon police actions aimed at people who “look like” aliens.  If the case over S.B. 1070 should turn, in some ways, upon the question of bias through “racial profiling,” that might raise issues about violation of federal workplace anti-discrimination laws.   The Chief Justice’s opinion mentioned those anti-bias laws Thursday, suggesting that they could be invoked against employers who, trying to avoid violating the Arizona worker control law, simply refused to hire anyone they thought might be an unlawful alien, just to be on the safe side.

Even before Arizona’s appeal on S.B. 1070 reaches the Court, the Justices now have on their docket two cases that might provide hints, when the Justices react to them, about how the Court feels about other issues of immigration policy in the wake of Whiting.  One is an appeal in a California case testing whether states may legally give unlawful alien students a break on their tuition at state colleges and universities, and the other is an appeal by the city of Hazleton, Pa., seeking to revive a broad alien control law that deals not only with jobs, but also with housing opportunities — a law that cannot now be enforced, under a Third Circuit Court ruling.

* * *

The Court apparently has been holding the Hazleton, Pa., appeal until it decided the Whiting case.  That case (Hazleton v. Lozano, et al., docket 10-772) involves a series of local city ordinances, enacted beginning in 2006, that seek to regulate both employment and access to housing for unlawful aliens living in the city.  The measures, among the first by a local jurisdiction, were apparently prompted by an influx of Latino families in Hazleton, arriving mainly from New York and New Jersey in the early 2000s.   The Third Circuit has upheld injunctions against enforcing the ordinances.

That case was scheduled for consideration by the Justices at their Conference on March 18, but no action on it was taken at that time or since.  It thus is likely to be put before one of the Justices’ Conferences in June, now that the Whiting decision has come down.

Those cases, like Whiting, turn on issues of alleged conflict between federal law and state or local government actions, but like the dispute over Arizona’s S.B. 170, the issues in each of the pending cases go beyond what was at stake in Whiting.

The Hazelton case is relevant because those local ordinances were drafted by Kris Kobach, a lawyer with the Immigartion Law Reform Institute, the legal arm of the anti-immigration Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). Kobach is credited as a co-author, along with the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), of SB 1070, and the anti-immigrant sanctions bills similar to the Hazelton ordinances sponsored by "King" Russell Pearce. Kobach was the lead attorney defending the city of Hazelton before being elected the Secretary of State of Kansas in 2010. "What's The Matter With Kansas?" indeed.

Full Opinion (.pdf) http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-115.pdf.

Stegeman partly gets it, mostly doesn't in op ed

by David Safier

I'm not going to try and guess the motivations behind TUSD Board President Mark Stegeman's op ed in today's Star. But the sad fact is, the piece does nothing to further the Ethnic Studies discussion and is likely to lead to more, not less, distrust between the people involved in the local MAS debate.

The op ed divides into three parts.

The first part explains how moderate, reasonable and rational Stegeman believes his proposal is to make half of the MAS courses into electives. It's very self serving, more self-justification than an attempt to bridge divides.

Then Stegeman transitions to what he calls the "wildly out of proportion" reaction to his resolution. He uses the highly charged phrase, "political convulsions," to describe the protests against his resolution. After loading the dice with inflammatory language, Stegeman makes his only perceptive comments in the piece:

Those convulsions originated partly in Tucson's history of overt discrimination and the decades-long struggle to end it. TUSD's desegregation court orders are a painful part of that history. The current ethnic tensions in Arizona have unfortunately helped to reopen these historical wounds.

We who did not experience historical discrimination must respect the wounds it created and cannot claim to understand all of its consequences. We must respect the passions that it has fueled and listen to the concerns of the passionate.

It's an important insight, even if the tone is patronizing (saying, in essence, I have to accept there are reasons you overly emotional people are acting so irrationally and not accepting my perfectly logical resolution). If Stegeman had focused on this issue and showed some understanding and insight, this could have been a better piece. Instead, this section reads like a reluctant concession sandwiched between his self-justification and what comes next -- a slap at the behavior of the MAS supporters leading up to and during the contentious board meetings.

This is the most tone deaf statement of the entire piece, and that's saying a lot.

In a democracy, those who spread misinformation, harass and vilify opponents, and aggressively disrupt public meetings should not determine the final outcome.

Stegeman's finger is clearly pointing at the MAS supporters, not realizing the charges he is throwing can be applied to him and Pedicone as well. Stegeman himself can certainly be accused of spreading misinformation -- or at the very least, disinformation -- in the "facts" he used and the points he made defending his resolution. Pedicone certainly villified the students and their supporters by saying the students were being led astray by manipulative adults. And harassment? What do you call 100 police at a board meeting? That's an attempt to both intimidate and harass MAS supporters who showed up.

Here is how I see what happened at the board meetings. There was a confrontation between those who hold the power and those who don't. The Board, whose votes make TUSD law, was very likely going to pass Stegeman's resolution which MAS supporters, including me, believe would have decimated the program. I was told Pedicone had said privately he had the necessary votes, and Miguel Cuevas' later statement that he would vote for the resolution showed he did. The MAS supporters had two options: roll over and play dead or do whatever they could to delay the vote. They decided to do the latter, employing peaceful, disruptive tactics which have been used successfully by the powerless all over the world. And they were successful. The resolution is now on hold.

Was the reaction "wildly out of proportion," as Stegeman wrote? Was it a "political convulsion"? In my opinion, no.

Let me make an analogy which, while not perfect, gives a sense of the justifiable outrage MAS supporters felt when Stegeman claimed he was helping them by doing something they despised.

Here's the analogy.

A group of racists take over the state legislature and governor's office in some southern state. Together, they pass laws that threaten to turn back the clock to the days of legal segregation.

The African American population and its civil rights supporters are both enraged and frightened by the actions and vow to do whatever they can to fight the loss of any rights they fought for so long and so hard.

A well meaning white city council member proposes a resolution that in every public bathroom in the city with more than four stalls, one of the stalls will be labeled "White Only." "Listen," the council member says to the African American community, "you can still use those bathrooms, all except one stall. I'm really not taking anything away from you. This small concession just might be enough to stop the racists at the state level from implementing their far more drastic proposals. I'm doing it for your own good."

Does anyone in their right mind think the African American community and its ardent supporters are going to shake that city councilman's hand and thank him for his kind and helpful resolution?  What they're more likely to do is exactly what the MAS supporters have done. They're going to use every tactic they can think of short of violence to protect their hard-earned rights and stop the council from enacting the wrong-headed, insulting resolution.

Stegeman gives an all-too-brief nod to history in his op ed. It's time he tries to take an emotional step back from his position on the TUSD Board, read the history of struggles for minority rights in this country and all over the world, make an effort to listen to the voices in the MAS struggle here and try to understand the reasons people reacted so strongly to his resolution. It's not enough to say, as Stegeman does, "We who did not experience historical discrimination must respect the wounds it created and cannot claim to understand all of its consequences." It's time for him to make a concerted effort to walk a mile in someone else's shoes.

Bachmann Teaser in Overdrive

Posted by AzBlueMeanmie:

Hours after Sarah Palin announced a bus tour of the east coast that could presage a presidential campaign, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) told reporters here that she was likely to announce a White House campaign next month in Waterloo, Iowa. Michele Bachmann likely to announce in Iowa - POLITICO.com:

Bachmann, who spent much of her childhood in Waterloo, wouldn’t definitively say that she would launch a bid in the eastern Iowa city, but it was clear she was only holding back to sustain a measure of suspense for the actual event.

“The announcement will be made in Iowa, and it will be made in Waterloo and we’ll give you the date and the time,” she said via speaker phone to a room full of reporters in a hotel conference room here.

* * *

In talking to reporters, the third-term congresswoman repeatedly said she was making preparations to run, though she insisted that “until we make the final announcement it would not be correct to say the decision has been made.”

But the tea party favorite and powerhouse fundraiser already sounded like a candidate in the call, touting her ability to bring in cash.

“I am very confident that if we get in this race we’ll be able to put the resources together to be able to wage a full-scale, successful effort to make it all the way to the White House,” said Bachmann.

She also noted that she had begun moving to create a campaign infrastructure.

“We already have a hired staff in South Carolina, in New Hampshire, in Iowa — we have people on the ground,” she said. “We’re doing every aspect that we need to be doing in this effort.”

The Minnesotan called Palin “a friend,” but quickly added that no two candidates “are interchangeable”[.]

Bachmann declined to say if she would announce in time to participate in a debate on June 13th in New Hampshire, but said she would decide soon.

Two quick points. First, if Palin is actually running and not just on another one of her egomaniacal binges, this is going to be an epic cat fight. "There is only room for one queen of this prom, biotch, and it ain't you!" Maybe the Gorgeous Ladies of Wrestling (GLOW) - are they still around? - should sponsor a pay-per-view main event. Or give Linda McMahon from World Wrestling Entertainment a call.

Second, with Bachmann in Iowa, and possibly Palin, Tim Pawlenty is the biggest loser. His flawed campaign strategy was to win Iowa and hope it catapults him to a win over Romney in New Hampshire. T-Paw may as well fold up his tent and head home now. His chances are done.

The for-profit college scam

by David Safier

For-profit colleges are scamming their students and the federal government. They charge too much, teach too little and saddle their students with loan payments out of proportion with the salaries graduates earn in the jobs the colleges pretend to prepare them for. When the ex-students can't pay, the feds pick up the bill.

The figures in an article in today's Star tell the tale.

• For-profit colleges average $2,659 per student on instruction. The average full time student pays $30,900 annually.
• Non-profit private colleges average $15,289 per student on instruction. The average full time student pays $26,600 annually.
• Public universities average $9,418 per student on instruction. The average full time student pays $15,600 annually.

Numbers like these are always approximate and somewhat misleading, but the differences are glaring even if the numbers aren't entirely accurate. The numbers show for-profit colleges spending less than 10% of student costs on instruction leaving 90% for overhead and profits, while non-profit private colleges spend a little over half and public universities spend about 60% on instruction.

The for-profits "get as much as 90 percent of their revenue from federal student grants and loans." That means the federal government is footing the bill. If students default on their loans, the feds are stuck with the bill, while the college's owners suck up the profits.

The for-profit college lobby and its congressional friends are fighting against legislation that would bring a much-needed increase in regulations and oversight, naturally.

The GOP's self-proclaimed boy genius gets spanked by 'serious' adult

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

There is something that has been bugging me about this Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) for some time now. There is something vaguely familiar about him, like I know him from somewhere. You know what I mean. You meet someone and their face looks familiar, and you have to ask "haven't we met?" or "don't I know you from somewhere?" Every time I see this guy on TV I am thinking "where do I know this guy from?" Well, it finally came to me -- this guy looks like Eddie Munster all grown up! It is the widow's peak that is the dead giveaway. Am I right?!

Anyway, the thin-skinned self-proclaimed boy genius of the GOP spoke earlier this week at the 2011 Fiscal Summit held by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation -- an organization dedicated to the elimination of social security and Medicare. Swell guys. Rep. Ryan's counterpart was Gene B. Sperling, Director of the National Economic Council and Assistant to the President for Economic Policy.

The Wall Street Journal reported Rep. Ryan, Gene Sperling Trade Broadsides on Budget:

Anyone who thought the White House and House Republicans were close to a deficit-reduction deal only needed to sit through five minutes of the 2011 Fiscal Summit held by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation in Washington.

Those would be the five minutes when House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) wrapped up his wide-ranging remarks and when White House National Economic Council Director Gene Sperling began his talk.

Mr. Ryan concluded by saying, ”The White House is not producing a plan that comes anywhere close to fixing this problem” and “You can’t have a neogitation with just yourself.”

* * *

Mr. Ryan exited the stage, and Mr. Sperling, a top White House budget negotiator, took the seat. In the first breath, he fired back, taking aim at Mr. Ryan’s refusal to raise revenue through new taxes.

“I want to point out how isolated the House Republicans are,” he said. “Serious people doing serious discussions do not take an absolutists position that you cannot have a penny of revenue.”

He said Mr. Ryan has “put himself in a box” with his unwillingness to raise tax revenue. He said this forced Republicans to call for “very severe cuts” that if “explored” by Americans “they would not be proud of.”

Mr. Sperling attacked the House Republican proposals to overhaul Medicare and Medicaid, saying that the $770 billion in savings Republicans wanted from changing Medicaid would be unneccessary if Republicans would agree to roll back certain tax cuts.

“You can’t say to anybody who would be affected by that, that we have to do that, that we have no choice,” he said. “The fact is that all of those savings would be unnecessary if you were not funding the high income tax cuts.”

He also said that Mr. Ryan was wrong when he said that raising taxes as part of a broader package would hurt economic growth.

“Everything he said I heard nine million times in 1993,” said Mr. Sperling, who was NEC deputy director in the Clinton administration and later became Mr. Clinton’s national economic adviser.

That would be during the longest sustained period of economic expansion in U.S. history, followed by the "Lost Decade" of the Bush years.

Daniel Dayen (D-day) at Firedog Lake has more on the speech that the WSJ did not report, NEC Director Sperling Savages Ryan Medicaid Cuts:

Sperling apparently also said “From a values perspective, we should be very deeply troubled by the Medicaid cuts in the House Republican plan.”

This is excellent. If the White House fights for Medicaid rather than wanting to gain “credibility” through a deal, it cuts off that avenue of escape for Republicans. Safety-net programs could then get untouched and deferred until after the 2012 elections. This would be the best-case scenario at this point.

D-day posted the full transcript of Sperling's remarks, which is reproduced below the fold.

Tea-Publican Tyranny in Wisconsin: Judge Strikes Down Collective Bargaining Law

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi struck down legislation repealing most collective bargaining for public employees, but the measure could still gain new life from the state Supreme Court or a fresh vote by lawmakers. Dane County judge strikes down collective bargaining law - JSOnline:

In a 33-page decision (.pdf), Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi overturned the legislation and ruled that GOP lawmakers broke the state's open meetings law in passing it March 9 amid raucous protests by union supporters. The legislation would limit collective bargaining to wages for all public employees in Wisconsin, except for police and firefighters, and impose cuts in their health and pension benefits to help balance a massive state budget shortfall.

On March 18, Sumi had placed a temporary hold on the law, but Thursday's ruling voided it - at least until the Supreme Court decides whether to act in the case.

* * *

The ruling - the latest kicker in a tumultuous three and a half months - could push GOP lawmakers to pass the collective bargaining measure again. It also highlights the importance of Supreme Court Justice David Prosser's election to the sharply divided court following a statewide recount - one that Prosser opponent JoAnne Kloppenburg is still considering whether to challenge.

* * *

In the decision, Sumi appeared to be bracing for an outcry from supporters of the law, noting that judges are supposed to apply the law even if their decisions will be "controversial or unpopular."

Sumi wrote that Ozanne showed by "clear and convincing evidence" that the open meetings law had been violated and that past lawmakers had intended for their actions to be bound by that law. She also said the law carried a constitutional force because the state constitution says the doors of each house of the Legislature must remain open when lawmakers are in session.

"The Legislature and its committees are bound to comply with the open meetings law by their own choice. Having made that choice, they cannot now shield themselves from the provisions that give the law force and effect," wrote Sumi.

The state Supreme Court woll hold oral arguments on whether to take the case on June 6.

Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca (D-Kenosha) called the decision that grew out of his complaint a "huge win for democracy in Wisconsin" and urged Republicans not to plug the collective bargaining changes back into the state budget, saying they should instead look for compromise with state unions to save money.

"It is not healthy for Wisconsin for us to be such a divided state," he said.

Marty Beil, executive director of the Wisconsin State Employees Union, said the decision promotes open government.

"I think it's a victory for sunshine, for the citizens of this state, not just us.... Do we see this as a permanent victory? No, but we see it as a victory today," he said.

In addition to the open meetings case, there are two other lawsuits over the measure, and other court challenges could come later. If Republicans eventually succeed in defeating the open meetings objections, the legal battle will shift to whether the legislation itself can be challenged.

Here's what's next in the battle for Wisconsin:

May 31: The Wisconsin Government Accountability Board has certified three recall elections against Republican Senators for the ballot. The board will hold a hearing on May 31 to decide the other six recall petitions - 3 Republicans and 3 Democrats - for the ballot.

June 6: Supreme Court to hold oral argument on whether to take the collective bargaining case.

July 12: Recall elections of up to nine state senators to be held.

The Arpaio Scandals: It's getting where you need a scorecard to tell them apart

Posted by Craig McDermott, cross-posted from Random Musings

With the latest scandal to hit Sheriff Joe Arpaio's Maricopa County Sheriff's Office this week, the arrest of three MCSO employees for involvement with drug and human-trafficking cartels, it seems as if the scandals could form their own baseball team.  Here's the lineup:

Leading off and playing center field, the fleet-footed rookie above

Batting second and playing second, the politically motivated investigations and indictments of Maricopa County supervisors and Arpaio political adversaries Don Stapley and Mary Rose Wilcox

Batting third and playing left field, the politicall motivated investigation of and charges levelled against a county judge who failed to kiss Arpaio's behind

Hitting cleanup and playing first, the news that Arpaio and his office misspent almost $100 million of jail funds

Hitting fifth and playing the hot corner (3rd base for the heathens out there :) ), former Chief Deputy Dave Hendershott, who's as famous for taking one for the team as he is for hitting them out of the ballpark

Batting sixth and catching, Joel Fox and the SCA laundered campaign contributions/depraved attack ad

In the seventh spot and playing shortstop, the new linchpin of Arpaio's defense, Bill Montgomery and the hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of campaign finance violations

Batting eighth and playing right field, the Taj Mahal of buses, ostensibly purchased to transport prisoners, but now used to throw loyalists under in hopes that the bodies will stave off a federal indictment

And batting ninth and pitching, the master of distraction, Joltin' (rhymes with Revoltin'), Joe Arpaio.

The MCSO scandal bench is pretty deep - dead bodies at the hands of his detention officers, millions of dollars in lawsuits, junkets to Honduras to "train" the military there, just months before a right-wing military coup there, and more await their turn at the plate.

His team does have one glaring weakness - his star relief pitcher and biggest ally at the legislature, State Senator Russell Pearce, has troubles of his own.  Like a growing recall effort and a son who has been sentenced to a year in prison.  Wonder if he's going to do his time in  a luxury hotel room one of the private prisons that his father so ardently supports?

Fortunately for Arpaio, if this lineup ever sees a game, the umpire will be a federal judge, not any of the Maricopa County judges that he has tried to intimidate.

Unfortunately for him though, if this lineup ever sees a game, the opposing team captain won't be the prosecutor he's hired for his team, it'll the the US Attorney.

Mitt Romney would have let Detroit fail, now tries to claim credit for its revival

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The ease with which this shapeshifter changes his positions and shamelessly lies is what really disturbs me about Willard "Mittens" Romney.

In 2008, Mittens wrote an opinion for the New York Times entitled Let Detroit Go Bankrupt:

If General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye.

And what was Mitten's solution?

A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.

In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.

Chrysler did file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on April 30, 2009. GM followed suit by filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on June 1, 2009. So technically there was a "managed bankruptcy" as Mittens suggested in his op/ed. But the contours of the "bailout" plan Congress enacted to rescue Detroit and the reorganization plans adopted by the bankruptcy courts differed substantially from the plan outlined by Mittens in his op/ed.

Mittens is hanging on to this slim thread -- a "managed bankruptcy," absent the actual details -- to claim that the success of the Obama administration's rescue of Detroit was really "his idea." He is trying to claim credit for something he opposed. He is shameless.

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

UPDATE: Kevin Drum concludes "Is Romney trying to take more credit than he deserves here? Sure. But it strikes me as being garden variety political puffery, not third-degree hypocrisy." In Which I Swallow Hard and Defend Mitt Romney | Mother Jones. But in an update to his own post:

On April 29, 2009, after the outlines of the Obama plan were fairly clear and GM produced a proposal meant to address its requirements, Romney trashed it in pretty strong terms. "What is proposed is even worse than bankruptcy," he said. "It would make GM the living dead." And a correspondent says that Romney consistently opposed the infusion of any government money into the bankruptcy process, which is pretty far afield from the "course of action that eventually the Obama administration adopted." If this is true, it makes the flip-flopping case stronger.

John Wayne called: He wants his movie title back

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

H/t to Lawrence O'Donnell who used this caption before I could post about it. Real Clear Politics reported yesterday that the former halfling governor of Alaska, the Quitta from Wasilla, actually has the gall to release a vanity movie about herself in June entitled "The Undefeated." As a John Wayne fan, I am offended. RealClearPolitics - Palin's Secret Weapon: New Film to Premiere in June:

Rife with religious metaphor and unmistakable allusions to Palin as a Joan of Arc-like figure, "The Undefeated" echoes Palin's "Going Rogue" in its tidy division of the world between the heroes who are on her side and the villains who seek to thwart her at every turn.

* * *

[The film] dramatizes the theme of Palin's persecution at the hands of her enemies in the media and both political parties, a notion the former governor has long embraced.

I hate to break it to you, but Joan of Arc suffered from delusions. Oh sure, she allegedly led the French army to some victories in the Hundred Years' War, but she was captured by the Burgundians, sold to the English, tried by an ecclesiastical court, and burned at the stake -- all before she was 19 years old. No divine intervention to save her there. Just how far does the Alaska Disasta want to take this "Onward Christian Soldiers" analogy?

The movie is made by conservative mythmaker/filmmaker Stephen K. Bannon. He insisted upon taking complete control and financing it himself -- to the tune of $1 million.

Bannon screened a rough cut privately for Sarah and Todd Palin last Wednesday in Arizona, where Alaska's most famous couple has been rumored to have purchased a new home. Oh dear God, it's true.

[I]t premieres in Iowa next month, the film is poised to serve as a galvanizing prelude to Palin's prospective presidential campaign -- an unconventional reintroduction to the nation that she and her political team have spent months eagerly anticipating, even as Beltway Republicans have largely concluded that she won't run.

* * *

Bannon intends to premiere the film in Iowa late next month before expanding the release to New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada. After the initial rollout in the four early voting states, the filmmaker will eventually release it to somewhere between 50 and 100 markets nationwide.

* * *

Bannon, a former naval officer and ex-Goldman Sachs banker, sees his documentary as the first step in Palin's effort to rebuild her image in the eyes of voters who may have soured on her[.]

"This film is a call to action for a campaign like 1976: Reagan vs. the establishment," Bannon told RealClearPolitics.

Or more historically analogous, Triumph of the Will. Yeah, I said it; somebody had to. Bannon is Palin's Leni Riefenstahl. Another reason to hate the banksters of Wall Street.

Bannon originally titled his film "Take a Stand," which was the campaign slogan for Palin's 2006 gubernatorial run when she defeated incumbent Republican Frank Murkowski in the primary before cruising in the general election to become Alaska's youngest -- and first female -- chief executive. But in order to give it a more triumphant punch, the filmmaker changed the title to "The Undefeated."

I hate to break it to you, but McCain-Palin were soundly defeated in the biggest Democratic landslide since LBJ beat Goldwater in 1964. And then she up and quit.

These people really do live in an alternate reality.

Tea-Publican senators on assistance to the unemployed: 'We think it's stupid'

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Governor Jan Brewer says she wants to call a special session.

House Speaker Andy Tobin, R-Paulden, says that he is open to the idea.

The Democratic Caucus has asked the governor to call a special session.

So what's the problem? Arizona lawmakers lukewarm on extending unemployment benefits:

In the Senate, Majority Whip Steve Pierce, R-Prescott, said there's no appetite for the change.

"The Senate said, 'We think it's stupid,' " Pierce said earlier this week. Republicans senators feel the 79 weeks allowed under the current program is more than adequate, he said. Others feel an unemployment check is a disincentive to seeking a job.

Remember next November.

A couple of wonderful Tucson education stories

by David Safier

Francisco Orozco, who just graduated from Tucson High, is something special. The guy has racked up all kinds of honors for his scientific work.

[Orozco's] research into how enzymes can increase biofuel production has received national recognition. He's cleaned up at major science fairs across the country. There's a good chance his research will be published.

It sounds like Margaret Wilch, who teaches honors research methods at Tucson High, is something special as well. Orozco decided to drive into Tucson High from Three Points -- it's almost halfway to Sells -- because of the work he saw by her students at science fairs.

"Every project that was from Tucson High stood out so much at the regional science fair," Orozco said of what he saw in Wilch's students, and why he had to be in her class. "Prestigious projects. Amazing notebooks. They were just really, really, really high-quality projects."

To recap: an inspirational teacher at a public school -- and not the usual places like University High or Catalina Foothills High, but Tucson High -- made a huge difference for this student, and I'm sure she's inspired many others as well. Francisco will be attending UA, and he'll arrive knowing something about the place. Thanks to Wilch's class, he's already linked in with a lab at UA.

It's a great story. Congratulations, Francisco, and best wishes. And thank you, Ms. Wilch, for your insprirational work.

In another story, UA got an $800 million contract from NASA, which is a follow-up to the $428 million it got to work on the Phoenix Mars lander. This time the money is for a "robotic space mission that will visit an asteroid and extract a sample that could provide clues to the origin of life on Earth." This is wonderful for UA and for Tucson, with all kinds of spillover benefits.

NOTE: The story about Francisco Orozco was written by Josh Brodesky, who is generally not a favorite here at BfA. Though I have some minor quibbles with the column, it tells the story very well. I applaud Josh for shining a positive spotlight on this deserving young man, his teacher and Tucson High.

Recall Pearce Update: Final petition drive this weekend, will file May 31

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Update to Arizona Elections Director Amy Bjelland can't read a statute: possible delay in Russell Pearce Recall:

If the Maricopa County Recorder's Office expeditiously verified the petition signatures and if the Governor issued the order for a recall election upon receipt of that verification instead of delaying the mandatory order for 15 days, this recall election could still occur in November.

And that is the message Citizens For a Better Arizona personally delivered to Secretary of State Ken Bennett on Wednesday. Pearce recall group urges November election - East Valley Tribune:

A group trying to recall state Senate President Russell Pearce is pressing election officials to verify petition signatures quickly to compensate for a mistake that would delay the election date.

A recall election can still occur in November, which recall backers planned on, if state and county officials don't take all the time required by law to verify signatures.

Organizers gathered in Secretary of State Ken Bennett's office Wednesday to seek assurance election officials won't drag their feet and delay the election until March.

"We just want to make sure that politics doesn't enter into this at all," said Chad Snow, chairman of Citizens for a Better Arizona.

The group plans to submit signatures May 31, the deadline to submit recall paperwork.

Bennett addressed the recall organizers and said all of his elections workers would turn to signature verification if the group submits the paperwork. They'd work as quickly as possible while ensuring their work is accurate, he said.

"We'll do everything as fast as we can," Bennett said.

* * *

 Bennett said he won't let politics interfere with the process.

"I don't think the governor is going to play politics in this either," Bennett said. [Phttt! Riiight]

A recall would require 7,756 valid signatures from residents of the heavily Republican legislative District 18, which covers west Mesa. Backers said they plan to submit 17,553 signatures, which is one more than the number of votes Pearce got in 2010.

* * *

Also Wednesday, the group announced it's retained the law firm of Perkins & Coie, whose specialties include election law.

* * *

Wednesday's gathering in Bennett's office included several lifelong Republicans and members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, of which Pearce is a member.

Carolyn Cooper clutched a folder with pictures of relatives in military uniforms and became upset that Pearce opponents have been called anarchists. Cooper noted Pearce once was close with J.T. Ready, an anti-immigration activist who has been photographed wearing swastikas. Pearce has since cut ties to Pearce but Cooper said that didn't matter.

"And he has the gall to call us too extreme," Cooper said.

Julie Jorgensen is a Republican and fifth-generation Mormon who has opposed Pearce for cutting adult education funds. She teaches adult education and dismissed the assertion that only liberals or open-border activists oppose Pearce.

"I want people to know that all Mormons and all Republicans are not as extreme as Russell Pearce," Jorgensen said.

To Volunteer: Please help put this recall effort over the top by volunteering your time. Once again, here is the contact information for the recall.

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.

To Donate: www.recallpearce.com Checks made payable to: Citizens for a Better Arizona.

Citizens for a Better Arizona needs to collect 7,756 valid signatures by May 31st in District 18, Mesa Arizona.

Help put them over their goal of 17,553 signatures and be a part of history.

40 GOP senators walk the plank for Rep. Ryan's failed Roadmap to America's Ruin

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Just moments ago, 42 40 out of 47 Senate Tea-Publicans voted for the House GOP budget, i.e., Rep. Paul Ryan's Roadmap to America's Ruin, with its plan to phase out and privatize the popular Medicare program. All But 5 Senate Republicans Vote To End Medicare | TPMDC:

The Ryan budget plan failed by a vote of 57-40. But the roll call illustrates that Medicare privatization -- along with deep cuts to Medicaid and other social services -- remains the consensus position of the GOP despite the growing political backlash against them.

Voting with all of the Democrats were Sens. Scott Brown (R-MA), Olympia Snowe (R-ME) -- both 2012 incumbents -- along with Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK). Rand Paul (R-KY) voted against it because it wasn't radical enough.

It's been a good 24 hours.

UPDATE: The measure was defeated 57-40. Not voting were Republicans Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas and Pat Roberts of Kansas, as well as Democrat Charles Schumer of New York.

David Schweikert: "We're doing the honorable thing" by ending Medicare

by David Safier

Count Rep. David Schweikert as a true believer when it comes to Paul Ryan's proposal to end Medicare as we know it.

It's a pretty astounding performance. ABC News spent 6 minutes asking Rep. David Schweikert if he planned to support Ryan's Medicare plan, even in the face of the trouncing a New York Republican took in a "safe" district last night.

Schweikert's answer: Absolutely.

Here are Schweikert's words defending Ryan's Medicare plan:

"We need to save Medicare."

"Embrace [Ryan's Medicare plan] because it's based on math."

"We're doing the honorable thing."

"What we're doing is saving the Republic."

"[We need to] take a little bit of a political risk, get out there in our communities and explain why we're doing what we're doing. . . . We're gonna save this country!"

Schweikert has planty of time between now and the election to go out there in his district and stand up for the Ryan/Republican plan to end Medicare as we know it -- again and again and again. It should be an interesting ride.

 

Arizona's Democratic legislators call for special session to help Arizona's unemployed

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Governor Brewer says she wants it; legislative Democrats want it; I understand that many House Republicans want it; the problem lies with the Senate controlled by "King" Russell Pearce and his toady Sen. "Cap'n" Al Melvin, who have made hateful statements about Arizona's unemployed in recent weeks.

Press release from the Democratic Senate Caucus:

Senate Democrats Call on Governor to Help Arizona’s Unemployed

STATE CAPITOL, Phoenix –Arizona law needs a simple fix to prevent over 15,000 Arizonans from losing their unemployment benefits next week. Repeated requests made by Senate Democrats to the Governor and Legislative Republicans to fix this problem in March and April during regular session fell on deaf ears.

“Senate Democrats are calling on the Governor to immediately call a Special Session to fix this problem, preventing thousands of Arizonans from losing federal benefits next week,” said Senate Minority Leader David Schapira. “The Governor has done virtually nothing to create jobs and lower the unemployment rate. The least she could do is help the thousands of Arizona families that are relying on these benefits while they struggle to find work.”

Extended unemployment benefits are paid solely by the federal government and put an additional $3.5 million a week into the Arizona economy. This fix would cost Arizona taxpayers nothing, and would actually save the state money as the federal benefits would alleviate a need for these Arizonans to seek other state aide. The benefits average $212.00 a week and are used to pay rent, buy food and pay for other life necessities.

“We have been calling on the Governor and Legislative Republicans to make this simple fix to Arizona law since March,” said Senate Minority Whip Paula Aboud. “We have known about this problem for months, yet the Republicans continue to do nothing. Now, time is running out for these families. This is the right thing to do, both economically and morally.”

Since December of 2007 Arizona has lost 344,000 jobs. Arizona currently ranks 47th out of the 50 states in terms of job creation since March of 2010.

# # #

ADP Video: Protect Medicare from AZGOP

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Arizona Democratic Party rapid response team is out with a new video based upon Kathy Hochul's victory in NY-26 on Tuesday. As House Minority Leader Nacy Pelosi said, "It is a flag we've planted that we will protect and defend. We have a plan. It's called Medicare."

KVOA-4 gives Jonathan 'Payday' Paton an opportunity to diss on Tucson

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I rarely ever watch local television news programs. It consists mostly of the weather - twice, if not three times - sports, the Hollywood Minute(s), newswire headline national news reports, some personal interest story to demonstrate just how much the anchor person loves their local community (before they leave for a bigger television market), and of course, the "if it bleeds it leads" intro report: BREAKING NEWS! There's a shooting/auto accident/house fire/robbery, etc., etc. in progress and our eyewitness news reporter is on the scene to speculate without any factual information to report!

It gets worse when local television news tries to cover politics. If it's not Bud Foster or Sandy Rathbun reporting, don't waste your time in my opinion. Most local television political reporting is superficial at best, and inane at worst.

But I heard this radio promo from KVOA-4 this week for "Rio Nuevo? Or Rio Nada?" (no bias in the lede there), an alleged investigative report into Tucson's Rio Nuevo, so I decided to watch. I say alleged, because the "investigative" report consisted almost entirely of interviews with soon-to-be-ex-mayor Bob Walkup (R), and former Sen. Jonathan "Payday" Paton (R), the Viceroy of Tucson recently appointed to the Rio Nuevo Board by our colonial overlords to the north in the state of Maricopa.

I have posted previously that the Tea-Publican Arizona legislature took a subdivision of the City of Tucson government that was accountable to the Tucson City Council, i.e., the Rio Nuevo Board, and elevated the status of that board to a quasi-state subdivision that is appointed by and accountable only to the Tea-Publican leadership of the Arizona legislature. The Rio Nuevo Board has quasi-autonomous authority, and can be used as a vehicle by the Tea-Publican Arizona legislature to impose or dictate terms to the Tucson City Council on all matters related to Rio Nuevo.

In some respects, this is similar to the emergency financial manager under Michigan's "financial martial law" that I have posted about, only not quite as extreme (yet). The voters of Tucson are nevertheless disenfranchised and robbed of their right of self-determination under their Tucson City Charter when decisions about Rio Nuevo are no longer made by their democratically elected city council and mayor, but rather by unelected Viceroys accountable to no one but the Tea-Publican leadership of the Arizona legislature who appointed them. In this manner, our colonial overlords to the north in the state of Maricopa seek to subjugate the residents of the City of Tucson to their will.

This is the real story of Rio Nuevo (a cheap shot at this report), but KVOA-4 reporter John Overall instead framed his "investigative" report as a "he said vs. he said" interview between our indefatigable cheerleader for Tucson, soon-to-be-ex-mayor Bob Walkup, and "some say" and "critics say," i.e., "Jonathan 'Payday' Paton says," whom Overall unintentionally or otherwise elevates to the status of unelected de facto mayor of Tucson with his framing (it may appear to some viewers that the City of Tucson answers to "Payday" Paton). This is not "investigative" reporting, this is Tea-Publican political message framing. Mr. Overall should be embarrassed by this shoddy reporting, as should the management of KVOA-4.

I am posting the video segments below the fold because the KVOA-4 videos are extremely slow to load and will interfere with the main blog page otherwise. Update: I have added the URL's to the videos in case they do not load in your browser.

Arizona's new -- and worse -- voucher plan

by David Safier

The "educational empowerment accounts" bill, SB1553, has gotten lost in the news shuffle, partly because there are so many jaw-dropping bills it's impossible to cover them all, and partly because it's pretty complicated stuff to explain and analyze. The Capitol Times just revived the story (subscription only). It looks like no one has filed a lawsuit against the very possibly unconstitutional bill. Its proponents are crowing -- "See, they know it's constitutional!" But the real reason is, its opponents are up to their eyeballs in lawsuits right now, so they've put this one on the back burner.

This is a terrible new version of the old voucher shell game. It combines vouchers for private schools, a terrible idea, with the "You're on your own" concept behind privatizing Social Security and Medicare, two other terrible ideas. The potential result, if the idea is broadened beyond the physically disabled students and students with learning disabilities covered by the current bill (and conservatives very much want to expand it), would be the end of public schooling as we know it.

Here's the idea. Each year, money for a student's education is put in a state-administered savings account. So far, that's just a slight variation on the standard voucher plan. But with these "empowerment accounts," parents can spend the money on anything related to education: private school tuition, "educational therapies," tutoring, curriculum, online learning programs, AP tests, SAT and ACT tests, to name some examples. And if parents decide not to spend all of it, it can be rolled over year after year and even used to pay for college tuition.

Welcome to the world of winners and big losers. Well informed parents with good incomes will probably figure creative ways to game the system and increase the value of their children's educations with very little extra expense. Home schooling parents will win the lottery -- a huge bundle of taxpayer money to pay for college without lifting a finger. And poorer, less informed and less educated parents, whose children are already suffering from a serious educational deficit, will be conned and cheated out of their money by slick salespeople with slicker brochures who will offer little or nothing of educational value for their children.

Oh, and it will probably end up costing the state more money than we spend now while fattening the wallets of educational con men and corporations.

The Republicans are on a mission to End [fill in the blank] As We Know It. Social Security. Medicare and Medicaid. Public schooling. If it's a government service that promotes the health and well being of anyone other than the privileged, it's on the chopping block.

Gosar to town hall: Forget what I own and what I make. I live like the rest of you folks.

by David Safier

When Rep. Paul Gosar was up in Tusayan, near the Grand Canyon, at a town hall, he said, "I ain't wealthy. . . . I live like the rest of you folks."

And you gotta believe him, because he said "ain't." Wealthy people don't say "ain't."

Except . . .

His building for his dental practice is worth about a million. His dental practice itself, about half a million more. The antique store he owns, another half a million or so.

Oh, and then there's his salary as a congressman: $174,000 a year.

The approximate median income of people in his district? About $33,000.

But according to Gosar, his combined well-over-a-million-dollar net worth doesn't make him wealthy. "I live like the rest of you folks," he says. You gotta wonder how the poor guy scrapes by.

Here's the video, followed by the money quote.

 

GOSAR: In the last election I was labeled a millionaire. Seriously. I ain’t wealthy. I built my own house, I wouldn’t do it again. I own my building, I have a dental practice. I live just like the rest of you folks. It’s all on paper, it’s not in cash.

h/t to Think Progress for the catch.

IS HE A MILLIONAIRE? UPDATE: OK, I wanna be fair. Gosar may not be a millionaire. According to Open Secrets, his net worth could be as low as $865,006, or as high as $2,149,999. If we lowball it, he misses millionaire status by $134,994. The high figure puts him at double millionaire status. We report. You decide.

NY-26: GOP loses referendum on Rep. Ryan plan to end Medicare as we know it

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Kathy Hochul ought to send Paul Ryan a thank-you note.

Hochul pulled off a long-shot victory Tuesday in the heavily Republican 26th Congressional District largely by vowing to save Medicare. Hochul found political gold in Ryan plan - Donn Esmonde - The Buffalo News:

The spending plan proposed by Ryan, Republican chairman of the House Budget Committee, would — among other things — change the face of Medicare, the government-run health care program for senior citizens. Announced in mid-April, it immediately handed Hochul a point of attack.

* * *

"Medicare seemed to be the key issue," said Jim Campbell, chairman of UB's political science department. "Hochul recognized it as a potential vulnerable spot for Corwin." Largely because Medicare was thick in the mix, the ripples of the special election — as evidenced by the national play the race got — extend far beyond the 26th District.

Hochul and her allies pounded Corwin's backing of the plan to, as they put it, "end Medicare as we know it." For Hochul, concerns about Ryan's plan helped her to connect with senior citizens — whose propensity to vote made them a vital bloc in a low-turnout special election.

* * *

Hochul's competitiveness in a longtime Republican stronghold should send a warning flare to national Republicans. Hochul rode the Medicare horse from the moment Ryan's plan was unveiled through the home stretch. Given Hochul's unexpected competitiveness and Medicare-driven poll numbers, Republicans may have to back away from plans to partly privatize Medicare in 10 years.

* * *

The Ryan plan's shape-shifting of Medicare was, for Hochul, the gift that kept on giving.

The GOP spin this morning is that Tea Party candidate Jack Davis siphoned off Republican and independent votes from Corwin. This requires some political jujitsu to believe. The Tea Party regularly claims that they are opposed to both political parties, and that they are not a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican Party. So it is presumptuous and pretentious to assume that Davis' votes would automatically have gone to Corwin. After all, in New York there are four political parties that regularly appear on the ballot. In addition to Democrats and Republicans there are the Liberal and Conservative parties. "Third" parties are always a feature in New York politics.

Davis' single-digit showing was less of an impact than many people expected. The take-away from this is that the strength of the so-called Tea Party is waning and/or has been greatly exaggerated by the corporate news media.

Kathy Hochul's victory comes down to two factors. First, she was an exceptional candidate and ran a strong race. NY-26 is the reddest of red "safe" Republican districts with a heavily weighted GOP voter registration edge. Hochul won by attracting Republican votes, for many of them probably the first time in their life that they have cast a vote for a Democrat. This is a major achievement by Hochul. It should not be diminished by the corporate news media falling back on its simplistic, and incorrect, formula that Hochul's victory was because of the presence of the clownish Jack Davis.

Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, this was a microcosm referendum in a Republican district on Rep. Paul Ryan's Roadmap to America's Ruin and its plan to end Medicare as we know it. By all accounts, this was the defining issue in this race. This is a major GOP failure.

Rep. Paul Ryan's thin-skinned whining on political talk shows this morning complaining that Democrats "demagogued" on this issue are patently false -- Democrats pointed out the simple truth that RyanCare would end Medicare as a federal guarantee and turn it into a fixed-rate voucher (coupon) system that would lose purchasing power over time without any checks on rising health-care costs which would leave retirees vulnerable in their waning years. Retirees do not want the "choice" of negotiating a maze of "options" between predatory health insurance companies that have no financial incentive to provide health-care coverage to them. They want their health-care coverage "guaranteed" and that is what Medicare provides. "Keep Your Hands Off My Medicare!" is now a defining issue in the 2012 campaign.

Tea-Publican ideologues have made a pledge to support Rep. Ryan's Roadmap to America's Ruin and its plan to end Medicare as we know it a litmus test in Tea-Publican politics. They see their ideological purity as being "brave." It is a delusional mutual suicide pact. After NY-26, we will learn this week just how many Tea-Publican senators are willing to follow their colleagues in the House over the cliff in ideological lockstep.

h/t The Agenda Project.

There's a new third rail in American politics tonight

Posted by Craig McDermott, cross-posted from Random Musings

Social Security used to be called the "third rail" of American politics, implying that any politician that tried to touch it would see their political career shocked to death.

While Social Security is still vitally important to most Americans, a Republican in upstate New York learned tonight that there is a second "third rail" - Medicare.

From Talking Points Memo -

Democrat Kathy Hochul Wins Upset In NY-26, Medicare Vote Key To Victory


Republicans are going to have plenty of questions about their plan to turn Medicare into a voucher program tomorrow morning after Democrats romped to an improbable victory in a special election focused almost entirely on the issue.


Democrat Kathy Hochul lead 48-43 with over 83% of the votes counted and her victory looks to be a strong one -- the Associated Press called the race within an hour of the polls closing.

Look for Republican wags across the nation to blame the loss on the presence of a third candidate, a tea party type, in the race.

Just remind them that Hochul received approximately twice as large a percentage of the vote (48%) as the Democratic candidate in the same district received just six months ago (24%).

That's not the fault of the tea party type.

In spite of the loss, look for R office holders and seekers to double down on the "destroy Medicare" plan - they'd rather go down in flames than admit they're wrong.

To those Republicans I say this (and I'm showing my age :) ) -

Keep on keepin' on - 2012 will be here soon.