Blog For Arizona

Tucson Welcomes Veterans Home With a Parade

By Michael Bryan

Today Tucson did something very commendable. And it was not the city government that did it - it was the people of Tucson. They came together to throw a welcome home parade for the men and women who served their nation in war over the last dozen years in Afghanistan and Iraq, but also in prior conflicts.

Rachel Maddow gave the all-volunteer effort a shout-out as one of the best new things in the world - I heartily agree.

See footage of the parade taken by yours truly after the flip...

A Biblical Response to Homophobic Christians in Arizona

By Michael Bryan

I have heard anti-gay sentiments too often from GOP candidates for office in Arizona. Frank Antenori has been one of the most vocal and blunt here in southern Arizona, but he is certainly not alone. I find it all distasteful, offensive, and scripturally indefensable.

Frank's recent comments about the Left loving to tear families apart in connection with his support for traditional marriage against same-sex marriages, and his blunt statements against repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy of the armed forces, lead me to conclude that, at the very least, Frank has a problem with gays getting equal treatment under our laws.

Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu's candidacy for Congress was certainly, and rightly, sunk by the scandals in which he has immured himself. But one wonders, would he have been able to weather those storms with GOP primary voters were his lover a young Latina woman? I believe that Babeu's downfall was not his indiscretion, poor judgment, and potential abuses of power - after all, these seem to be par for the course among GOP politicians in Arizona - but his sexual orientation.

Too many GOP politicians find they can get support and donations by appealing to Christians' discomfort with gays. What is the basis of that ingrained bigotry against gays by Christians?

Turns out it's just six passages in scripture - out of some 31,000 passages. How strong is the Biblical basis for anti-gay prejudice? Not very.

Take a listen to Matthew Vines, an impressively articulate and thoughtful Christian gay man, who would like to challenge your settled notions of what the scriptures actually say about homosexuality.

Matthew's scholarship is impressive. It boils down to this:

"The Bible never directly addresses, and it certainly does not condemn, loving, committed same-sex relationships. There is no biblical teaching about sexual orientation, nor is there any call to lifelong celibacy for gay people. But the Bible does explicitly reject forced loneliness as God’s will for human beings, not just in the Old Testament, when God says that “[i]t is not good for the man to be alone,” but in the New Testament as well."

There is no sound foundation for condemnation of the sexual orientation and loving relationships of homosexuals in the Bible. Homophobia's popularity among Christians is merely the last terrible bigotry that remains acceptable in our culture, because many claim the Bible condones it. It does not.

The bitter truth is that bigots will find a reason to indulge their hatred, not because God commands it, but because deep in their hearts, they enjoy it. Their hatred is a reflection of the fallen nature of man. They know hatred and bigotry are not reflections of the godly nature granted humans by their Creator, but rather than be ashamed and purge their hatred through compassion and understanding and the inspiring life of Jesus, they seek to justify their hatred by claiming God shares it.

God hates none of his creation; certainly not the many men and women he created in his image whose hearts and souls, and libidos, respond only to persons of the same sex.

The capacity to love one another, to cleave together, to create loving families, is the godly nature of mankind. To condemn this capacity in some, because God gave them a loving nature different than the majority is not Christian: it is monstrous.

Matthew points out that Jesus taught that we shall know a true teacher by his fruits. The shame, self-destruction, suffering of young gay men and women are the bitter fruits of a misguided teaching. Spit it out.

Watch Matthew present his argument after the flip. If you can still bring yourself to claim God's consent to your hatred of gays, you haven't a heart to appeal to...

Today's César Chávez March

by David Safier

A reasonable crowd showed up at the César Chávez March. One the one hand, the crowd could have been larger, but on the other hand, the number of youth there was encouraging and impressive.

The march began at a church near Pueblo High instead of the school itself, which had been the staging grounds in years past, because TUSD said, basically, you can't talk about the Mexican American Studies controversy or badmouth TUSD on the school grounds. Tedski put it best when he noted that people say bad things about the city government all the time at protests held at city parks. That's called free speech. Pueblo High School's walls would not have come tumbling down like Jericho's if a few Hispanic Joshuas blew there horns on the football field. The District would have withstood the blast. But when the first domino fell with the disbanding of Mexican American Studies, the next dominoes -- the banning of books, the silencing of teachers' voices in their classrooms and today's prohibition of negative talk about the District -- were sure to fall as well. One bad decision begets other bad decisions.

Even more embarassing for the District than a little badmouthing, people might have applauded Sean Arce, and since TUSD is planning to end his contract at the end of the school year, that could have been embarrassing. (More on Arce's removal in another post.)

Here's a pic of the march. You can see a few other pics below the fold.

Super Saturday of Events Today

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

For those of you who are not participating in Arizona's Democratic Presidential Caucuses today to elect delegates who will attend the DNC National Convention in Charlotte, NC later this year, there are two other events today from which you can pick and choose to participate.

12th Annual Cesar Chavez March & Rally

Saturday, March 31, 9:00 a.m.: Join the César E. Chavez Holiday Coalition for the 12th Annual César E. Chávez March and Rally. We will honor the legacy of a great Arizonan and national labor leader, respect for non-violence, and support for Raza Studies. March will leave from St. John's Catholic Church (602 W. Ajo Way) around 9:00 a.m. and end at Rudy Garcia Park (5001 S. Nogales Hwy.) There will be music, speakers, tables, and food at the park. Let's celebrate Cesar Chavez and his legacy together, it is critical now more than ever! Tables are free and vendors are welcome. To request table space or get information to be a food vendor, please contact Laura Dent at ljdent@gmail.com.

City of Tucson Veterans' Affairs Committee hosts a 'Welcome Home' parade for any and all veterans returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan

Saturday, March 31, 10:30 a.m.: The City of Tucson Veterans' Affairs Committee is hosting a 'Welcome Home' parade for any and all veterans returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The parade will begin at 10:30 a.m. in Downtown Tucson. All parade viewers are encouraged to bring their very own 'red, white and blue' to wave to welcome home these brave military heroes. Though the parade will focus on current returning veterans, those from Iraq and Afghanistan, all veterans are encouraged to participate! The parade route will start north on Stone Avenue and continue on Pennington Street, then move west on Franklin street turning south on Main Avenue, east on Alameda Street, and south on Church to end up back on Pennington. The end of the parade will be at Stone and Pennington. The parade organizing committee welcomes parade entries, sponsorships, volunteers, and donations. Forms are available on the event’s Facebook page at http://tinyurl.com/TWHVP. For more information, please contact Alan Toppel at (520) 495-7064 or email tucsonswelcomehome@gmail.com.

The Rachel Maddow Show gave Tucson a big shout out last night for our Welcome Home Parade, so get your butts up off the couch, wear your red, white and blue and grab a flag, and head Downtown to welcome our troops home. Let's do our town proud to honor our service men and women who have proudly served their country.

Video below the fold.

Antenori Claims the Left Loves to Tear Families Apart

By Michael Bryan

Frank with someone whom he thinks wants to destroy his marriage

I am deeply disappointed in Frank Antenori. Frank tends to get carried away by his own rhetoric. That's usually fine, if not exactly useful. Every politician loves the sound of his or her own voice. But what Frank said at the Young Republican debate is just hateful and wrong.

This diatribe is why Frank Antenori lacks the character to represent Congressional District 8/2. This sort of divisive, hyperbalistic, and fear-mongering rhetoric is what is wrong with politics. This is the worst of the paranoid style of politics and Frank appears to be loving every minute of it. People who aspire to leadership should not engage in this sort of bullshit.

Asked if he would defend the Defense of Marriage Act, Frank gave the following jeremiad on the motives of left:

Antenori

"The family is the core unit that makes this country great. And if you dismantle it, like the left loves to do—they love to divide and conquer. They love to pit us against each other. They love to tear apart families. They don't want families. They want individuals that they can control. So the key thing to that is for them to destroy families." (h/t to Jim Nintzel writing for The Skinny)

Frank owes half of America an apology.

He may be an effective conservative firebrand, adept at bashing his hometown to score points with his team of wing-nuts in Phoenix, but he is not the sort of person who can claim to represent all the citizens of this district.

Now, let's take a closer look at Frank's claim.

We liberals hate families. That's why we are trying so hard to create more of them by allowing same-sex couples to marry and raise children. That makes sense.

Seems to me this claim is just ridiculous on its face. If anyone hates families - same-sex ones at least - it is conservatives, who get their knickers in a twist because gays and lesbians want the same rights as heteros. How someone else enjoying the benefits and satisfactions of stable family life denigrates my own hetero marriage, I have always failed to see. If anything, the fact that there is a population of people clamouring to be allowed the same rights as my wife and I enjoy is an affirmation of the continuing relevance and vitality of the institution.

America needs every American to be great. That means every right, institution, and office should be accessible to every American: not just the whites, the straights, and the Christians.

Welcome to America's third century, Frank. Nobody will be sitting in the back of the bus. Get used to it.

 

Jesse Kelly Brings His Weird Act to Hannity

By Michael Bryan

Not content to embarrass himself on local television and debates, Jesse Kelly took his wooden-headed act national on Hannity's show on Fox "News" to discuss the Trayvon Martin slaying.

Really? Is Jesse the guy you want to talk to about gun violence and vigilantism? OK...

The subject of discussion is a lone incident of a flash mob at a Walgreens in Florida "protesting" the slaying. It has conservatives across America seeing flashbacks of the Watts riot. Conservative media is abuzz with condemnation of this misguided idiocy. The alacrity with which conservatives are trying to use this single incident to change the subject is amusing and sad.

Given a chance to open his yap on the flap, Jesse let this emerge:

"I think it's 100% the fault of Barack Obama and the other politicians in Washington.."

So, I guess now every stupid thing done in America is Obama's fault. Good to know.

Hannity interjects:

"Why do you think Barack Obama is at fault? Because of his comment?" 

(referring to Obama's dead-obvious and innocuous comments that every parent should understand why the killing must be investigated, and that if he had a son, he would look like Trayvon, presumably)

Jesse blathers on:

"Because he's willing to stick his nose in anything right now to get the American people's minds off the fact that's there's really 14% unemployment, and gas at 4 dollars a gallon when we have more oil than Saudi Arabia in this country. He will literally try anything to get the American people to stop thinking about that, and I can't wait until we a President who actually loves this country in November!"

Really, Jesse? That's the best you have? President Obama doesn't love America? What a shining example of Congressional-level comment on the state of the nation and the tragic slaying of an innocent young black man.

You are a hateful windbag without ideas or character, Sir.

The panelists were surprised at Jesse's weird and sudden pivot into substance-free campaign rhetoric, but were clearly pleased that such an effective talking point 'bot was running for elective office.

But since we are on the subject of a President who actually loves America, let's explore that a bit. Presumably, Jesse is talking about the presumptive GOP nominee to take on Obama: Mitt Romney. How much does Mitt love America? Enough to outsource his fellow American's jobs to make his fortune. Enough to pay less than 15% taxes on his immense wealth. Enough to oppose reforming Wall Street excesses which brought our economy to this pass in the first place. This country is dying of Romney's GOPish kind of love: the love of a vampire for the blood of his victims.

Now, the psuedo-fact that America has more oil than Saudi Arabia has become standard stump line for Jesse. It's a claim that has no basis in reality: it even has it's own Snopes page, but it has become a standard talking point for a lot of GOPers. Maybe because 88% of oil company political donations are flowing to Republicans this cycle? Should be interesting to see who is paying for Jesse's reality-challenged bullshit come FEC report time.

Seems Jesse is trotting out a new talking point: the real unemployment rate is 14%. Well, it all depends on how you calculate it, of course. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported rate in February is 8.3%. But if you add in all the folks who stopped looking it's over 10%. And if you add those who are 'underemployed' - doing part-time, free-lance, and under-skilled work - then you can beef that number up to 14% or 15%. Starting to look a lot more politically useful, now, isn't it? But why stop there? Why not calculate it in whatever batshit manner Jeromi Corsi, the genius behind Sheriff Joe's 'cold case' investigation of the President's birth certificate, does and come up with something really eye-popping like 22.5%?

Hannity goes on to deplore the rush to judgement on the matter.

Jesse, displaying a truly professional-level of lack of self-awareness, comes back with:

"That's the problem. No one knows the facts yet [maybe because the only witness other than the gunman is dead, Jesse...], and to have everybody grandstanding on it, everybody making a statement on it, trying, as I said, to capitalize on a horrible tragedy like this is more than just gross: it's sad, really."

I couldn't agree with you more, Jesse. It's just gross and sad.

See the stunning video of Jesse capitalizing and grandstanding on the Trayvon Martin slaying after the flip...

Wisconsin Update: Total Recall

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin got a double dose of bad news on Friday.

First, A federal judge in Wisconsin today struck down part of the state's union-stripping bill. Federal court strikes down parts of Act 10 (pdf of the ruling).

The plaintiff unions challenged three specific provisions of Act 10:

- Restricting the subject of "general employee" unions' collective bargaining to base wages only, and prohibiting fair-share agreements by which nonunion members pay the unions for the benefits won through the unions' efforts.

- Requiring annual re-certification of general employee unions by an absolute majority of all employees in the bargaining unit.

- Prohibiting the automatic deduction of dues and fair-share payments from payroll checks of general employees.

The unions argued all three provisions violated the equal protection clause, and that the ban on automatic dues deduction hampered the workers First Amendment rights.

But Conley found the unions failed to show that the first restriction on broader collective bargaining in place for public safety employees bears no rational relationship to the government's interest in avoiding strikes by those workers.

The fact that those same employees' unions supported Gov. Scott Walker may make the rules look like political favoritism, but Conley said even if it is, it's not enough to make the court use a stricter standard of review.

However, Conley found that the two other changes - annual recertification and a ban on automatic dues deduction - violated the First Amendment rights of the affected workers.

"The court would be remiss not to at least note the likely burden the annual recertification process imposes on the members' speech and association rights," he wrote.

The state's justification for allowing greater bargaining by public safety workers - avoidance of strikes - does not stand up as a rational basis for requiring other public worker unions to annually recertify by absolute majority, and denying them automatic dues deductions, the court said.

Automatic dues deductions for general employee unions should start again at the end of May - barring appeals or higher court rulings that would block or postpone Conley's order.

The court's order came just hours after state election officials ordered a recall election for Walker. That recall effort was sparked by the governor's bill on collective bargaining.

12th Annual Roosevelt-Kennedy Fundraising Dinner

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Coconino County Democratic Party fundraising event:

Roosevelt-Kennedy Fundraising Dinner

12th Annual Roosevelt Kennedy Dinner Radisson Woodlands Hotel Flagstaff 1175 W. Route 66 Saturday, April 14, 2011 Cash bar at 5:30 pm, Dinner at 7:00 pm Cost: $85.00 per person in advance* Ordinary Table of 8  $680 $1000 for a VIP table of 8**   Keynote Speaker: Randy Parraz   A community organizer, social entrepreneur and founder of various organizations who Spearheaded the Recall of Russell Pearce, founded of the Student Institute for Social Change and received the Echoing Green Award   *Reservation price is $85 per person. Price will go up April 1st to $100   PURCHASE TICKETS HERE!

Rosemont Copper sued again

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Save the Scenic Santa Ritas filed a complaint Thursday alleging that the project's developer has violated state law requiring disclosure of a past bankruptcy involving top officers. Rosemont accused of hiding bankruptcy link from state:

Save the Scenic Santa Ritas accused Rosemont Copper of illegally failing to disclose that a current and former director - Richard Warke and Donald Clark, respectively - were officers of a company that was involved in a high-profile Canadian bankruptcy in 1995.

The group complained to the Arizona Corporation Commission that Rosemont Copper is engaged in a "pattern of deception" dating back seven years.

"If Rosemont Copper is hiding a corporate bankruptcy from regulators and the public, what else are they hiding?" Vince Rabago, an attorney representing the group, said at a news conference Thursday.

Reminder: Democratic Presidential Caucuses This Saturday

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Lots of stuff going on this weekend, but if you are a registered Democrat, it is time for the Presidential Caucuses. Announcements from the Arizona Democratic Party:

Arizona Democratic Presidential Caucuses This Saturday

PHOENIX, AZ--This upcoming Saturday, March 31, Democrats from across Arizona will be coming together for the 2012 Arizona Democratic District Caucuses.  At the caucuses, Democrats will have the opportunity to do two things: first, the Arizona Presidential Preference Caucuses will take place, where Democratic voters will have the opportunity to come out and vote for the 2012 Democratic nominee for President of the United States.  Immediately afterward, the elected and appointed precinct committeepersons at each caucus will elect District-level delegates, selecting those individuals who will serve as delegates from Arizona's eight congressional districts at the 2012 Democratic National Convention.

President Barack Obama of Illinois, who is seeking re-election, is the only candidate who filed the appropriate paperwork for the office of President of the United States in the 2012 Arizona Presidential Preference Caucus.

"The excitement among Arizona Democrats about re-electing President Obama is overwhelming," said Luis Heredia, Executive Director of the Arizona Democratic Party.  "From Yuma to Window Rock, I hear from Democrats every day who are eager to hit the ground running and give their all to elect President Obama and his Democratic team up and down the ballot in 2012.  The District Caucuses provide a great opportunity for Democrats to come out and get involved in the campaign to re-elect our President and stand by him the way he has stood by us," Heredia added.

All media interested in attending a caucus are encouraged to contact Joaquin Rios of the Arizona Democratic Party at (480) 229-1895 or jrios@azdem.org.

WHO: Excited Democrats from around Arizona

WHAT: The 2012 Arizona Democratic District Caucuses, which will include the Presidential Preference Caucus and the election of Arizona delegates to the 2012 Democratic National Convention.   Additionally, all attendees are encouraged to bring non-perishable food items for donation to a local food bank in honor of Cesar Chavez Day.

WHERE: At eight sites across Arizona.  Media interested in attending can contact Joaquin Rios at jrios@azdem.org for details.

These sites include:

Congressional District 1: West Sedona Elementary School 570 Posse Ground Road Sedona, AZ 86336

Congressional District 2: IBEW Local Union 640 Hall 5808 North 7th Street Phoenix, AZ 85014

Congressional District 3: IUPAT Painters Union Local 86 Hall 210 North 24th Street Phoenix, AZ 85034

Congressional District 4: UA Local Union 469 Hall 3109 N 24th St Phoenix, AZ 85016

Congressional District 5: Pecos Community Center 17010 S. 48th St. Phoenix, AZ 85048

Congressional District 6: ASU Polytech Campus 7001 East Williams Field Road Mesa, AZ 85212

Congressional District 7: University of Arizona Richard A. Harvill Building Room 150 1103 E. 2nd St. Tucson, AZ 85722

Congressional District 8: University of Arizona Social Sciences Building Room 100 1145 E. South Campus Tucson, AZ 85722

WHEN: Saturday, March 31st.  Registration opens at 9am and closes at 11am.  The Presidential Preference Caucus will begin at 11:00am SHARP.

###

REMINDER: Food Drive at Caucuses Tomorrow to Commemorate Cesar Chavez Day

Tomorrow, Democrats from around Arizona will be gathering at the 2012 Democratic Caucuses, where we excited Democrats will be doing two things: nominating a candidate for President, and selecting delegates to the 2012 Democratic National Convention.  You can learn more about that process here.

Our Democratic Caucuses fall on March 31, which is Cesar Chavez Day.  Cesar Chavez taught us many things, but among them were the importance of community service.  Following his example, we aspire to insure that we are never just working toward the next election, but always working to make our state a better place. 

In honor of this tradition, we are taking a canned food collection at our Caucus sites to benefit St. Mary's Food Bank and the Community Food Bank of Southern Arizona.  We look forward to seeing you tomorrow!

Sincerely,

Luis Heredia

Executive Director, Arizona Democratic Party

Sen. Paula Aboud withdraws from CD 2 congressional race

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Sen Paula Aboud (D-LD 28) posted on her Facebook page this morning that she is withdrawing from the CD 2 congressional race and is supporting Ron Barber for the CD 2 congressional seat:

Today, I am announcing that I am stepping out of the Congressional District 2 race and extending my support to Ron Barber and his family.

I took some time this last week to communicate with many friends and supporters who wanted me to stay in the race, and while I appreciate the outpouring of support, after consulting with my family, I came to the decision to step out of the race.

My priority has always been for us to maintain Gabby’s Congressional seat as a Democratic seat and I believe that uniting behind one candidate will assist us in making that more likely. This race is critical to Arizona’s future; it’s time for democrats to focus our resources.

It has been a true privilege to run for Congress to represent the Southern Arizona that I have known over my entire life - the community my family has called home for over 100 years.

I have been honored to represent my district as State Senator for the past seven years and I chose to run for Congress in order to serve in an even greater capacity.

I will continue my work in the Arizona Legislature through the rest of this year and will work hard to bring a voice of reason to the dialogue in the Capitol.

Serving in the Senate has been some of the most rewarding work of my life and I look forward to continuing discovering new ways to serve the community I love once my term ends this year.

I have heard that Sen. Aboud has no interest in running for the Arizona House, but you never know.

A response to Justice Antonin Scalia

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

During oral argument of the Affordable Care Act, Justice Antonin Scalia posed this question to the Solicitor General of the United States:

You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages? (gallery laughter) And do you really expect the court to do that? Or do you expect us to -- to give this function to our law clerks? (gallery laughter) Is that not totally unrealistic? That we are going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?

Yes, Justice Scalia, I do. That is the job for which you were appointed to the highest court of the land, and for which you are handsomely compensated by the citizens of the United States. In short, "that's your job."

Your law clerks understood when they applied for the position that this was also their job.

The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in these appeals on November 14, 2011. That is over four months Scalia had to review 2,700 pages (which contains headers and footnotes, and is not single spaced, I might add). That works out to around 22 pages per day over the past four months, while he does other reading on other matters. That is hardly onerous. And if Scalia assigned this reading to his law clerks to prepare a summary for him, the task would have been completed in a fraction of this time. (I am betting that his clerks actually did, in fact, prepare this summary for him).

If you are no longer up to the task of performing the job for which the citizens of the United States pay you handsomely, Justice Scalia, I respectfully suggest that you submit your resignation from the Court, and the American people will find a jurist who is capable of the task of performing this job.

And then you can go do stand-up comedy for conservative political events, something which you seem to prefer.

Imagine Charter Schools have the St. Louis Blues

by David Safier

This has been coming for a long time. Imagine Schools, a for profit company with the most charter schools of any EMO (75 last time I counted), is facing all kinds of problems with its six low performing Missouri schools which enroll a total of 3,800 students.

Missouri Baptist University, which sponsored the schools, is walking away and letting the state clean up the mess by either closing the schools or insisting they be improved.

The Missouri Imagine Schools problem has been festering for years, and the St. Louis papers have done a terrific job of covering the story. Imagine Schools is one of the Big Three nationally in questionable charter school practice. The other two are K12 Inc. and White Hat. All three operate in Arizona, though White Hat is a small player here compared to the others.

Are there any problems with Arizona's 18 Imagine Schools? No one knows, because no journalist has made an effort to pull back the curtain on the AZ operation. With the St. Louis developments and similar problems all over the country, it might be time for someone to take a look at what's happening here. I have a treasure trove of articles about Imagine Schools from all over the country -- well over a hundred -- which I am happy to share with anyone who wants to take a deeper look.

 

Reagan Solicitor General, Charles Fried, critical of conservative activist SCOTUS

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Charles Fried is a professor of law at Harvard University. From 1985 to 1989, he served as President Ronald Reagan’s solicitor general. He specializes in constitutional law and is the author of many books on the subject, including 2004’s “Saying What the Law Is: The Constitution in the Supreme Court.” He also wrote a brief on behalf of 104 law professors arguing that the individual mandate is constitutional.

Professor Fried spoke to Greg Sargent after three days of oral argument on the Affordable Care Act and was highly critical of the conservative activist Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. How did legal observers and Obamacare backers get it so wrong? - The Plum Line:

[F]ormer Reagan Solicitor General Charles Fried was scaldingly critical of the willingness of the conservative bloc of Supreme Court justices to traffic in some of the most well-worn Tea Party tropes about Obamacare.

“I was appalled to see that at least a couple of them were repeating the most tendentious of the Tea Party type arguments,” Fried said. “I even heard about broccoli. The whole broccoli argument is beneath contempt. To hear it come from the bench was depressing.”

Professor Fried earlier gave interviews to Greg Sargent and Ezra Klein of the Washington Post.

Is it the end of a tax break, or a tax hike?

by David Safier

I haven't gone after the Star's headlines for awhile because they've seemed far less slanted than they once were. I figure, when the headline prepares me for the content of the article, it's a reasonable headline.

Not so today's Star headline, GOP blocks Obama effort to raise taxes on oil firms.

I guess you can say ending tax breaks and subsidies for oil companies will result in a tax hike, but it's a skewed emphasis, especially when the opening sentence of the Washington Post article reads,

President Obama on Thursday called on Congress to end tax breaks for oil companies in a populist speech that sought to turn the blame for gas prices nearing $4 a gallon back onto his Republican critics. [boldface added]

Here's the original WaPo headline: GOP blocks Obama’s effort to end tax breaks for Big Oil.

Yeah, that's closer to the content of the article.

CBS News sees the issue the same way, using the headline, GOP blocks Obama's bid to end oil subsidies.

Tax breaks. Subsidies. Both headlines emphasize ending the giveaways to the oil companies, not the tax hike angle. Likewise CNN: Obama targets oil industry tax breaks.

OK, but what about Fox? How do they head the story? Check it out. Obama urges Congress to end oil tax breaks, refocus on alternative energy.

When the Star headline out-Republicans Fox . . . Tucson, we have a problem.

Today the Star's Creative Headline Writing Team slid back into its old, wicked ways. Let's hope this is the exception, not a foreshadowing of an election-year rule.

Will Huppenthal target University-level Mexican American Studies next?

by David Safier

This story, let me begin by saying, comes from Fox News Latino, not from some out-there, lefty radical publication. Here's the headline:

Arizona Official Considers Targeting Mexican American Studies in University

It looks like Huppenthal thinks TUSD's Mexican American Studies program could never have come into existence without the outside agitation of UA's MAS program. He implies he would like to get rid of the university-level program next.

Arizona’s superintendent of schools, John Huppenthal, says Tucson’s suspended Mexican American studies curricula teaches students to resent Anglos, and that the university program that educated the public school teachers is to blame.

“I think that’s where this toxic thing starts from, the universities,” Arizona Superintendent of Schools John Huppenthal said in an interview with Fox News Latino. 

Huppenthal was particularly incensed when his old pal Ben Franklin was "maligned" in a MAS class at TUSD where students were taught about Franklin's questionable relationship to slavery. The problem is, Ben Franklin, great man though he was, did have a questionable relationship to slavery. But Hupp doesn't believe a word of it.

When he was on the Ed Supe campaign trail, Hupp made a wildly inaccurate statement about Franklin which I got on tape. In 30 seconds, he made three major errors, all of which whitewashed Franklin's slavery problem.

I think someone should go to NAU where Hupp did his undergraduate work and dissolve the American History program. It obviously taught the man some serious lies about one of the fathers of our country, and Hupp continues to spread his Revolutionary Era propaganda in blatant disregard of the truth.

Why the César Chávez March won't begin at Pueblo High

by David Safier

You could see this one coming. One weak-willed decision by TUSD to disband the Mexican American Studies program leads to a predictable string of bad decisions. The most visible is the banning of books from use by former MAS teachers. And now this.

This year's César Chávez March willl be held this Saturday, March 31, starting at 9am at St. John's Catholic Church (NW corner of Ajo and S. 12th Ave.). For years, it has begun at Pueblo High. The district's refusal allow the high school to be used as a staging ground is a direct result of the MAS controversy.

OK, let me be more exact. The district didn't refuse to allow the marchers to use Pueblo High. It just:

1. Demanded there be no reference to the elimination of the MAS program.
2. Demanded there be no disparaging comments about the TUSD administration.
3. Demanded the District be allowed to choose the emcee to make sure # 1 and #2 are properly enforced.

It's all perfectly reasonable when you think about it. Why would TUSD allow school grounds to be used to condemn the actions taken by the District? Once the Board and administration started down the slippery slope of ending a program whose purpose is to teach about Mexican American history and literature, they really can't allow an event on school grounds that will talk about the latest event in Mexican American history: TUSD's disbanding of the MAS program.

And it's also perfectly reasonable that the organizers of the march would refuse to accept those conditions.

The result? TUSD has added insult -- "No, you can't begin your celebration of César Chávez on school grounds" -- to the injury caused to students by taking away classes they hold dear. Add César Chávez to the list of casualties of TUSD's caving to Huppenthal, Horne and their like.

You can see the flier with all the information about the march below the fold.

The Founding Fathers and Mandates

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The "original intent" types always ask, "What would the Founding Fathers have done?" Would the Founding Fathers have supported a federal health care mandate?

It turns out, The Founding Fathers loved health care mandates (By Jon Green at Americablog.com):

In light of the Supreme Court hearing arguments this week about the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act and the individual mandate, it seems appropriate to revisit a New England Journal of Medicine article from January concerning the mandate's legality.

* * *

[Legal precedents] are often countered by conservatives who maintain that, no matter what legal precedent exists today, the Founding Fathers would never have dreamed of such a tyrannical interpretation of the Constitution and would have considered any form of a mandate an affront to freedom, liberty, justice, and all other things green and good in our country.

But is that really the case?

The article goes on to cite three laws, passed in 1790, 1792 and 1798 respectively, that provide for mandates not unlike the one being considered by the Supreme Court this week. Einer Elhauge, the author, writes:

[In] 1790, the first Congress, which was packed with framers, required all ship owners to provide medical insurance for seamen; in 1798, Congress also required seamen to buy hospital insurance for themselves. In 1792, Congress enacted a law mandating that all able-bodied citizens obtain a firearm. This history negates any claim that forcing the purchase of insurance or other products is unprecedented or contrary to any possible intention of the framers.

PolitiFact dug deeper into Elhauge's claims and found evidence that mandates were approved by Congressmen who had also signed the Constitution; refuting the assertion that the laws passed despite framers' objections:

There was no roll call for the House and Senate bills requiring health care for seamen. But on the proposal mandating the purchase of a musket, firelock or rifle as part of the larger bill to establish a uniform militia, 10 of the 14 framers whose votes were recorded endorsed the measure.

Not only did mandates pass muster with the Framers in Congress, they were signed into law by George Washington and John Adams.

Yeah, yeah, I know... "Don't bother me with the facts, I know what I believe." It's all a socialist plot to steal your precious bodily fluids.

House Tea-Publicans jump off the cliff (again), vote for radical Ryan Budget 2.0

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

We are watching the slow suicide of a major political party. The Republican Party long ago ceased being the "Party of Lincoln," and as I have oft repeated, "this is not your father's GOP."

The Republican Party host has been hollowed out by its far-right extremist fringe parasites. All that remains of the GOP today are far-right radical extemists. And that poses a clear and present danger to the future of this country.

For all the talk in the media about "why can't we have compromise and find common ground solutions in the middle?," this is naive fantasy when one political party has dedicated itself to the destruction of government as its primary goal, and the destruction of its political opponents as the means to achieve it. We are living in troubling times.

Steve Benen writes, "A year ago, House Republicans linked arms, stepped off the cliff, and voted en masse for Paul Ryan's right-wing budget plan. GOP leaders demanded the support of nervous lawmakers, many of whom feared the party was overreaching just a few months into their term, and more than 98% of the caucus went along, as ordered." House Approves Radical GOP Budget Plan:

The blowback was far more intense than Republicans expected, especially given the fact that GOP lawmakers had voted to eliminate Medicare and replace it with a private voucher scheme.

A year later, it's happened again. The House this afternoon voted to approve Paul Ryan's new-but-not-improved budget plan, 228 to 191. As was the case in 2011, all House Democrats, including the Blue Dogs, opposed the far-right budget, but today, 10 House Republicans broke ranks and opposed the measure, up from 4 GOP members a year ago.

The rank hypocrisy of 'Fornicator' Frank

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The true objection of the religious right to insurance coverage for contraception for women is that it leads to sex for pleasure rather than procreation, often outside of marriage between single adults. Fornicators! According to these "sex police," sex should only be between one man and one woman who are married to one another, and only for the purpose of procreation, never for carnal pleasure. I will assume always in the missionary position, under the covers with the lights off, just for good measure.

They are essentially anti-sex, because sex is a sin, don't you know, unless the above preconditions are satisifed.

With that in mind, I almost spit out my coffee this morning while reading the Tucson Weekly. Sen. "Don't make me angry" Frank Antenori brags about being a prolific fornicator in his his youth -- sinner! -- while failing entirely to comprehend health insurance or the concept of religious liberty. And this guy is running for Congress? Conservative Agenda | Tucson Weekly:

HB 2625, sponsored by Rep. Debbie Lesko, would allow any employer in the state to opt out of providing contraception coverage as part of health insurance if the employer has a moral objection to preventing pregnancy. [The bill failed on a 13-17 vote on Wednesday, but Sen. Nancy Barto promises to bring it back for a revote].

State Sen. Frank Antenori, who is running in the April 17 GOP primary in the special election to replace Gabrielle Giffords in Congressional District 8, said last week that he would support HB 2625 if it came up for a vote.

"Do you force someone against their will to provide something that they morally or religiously object to? That is a tough call, and that is what this battle is all about," Antenori said. "Like I told another lady who was upset about it, I said, 'What makes you think you're entitled to have someone else paying for it?' Nobody is stopping you from going out and getting contraceptives. I mean, when I was in high school, I paid for it all the time; I didn't have (any) trouble. It was kind of hard going up to the cash register."

Maybe you should have got yourself one of these condom vendo machines, Frank. And just how many young girls did you have sex with outside of marriage for your carnal pleasure? Were they of the age of consent? Have you ever heard of statutory rape laws? The "sex cops" of the religious right are going to want to know, Frank. You set a bad example for their children. And what rank hypocrisy: it's OK for me, but not for anyone else.

Tea-Publican tyranny: auditing Pima County

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Our Tea-Publican overlords from the state of Maricopa and their Tea-Publican insurgents in Baja Arizona went ahead and did it -- they passed "special" legislation requiring a forensic audit of Pima County bonds -- and only Pima County -- as a political favor to Tea-Publican insurgents in the Town of Marana.

I posted about this previously. Tea-Publican Tyranny: Micromanaging Cities and Counties:

Then there is the ongoing feud between the Town of Marana and Pima County over the Tea-Publican legisature seizing a sewage treatment plant from Pima County last year and handing it over to Marana, for which Marana has yet to pay the county. In retaliation, a Senate panel of the Tea-Publican legislature on Wednesday voted to audit Pima county's bond spending. Senate panel OKs audit of Pima's bond spending:

Rep. Terri Proud, R-Tucson, said there are many discrepancies between what the county claims to have built with the bond funds voters authorized and what actually exists. That's because, Proud contends, "there's some bullying going around with (County Administrator) Chuck Huckelberry."

To address that, the measure she pushed through the Senate Committee on Government Reform calls not only for a forensic audit of where the 1997, 2004 and 2006 bonds were spent, but also whether the county changed the timing or amount of projects "to reward or to punish an entity, party or official who stood to benefit from or be affected by the project."

Proud is not alone in the push. The town of Marana is lobbying for the examination, too. [Jonathan "Payday" Paton is a consutant to the Town of Marana.]

County lobbyist Michael Racy told lawmakers they are free to spend state resources to put the auditor general to work. And he said they also are legally entitled to force the county to spend the money to respond to each request.

But he said HB 2408 amounts to using "public money for what is more of a McCarthyesque witch hunt."

 

Jan Brewer Has an Historic Moment

By Michael Bryan

I wasn't at all sure this moment would ever come, but...

Thank you, Governor Brewer.

You vetoed an incredibly shortsighted bill that put a quick buck for some political donors to some in your party ahead of the long-term health of a vital industry for this state, not to mention a vital scientific endeavor.

You did what was right. Today, you were the Governor of Arizona, not just the Governor of the AZGOP.

César Chávez March this Saturday, 9am

by David Safier

The 12th annual César Chávez March willl be held this Saturday, March 31, starting at 9am at St. John's Catholic Church (NW corner of Ajo and S. 12th Ave.) and ending at Rudy Garcia Park.

The march has traditionally begun at Pueblo High School. The reason it's been moved is an interesting story unto itself, but I don't have all the facts together yet. When I do, I'll write another post.

An Unconscionable Mess

Posted by Bob Lord

Hard not to be depressed by the last three days at the Supreme Court. While the tea leaf readers obsess over each question asked and even the inflection of the Justices’ voices, the hard realities remain.

First, there’s a reason why attorneys can in good faith argue both sides of a case, and why two courts can decide the same issue in opposite ways, and why appellate cases frequently are decided by divided courts. The law has a huge gray area, which leaves room for lawyers and judges to justify coming out on either side of many issues. Anytime the Supreme Court accepts a case for review, it’s in that gray area. They don’t waste their time on slam dunks.

So these nine Justices can justify whatever result they want in deciding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. And they’ve already proven themselves to be political animals.

Second, as flawed as the Affordable Care Act may be, lives will be lost if it is struck down. People die from lack of health insurance. We lose about 45,000 Americans per year this way. Thus, the increased insurance coverage of the Act will save lives. If it’s struck down, we lose those lives.

Third, the invalidation of the Affordable Care Act will be a devastating blow to Obama, possibly the only thing that could get Mitt Romney elected.

Combine these realities and you arrive at the cruel reality that is the Roberts Court. Five Justices have the legal latitude and the political motivation to cause tens of thousands of Americans to die prematurely. Make no mistake. They can justify upholding the law or they can justify striking it down. Which option they choose will determine the fate of many hapless Americans.

And for the next two months or so we’ll all be left to speculate whether they’re heartless enough to do it.

SCOTUS Day 3 on the Affordable Care Act - Part 2

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The last of the arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court on the Affordable Care Act dealt with the expansion of medicaid coverage, and what the challengers to the law call the "coercion" theory -- the federal government withholding federal Medicaid funds to states that refuse to participate in the ACA. At its heart, this is a "states' rights" theory of sovereignty.

Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog.com summarizes the arguments. Argument recap: Will Medicaid be sacrificed?:

Unless a closing oration by a top government lawyer stirs some real sympathy for the poor, the new health care law’s broad expansion of the Medicaid program that serves the needy may be sacrificed to a historic expression of judicial sympathy for states’ rights.  It probably would require the Court to be really bold, to strike down a program passed by Congress under its spending power, and to do so for the first time in 76 years, but the temptation was very much in evidence in the final round of the Court’s hearings this week on the Affordable Care Act.  If that happens, it probably would be done by a 5-4 vote.

* * *

The Justices were actively engaged in what was the Court’s first full exploration in history of the theory — never put into actual practice — that the conditions that Congress attaches to money it hands out to the states can be so onerous that they deprive the states of their sovereign independence, coercing them into compliance with federal controls.   Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., allowed the argument to run 25 minutes beyond the scheduled hour.  The end result was what appeared to be a very sharp division within the Court, straight along ideological lines, with the skeptics about this “coercion theory” quite conspicuously in the minority.

 

The law of unintended consequences should the Supreme Court strike down the ACA

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Ed Kilgore at the Politcal Animal blog has an excellent post on the law of unintended consequences should the U.S. Supreme Court strike down the Affordable Care Act on Commerce Clause grounds. American law is built upon judicial precedents, and to strike down the ACA on Commerce Clause grounds would undermine more than 70 years of Commerce Clause judicial precedents, and many legislative acts.

I would caution Mr. Kilgore that this is not a bug but a feature: Tea-Publicans want to repeal the 20th Century. Many of them long to go back to principles in the Articles of Confederation that would replace more than 200 years of Constitutional law principles. They are radicals, not conservatives ("tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions" - Merriam-Webster Dictionary).

Ed Kilgore writes Commerce Clause Counter-Revolution:

If the individual health insurance purchasing mandate is declared unconstitutional, many conservatives will undoubtedly hail the decision as a heroic act that takes the nation back from the brink of a yawning abyss of federal tyranny, a nation where proud Americans are forced to eat broccoli.

[But] there’s another “floodgates” proposition that needs to be discussed: the possibility that unraveling ObamaCare could unravel decades of Supreme Court Commerce Clause decisions that undergird much of the contemporary landscape of domestic policy and civil rights protections.

NRA spending puts Arizona in fifth place

by David Safier

It's a distinction, I guess. Arizona is one of the top 5 states in the amount of spending by the NRA. This includes money spent on political contributions, independent expenditures, electioneering communications and state ballot initiatives.

Here are the top 5 (drum roll, please):

1. Virginia: $979,354
2. Florida: $729,863
3. Texas: $624,021
4. Wisconsin: $161,291
5. Arizona: $149,352

Total NRA spending nationwide on this kind of direct, state-level political spending: $3,425,618.

Some argue the NRA's bark is much louder than its clout, that its support in endorsements and money don't really sway elections, and therefore politicians who don't agree with the NRA should be less concerned about voting against it. If so, I hope pols get the message so they stop rolling over whenever the NRA comes to town packing heat.

(h/t to AZ Blue Meanie for the catch.)

UPDATE: Arizona Senate votes down contraception bill

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

A brief moment of sanity in Arizona? Could it possibly be true? The Arizona Senate today voted down the "Baby Blunt" bill to allow any employer to object to insurance coverage for contraception on religious or moral grounds. Arizona Senate votes down controversial contraception bill:

The Arizona Senate on Wednesday voted down a controversial bill to allow employers and insurance companies to opt out of covering contraception for religious reasons.

The bill failed in the Senate on a 13-17 vote, but House Bill 2625 is not dead. Sen. Nancy Barto, R-Phoenix, who championed the measure in that chamber, said she will bring it back for a revote this session.

The amended version allows employers and insurance companies to opt out of covering contraception for religious reasons. They still must cover any contraception prescribed for reasons other than to prevent pregnancy or cause an abortion. In such cases, the patient would cover the cost and then submit a request for reimbursement to the insurance company.

The bill clarifies that the legislation does not give an employer acess to an employee's "protected health information" or violate federal HIPAA regulations.

Despite the amendment, the Senate voted down the bill 13-17.

At the Capitol, protesters held signs saying, "You employ me you don't own me," "Stop the war on women," and "Attention 2012 candidates -- I'm watching. And I will vote."

* * *

At a news conference, Democratic lawmakers ripped the bill, saying it's an example of an "extremist agenda" that is attempting to take over the Legislature in recent years. The lawmakers accused conservative Republicans of trying to "move Arizona backwards."

"This is about imposing beliefs on other people," said Rep. Chad Campbell, D-Phoenix, adding the bill is a war on all people's rights. "The question is: If you start to attack people's rights in their workplace ... their relationship with their doctors, what is next and where do we stop?"

Note: Sen. Nancy Barto voted "no" to preserve her right to bring up the bill for reconsideration.

HOW THEY VOTED:

Member Name	Vote	Member Name	Vote	Member Name	Vote
Paula Aboud	N	Sylvia Allen	Y	Frank Antenori	Y
Nancy Barto	N	Andy Biggs	Y	Judy Burges	Y
Olivia Cajero Bedford	N	Rich Crandall	N	Adam Driggs	N
Steve Gallardo	N	Ron Gould	Y	Linda Gray	Y
Gail Griffin	Y	Jack Jackson Jr.	N	Lori Klein	Y
Leah Landrum Taylor	N	Jerry Lewis	N	Linda Lopez	N
David Lujan	N	John McComish	N	Al Melvin	Y
Robert Meza	N	Rick Murphy	Y	John Nelson	N
Michele Reagan	N	David Schapira	N	Don Shooter	Y
Steve Smith	Y	Steve Yarbrough	Y	Steve Pierce	N

 

AYES: 13   NAYS: 17   NOT VOTING: 0   EXCUSED: 0   VACANT: 0

SCOTUS Day 3 on the Affordable Care Act - Part 1

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Wednesday morning's argument was on the issue of "severability." For some unexplained reason, Congress did not include a common "severability" clause in the Affordable Care Act. Opponents of the Act seized upon this and tried to argue in the lower courts that this means "all or nothing": if any one part of the Act is struck down, the whole Act must fail. The Courts of Appeals divided on this issue.

It would appear from this morning's Q&A from the Justices that they are not buying the "all or nothing" approach. Court's have frequently implied severability into statutes. The Court also demonstrated no stomach for going through the ACA line by line to determine what provisions would remain should they strike down other provisions, reasonably suggesting that this is best left to the legislative function of Congress.

Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog.com has the severability argument summary. Argument recap: A lift for the mandate?:

The Supreme Court spent 91 minutes Wednesday operating on the assumption that it would strike down the key feature of the new health care law, but may have convinced itself in the end not to do that because of just how hard it would be to decide what to do after that.  A common reaction, across the bench, was that the Justices themselves did not want the onerous task of going through the remainder of the entire 2,700 pages of the law and deciding what to keep and what to throw out, and most seemed to think that should be left to Congress.  They could not come together, however, on just what task they would send across the street for the lawmakers to perform.  The net effect may well have shored up support for the individual insurance mandate itself. (emphasis added)

The dilemma could be captured perfectly in two separate comments by Justice Antonin Scalia — first, that it “just couldn’t be right” that all of the myriad provisions of the law unrelated to the mandate had to fall with it, but, later, that if the Court were to strike out the mandate, “then the statute’s gone.”  Much of the lively argument focused on just what role the Court would more properly perform in trying to sort out the consequences of nullifying the requirement that virtually every American have health insurance by the year 2014.

Dr. Word asks Romney: When you reach a crossroads, do you turn around?

by David Safier

Dr. Word received one of his regular snail mail pitches from Republicans, this time from Mitt Romney. Being a student of metaphor, he is puzzled by the Mitt's metaphorical mixed message. (Please feel free to criticize the Dr.'s overuse of alliteration. He acknowledges he has a problem.)

Romney began with:

Our country is at a croosroads. In one direction lies bigger government, even bigger debt, and certain decline. In the other direction lies limited government, free enterprise, and economic growth.

Dr. Word knows about the crossroads metaphor from Sophocles (Oedipus), Robert Frost (The Road Not Taken) and Robert Johnson (Crossroads), along with other sources. The image is of someone traveling along a road when the road forks, and the traveler must choose which path to follow.

Romney chose a different option.

I am runnning for president because I believe I have what it takes to turn America around. [boldface added]

Romney's metaphorically declares he would take us backward, not in one of the two forward directions. However, he doesn't say how far back we would go. To George W.'s failed economic policies? To the imaginary Garden of Eden of the 1950s -- an Eden where only whites have the chance to be Adam and Eve, and everyone else is there to serve fruit and tend garden (and it's not really so great to be Eve)? To Santorum's beloved 17th century? As usual, Mitt is short on specifics.

WEASEL WORDS BONUS: The following passage from the same money pitch is supposed to make us more confident of Romney's ability to "get Americans back to work."

I spent my career in the private sector. I know how jobs are created and how jobs are lost. I have helped guide more than one enterprise that was in crisis. [boldface added]

Helped guide them? Where? Toward greater job creation or toward job loss and bankruptcy? Mitt, who has done both during his tenure in the private sector career, isn't saying.

Dissecting Tom Friedman

Posted by Bob Lord 

One of the jobs I’d love to have is Tom Friedman’s. His job duties are to (a) learn as much as he can about interesting things, (b) travel the world to achieve that end, and (c) write about the stuff he learns. And he gets to squeeze in a few rounds of golf in the process. Not a bad gig. It would be hard to say he doesn’t deserve his position. His thirst for knowledge is incredible, as are his skills at communicating what he learns. 

But I have a problem with his conclusion in today’s column, which can be found here, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/28/opinion/friedman-elephants-down-under.html?_r=1&ref=opinion, and what I believe is a glaring flaw in his logic. 

Don Bivens withdraws from U.S. Senate race

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

An announcement from the Don Bivens for U.S. Senate campaign:

My family and I entered this U.S. Senate race to help rebuild America's middle class and to restore the American dream for working families.  With support from you and from thousands of good people we have carried our positive message across the state, and we have shared our brighter vision for Arizona's future.   

With your help, our campaign has been successful.  Thousands of people have made financial contributions, signed petitions, and volunteered their time.  More than 50,000 people visited our website last week alone.     

 

But the continuing head-to-head competition of our Democratic primary is draining resources that we will need as a Party to win this open seat in November.  While I am confident we would win this primary, the cost and impact on the Party that I have spent my life fighting for could diminish the chance to achieve our ultimate goal of winning in November. 

 

A long and contentious primary will detract from our overriding mission to put middle class families first on the national agenda.  The greater good is at stake here.  For this reason I have decided to step aside from the 2012 Senate race. 

 

Trish and I sincerely thank you and the thousands who added your voices and your shoulders to our campaign.  For all who hosted us in your homes and communities, and gave so generously of your time and resources, we will forever be grateful. 

 

The friendships forged during this campaign will continue, as will our commitments to the common values that brought us together to do something good for Arizona. My stepping aside in the Senate race at this point in no way diminishes my continuing commitment to stand up for middle class families in Arizona, now and in the future.

Thank you for all you have done.  I look forward to standing with you in this election and in years to come.  

Onward and Upward,

Don Bivens

The Richard Carmona for U.S. Senate campaign released this statement:

Carmona statement on Don Bivens

Dr. Richard Carmona, the 17th Surgeon General of the United States, released the following statement on former Arizona Democratic Party Chairman Don Bivens:

"Don Bivens is a cornerstone of the Arizona Democratic Party and will remain so for years to come. An agent of change for our state, Don knew how great of an opportunity we have to win this seat and knew that it would take a strong and united effort to do so. He and his team ran a strong race that showed a great deal of respect for the nominating process which in turn has improved our party's chance of success in November."    

"I thank Don, his family and his campaign team for their selfless service to the party and eagerly anticipate working with them to move Arizona forward. He will be an integral player in any winning strategy and I look forward to working with him in the months ahead."

###

An old adage proves true

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

For Pro-Life (Forced Birth) advocates, "Life begins at conception and ends at birth."

This old adage proved true on Tuesday in the Arizona legislature. Two reports in the newspapers today should be juxtaposed side-by-side to make this point.

On a 20-10 margin, the state Senate voted Tuesday to ban virtually all abortions at 20 weeks of gestation, a measure that Planned Parenthood Arizona says makes it the most restrictive in the nation. Arizona Senate votes to ban abortions after 20 weeks - East Valley Tribune:

The vote came over objections of foes to HB 2036 who have argued that the question of terminating a pregnancy should be left to a woman and her doctor, without legislative intervention.

This is the "strike everything" amendment sponsored by Rep. Kimberly Yee (R-Phoenix) on behalf of Center for Arizona Policy aka the Christian Taliban. This is CAP's main legislative initiative this year. The bill did not get a hearing in House committees, so it was rammed through the Senate by way of this "striker" to bypass the House committees. Tuesday's vote sends the measure to the House which has not considered the issue.

Michael Bryan addressed the "legislation making performing an abortion at 20 weeks or beyond a Class 1 misdemeanor which can result in six months in jail" in an earlier post.

Nukes, duct tape and baling wire

by David Safier

New information is leaking out about radioactive leaks at the Fukushima nuclear plant. The "contained" disaster has radiation levels 10 times the fatal dose inside the No. 2 reactor and very little water-- about 2 feet up from the bottom as opposed to the earlier 30 foot estimate. The most recent examination "renews doubts about the plant's stability."

How prepared is the nuclear industry to handle this kind of thing? Not at all. There's no equipment in existence to deal with the problems in the No. 2 reactor.

The data collected Tuesday showed the damage from the disaster is so severe, the plant operator will have to develop special equipment and technology to tolerate the harsh environment and decommission the plant, a process expected to last decades.

Does this mean things are better in the other two damaged reactors? Quite the contrary. They were able to assess the damage in No. 2 because "radiation levels inside the reactor building are relatively low," and it's the only one designed to allow the measuring equipment inside.

The exact conditions of the other two reactors, where hydrogen explosions damaged their buildings, are still unknown. Simulations have indicated that more fuel inside No. 1 has breached the core than the other two, but radiation at No. 3 remains the highest.

But surely Fukushima can withstand strong aftershocks or another tsunami, right? Wrong. The plant is hanging on by its fingernails. It can't handle a heavy jolt to its system.

The nuclear reactor industry is prepared for any emergency, except when it's a genuine catastrophe. Then, not so much.

Drinking Liberally with Dustin Cox Tonight at 6pm

By Michael Bryan

Drinking Liberally has changed our meeting day from Sundays to Wednesdays. We are still at the Shanty on 4th and still start at 6.

Tonight we are joined by Dustin Cox who will be running for an Arizona House seat in the new LD9 here in Tucson.

Come on down to the Shanty, lift a brew in celebration of democracy, and meet Dustin and your liberal neighbors!

 

Action Alert: Arizona Senate to vote on contraception bill this morning

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Senate President Steve Pierce allowed the "Baby Blunt" bill to go to the Rules Committee on Monday, and the bill is now scheduled for a vote of the Senate this morning.

The Senate will cast the final vote on House Bill 2625, which allows employers and insurance companies to opt out of covering contraception for religious reasons. 9:00 a.m. Senate floor, 1700 W. Washington St., Phoenix.

Planned Parenthood and bill opponents will host a rally outside the Senate at the same time.

Arizona Daily Star editor Sarah Garrecht Gassen has a signed opinion today that accurately describes what is occurring with this bill. Contraception debate is a false front for legislating one type of religion:

Cloaked in the false flag of "religious freedom," what's happening in our state Capitol, in the Republican presidential primary race and across the country is the disintegration of a person's human rights.

At its core, the conflict over including contraception in medical insurance coverage - where it belongs - is the push between the inherent right of every individual to decide, to the extent possible in any human endeavor, her future.

That doesn't have anything to do with the freedom of individuals to practice their faith. Just as the First Amendment does not protect Americans from hearing speech they find offensive, nor does it allow one religion to assert its doctrine over another.

And here we find Arizona, where a group of state lawmakers, convinced that they are defending "freedom," diligently endeavoring to require that all residents who receive health insurance coverage through their employer be subject to another person's religious beliefs.

The legislation would allow private employers - the owners of this newspaper, for example - to decide that contraception violates their religious or moral beliefs, and refuse to cover specific medical decisions.

Changes are under way to the bill, forced because of the public response against this overreach.

* * *

While many religious people believe that contraception is against their god's law, others - including some Catholics - are equally affirmed in their faith that is it wrong to forbid a woman to use birth control if she decides it is best for her.

Should these Americans be denied their religious freedom? And what of people who belong to no organized religion, or those who do not believe in any higher power - their rights to medical care must also be protected.

* * *

Buried within this focused debate is the core question: Is health care a human right?

Yes.

Every person has the right to receive medical treatment that is decided with his or her doctor and appropriate to that individual.

That right does not conflict with the freedom of Americans to come together with others to worship and to do so without the interference of the government.

And that is true religious freedom - the protected ability of every American to make personal decisions, free from interference by the state or another's religious beliefs.

Call your state senators now -- urge them to vote against this War on Women in HB 2625.

Arizona Taliban Lack Courage of Their Convictions

By Michael Bryan

I thought the Republicans in this state had some guts, at least. They know what they believe and watch out if you won't believe it, too.

But in introducing the nation's most restrictive abortion law, the best they can do to punish a doctor who - by thier reckoning - has committed murder most foul is charge him with a class 1 misdemeanor? Seriously?

A class 1 is the same class as simple assault, or a DUI. The most that doctor would be looking at is 6 months in jail (and that full sentence would be VERY unusual) and a $2500 fine. Hardly a fit punishment for murder.

Look, if you really want to impose your religious beliefs on society through the secular criminal laws, do it right. Abortion is murder, right? Charge the doctor with murder for performing an abortion after 20 weeks.

Hell, for that matter, the Christian Talibani believe life begins at fertilization, so why this 20 weeks bullshit? Come on guys, let's really test the current abortion laws and make all abortions murder.

But let's be real for moment. HB 2036, the bill that restricts abortions (in lots of ways, not just penalizing doctors who do them after 20 weeks), is not about saving babies lives. If that were the case, this weak tea compromise to charge doctors who murder them with misdemeanors would not even be considered. This bill is really just about restricting the health and reproductive choices of the women carrying those fetuses.

The shilly-shallying penalty for killing a baby in this bill gives the game away. Either the sponsors don't really believe that these fetuses are legally and morally actual persons, or they are merely using moralistic anti-abortion rhetoric to cover their real intent: to burden and restrict women's rights to as acute a degree as they think they can get away with.

I would like to hear what you think...

Young Republicans Agree with BlogForArizona: Jesse Kelly is an Idiot

By Michael Bryan

Yesterday saw another reality-challenged performance by Jesse Kelly in the Pima County Young Republican sponsored CD8 debate. The results of the straw poll following the debate indicate that even fellow Republicans think Jesse is bag of nuts:

Antenori -- 48 votes
McSally -- 30
Sitton -- 22 
Kelly -- 19

Apparently, they prefer a choleric hothead who gets a little too caught up in the sound of his own voice and makes things up (Antenori) to a choleric hothead who lives in a different dimension and thinks he's telling the truth (Kelly).

Kelly doubled down on his 'America has all the oil it needs' nonsense during the debate, announcing that America could be energy independent "over-night" if we just exploited the energy resources under our public lands. But enviro-Nazi's at the Dept. of Interior are keeping our bold citizenry from marching out on our public lands and making us wealthy and debt free by mining and drilling our way to nirvana! Oh my!

Unfortunately, his opponents, rather than challenge Jesse's fact free fantasies, merely echoed his themes about domestic energy and energy independence. They were, of course, careful not to buy into his central premise (because they are not idiots). But instead of taking him to task and exposing him as a loon, they chose to endorse the more rational aspects of his theme for this campaign. They all called for more domestic production and weaning America off dependence of foriegn oil (which is absolutely a sensible wish, which Obama is actively bringing closer to reality), but eschewed wild claims of the riches that await us as we become energy independent net-exporters of fossil fuels "overnight".

Turns out however, Jesse's opponents were right to remain silent: the young voters sponsoring the debate (mostly) figured out Jesse is an idiot all by themselves.

(Update) Oklahoma legislators exempt themselves from drug testing

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Because politicians believe that they are not subject to the same laws as the rest of us. They're "special."

The Oklahoma Senate has dropped legislation that would require politicians throughout the state to be drug tested along with people receiving temporary public assistance. Oklahoma legislators kill provision to drug test politicians:

The bill, passed by the Senate Committee on Health and Human Services on Monday, would still require applicants for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program to undergo a mandatory drug test.

The Department of Human Services estimates 22,000 people in Oklahoma receive TANF benefits, which helps poor families with children pay for living expenses, including rent, heat, utilities and personal care items.

Democrats in the Oklahoma House who opposed the legislation added an amendment that required anyone seeking public office to pass a drug test as well. The bill’s sponsor, Republican state Rep. Guy Liebman, opposed the amendment, but his attempt to eliminate the measure was defeated by a bipartisan vote.

When the bill arrived in the state Senate, Sen. David Holt (R) dropped the provision from the legislation, describing the amendment a “stunt.”

* * *

On Monday, Utah became the latest state to pass such a law. Florida, Arizona, and Missouri have also approved laws requiring low-income parents seeking federal cash assistance to pass a drug test.

Michigan previously tried to implement a welfare drug testing law, but it was struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in 2003.

Birther Madness

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Los Angeles Times reported last week on the return of "Birther Madness." 'Birthers' sue to force state to verify candidates' eligibility:

Undeterred by documentary evidence and repeated judicial rejection, a group of conspiracy theorists who say President Obama was born in Africa have sued the California secretary of state to demand that she verify the eligibility of all presidential candidates before putting them on the November ballot.

* * *

The lawsuit filed by Republican primary write-in candidate John Albert Dummett Jr., Markham Robinson of the American Independent Party of California and five others also alludes to "questions concerning the eligibility" of Mitt Romney to vie for the role of commander in chief. The birthers' lawyer, Gary Kreep of Ramona, said Wednesday that his clients wanted the issue of Romney's eligibility raised because of his parents' long residency in Mexico.

Ah, you didn't see that one coming, now did you? One birther explained that Mitt Romney's citizenship is up for debate because his dad was born in Mexico. Birthers want proof that Mitt Romney was born in America. "Thats right, Mitt Romney's father was born in the Mexican colony that Mitt's great-grandfather founded after fleeing the United States so he could stay married to Romney's four great-grandmothers."

Not wanting to be outdone, Crazy Uncle Joe Arpaio and Rep. Carl "barking mad" Seel held a press conference this afternoon trying to revive Seel's "Birther" bill in the Arizona legislature to permit a similar lawsuit in Arizona. The Phoenix New Times reports Joe Arpaio and the "Birther" Gang Gather at the Capitol, Where Carl Seel Likened His "Birther" Bill to Women's Suffrage:

Today's press conference made it pretty clear (as if it wasn't already) that the bill is aimed at President Obama, as people are still trying to push the continuously debunked conspiracy that the president was born in another country.

Arpaio and Seel were joined by "birther" squad lead investigator Mike Zullo, Representative David Burnell Smith, Senator Lori Klein, and some tea party folks to speak on behalf of Seel's bill. State Representative Jack Harper was also in the audience, as was infamous conspiracy nut Jerome Corsi.

SCOTUS Day 2 on the Affordable Care Act

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Today's argument was the "Superbowl" as Politico called it, the oral arguments on the individual mandate. I would caution anyone from trying to read the tea leaves from oral arguments today. There was skepticism with a dose of Devil's advocate in the questions from the bench. The Justices were testing the lawyers' arguments.

Tom Goldstein at SCOTUSblog.com picked up on the important question from Justice Kennedy towards the end of oral argument. The argument is done:

Towards the end of the argument the most important question was Justice Kennedy’s. After pressing the government with great questions Kennedy raised the possibility that the plaintiffs were right that the mandate was a unique effort to force people into commerce to subsidize health insurance but the insurance market may be unique enough to justify that unusual treatment. But he didn’t overtly embrace that. It will be close. Very close.

Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog.com agrees. Argument recap: It is Kennedy’s call:

If Justice Anthony M. Kennedy can locate a limiting principle in the federal government’s defense of the new individual health insurance mandate, or can think of one on his own, the mandate may well survive.  If he does, he may take Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and a majority along with him.  But if he does not, the mandate is gone.  That is where Tuesday’s argument wound up — with Kennedy, after first displaying a very deep skepticism, leaving the impression that he might yet be the mandate’s savior.

The Arizona Daily Star opts for stenography in CD 8 election coverage

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I realize that the Arizona Daily Star's political reporter Rhonda Bodfield recently left the paper and other reporters have been reassigned to cover the special election for Congress in CD 8, but really, is this the best the Star can do?

The Arizona Daily Star, at least since it has been owned by Lee Enterprises, has engaged in the practice frequently referred to as "fair and balanced" reporting. If the Star reports on a Democrat, the report will include a quotation from a Republican for "balance." And if the Star reports on a Republican, the report will include a quotation from a Democrat for "balance."

At least that's what the Star used to do until its coverage of the CD 8 special election for Congress. Now there is no "balance," only stenography. And that's hardly "fair."

As for fact checking, Fuhgettaboutit! The Star abandoned fact checking years ago.

Here is just an example of what I am talking about. I will give you the "Cliff Notes" version. Where GOP contenders in CD8 stand on 4 key issues:

In an effort to provide voters with more information about the GOP contenders, we've asked them each four questions on these topics.

They had to answer the questions in 50 words or less.

Q1: On jobs and the economy: Name at least two concrete steps you would take to jump-start the economy and create more jobs in Arizona?

Antenori: Repeal "Obamacare," reduce government regulations!

Kelly: Lower taxes, reduce government regulations! Drill, baby, drill!

McSally: Simplify the tax code, reduce government regulations!

Sitton: I have a 10-point plan I can't explain "in 50 words or less." Renew our commitment to free enterprise, reduce government regulations!

 

SCOTUS Day 1 on the Affordable Care Act

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog has a lengthy summary of today's U.S. Supreme Court arguments on the Affordable Care Act, specifically on the issue of whether the Anti-Injunction Act of 1867 is a procedural bar to the Court deciding the case. The Q&A from the Justices on this issue would appear to suggest that they agree with U.S. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., who argued that the Anti-Injunction Act is not a procedural bar to the court deciding this case. Argument recap: Moving on to the mandate (snippets):

When Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., commented at the end of Monday’s first day of hearings on the health care law, “We’ll continue argument on this case tomorrow,” it seemed to have a secondary meaning even if he did not intend it.   The comments and questions of the Justices during the 89-minute exchange left the distinct impression that they are prepared to rule on the constitutionality of the mandate that individuals must buy health insurance, and not push the issue off into the future.  The exact route they would take was a bit uncertain, but their skepticism about taking a pass now was clear.

* * *

[A]n argument that at times seemed almost to bog down in the dense complexity of the tax code pointed toward a refusal to bar the lawsuits that had challenged the mandate and had put its survival before the Court this week.  One of the telltale signs of that sentiment was that not one Justice, and no lawyer at the lectern, said that it would be premature and a contradiction of the Court’s tradition against deciding constitutional issues prematurely for the Court to rule promptly on the mandate’s validity.

* * *

[M]ost of the Court seemed to be leaning toward some version or variation of the argument made by Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., speaking for a government that very much wants a final decision soon on the mandate.

Verrilli had to take a bit of a tease that he was arguing on Monday that the mandate was not a tax but would be arguing on Tuesday that it was (a seeming anomaly for which the Solicitor General did have an explanation), but his basic plea to move on to decide what he called “issues of great moment” got a largely sympathetic hearing.

* * *

That mood then set the stage for Solicitor General Verrilli’s argument, and while the straddle he was advocating did not draw an enthusiastic embrace, the basic line of his reasoning seemed to be attractive to the Court — that is, that the Court should proceed to rule on the mandate.

The Court’s next argument on the Affordable Care Act, a two-hour hearing on the individual mandate itself, begins at 10 a.m. Tuesday.

Today's oral argument audio and transcript are now available from the Court.

Another take on ALEC's attractiveness to Republican legislators

by David Safier

In the Political Animal, Ed Kilgore added an important insight to Krugman's column about ALEC. Basically, Kilgore said ALEC-created legislation is catnip for Republican state legislators looking to make a name for themselves in conservative circles.

[I]f you are, say, a freshman legislator elevated to office by the 2010 conservative landslide (or back in the day, by the 1994 landslide, or the mini-landslide of 2002), or by term limits, and want to make a mark really fast, you can attend a posh ALEC event (basically paid for by sponsoring lobbyists) and come home with a package of draft bills, press releases, talking points, letters to your colleagues, supporting “research”—pretty much everything you need— and quickly get yourself marked as a serious-minded conservative solon.

Kilgore says legislators, especially freshmen, have an uphill battle creating bills because they don't have staff to help them. But I think his central point makes sense, staff or no. Proposing ALEC legislation is the equivalent of using talking points from the national party's email or from the Rush Limbaugh show. Without putting out any thought or effort, legislators can "write" tough conservative bills and move to the front of the line for media attention and reelection cred, just like they can spout the talking point of the day and sound like they know what they're talking about.

Fact checking the mendacity of 'Mittens'

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Steve Benen posted "Volume XI" -- not 11 lies, 11 weekly volumes of lies -- from Willard "Mittens" Romney, who is a pathological liar. Chronicling Mitt's Mendacity, Vol. XI:

It was heartening that Mitt Romney's habitual dishonesty generated far more attention than usual this week, but the scrutiny doesn't appear to have discouraged the Republican frontrunner, who had an incredibly mendacious week.

Indeed, Jamelle Bouie noted the other day, Romney "is running against policies that haven't happened and an Obama that doesn't exist. Exaggeration is normal in politics, but this goes beyond garden-variety embellishment."

To help drive the point home, take a look at the 11th installment of my weekly series, chronicling Mitt's mendacity. Unfortunately, it's one of the longest editions to date.

Continue reading Chronicling Mitt's Mendacity, Vol. XI

H/T Crooksandliars.com for the graphic from Aramis at Barkers and Rubes, from a suggestion by Jesse LaGreca.

Legal experts believe SCOTUS will uphold the Affordable Care Act

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

A survey of legal experts finds they believe that the U.S. Supreme Court will follow precedent and uphold the Affordable Care Act.

National Journal surveyed former Supreme Court clerks and lawyers who have argued cases before the high court about the health care law, and the Legal Insiders Expect Supreme Court to Uphold Health Care Law:

The survey asked former Supreme Court clerks and lawyers who have argued cases before the Court to assess the probability, on a scale from zero to 100 percent, that the Justices would strike down the law’s mandates on individuals to purchase health insurance or its provisions expanding eligibility for Medicaid to millions of more uninsured adults.

Overall, those surveyed felt there was only a 35 percent probability that the Court would strike down the law’s individual mandate as unconstitutional. Attorneys who had clerked for one of the Court’s four conservative Justices and those who had clerked for Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is considered the key swing vote on the issue, forecast a somewhat higher probability that the law would be struck down than those who had clerked for the four liberal justices.

But all three groups of former clerks-even those who had worked for the Court’s conservative block-said the odds that the Justices would uphold the mandate was well above 50 percent. Lawyers who have argued before the Court said there was a 36 percent probability the Justices would strike down the mandate, about the same as the clerks overall.

“I don’t think this case will be nearly as close a case as conventional wisdom now has it,” one respondent noted in an open-ended comment. “I think the Court will uphold the statute by a lopsided majority.”

The survey was sponsored by two centrist groups: American Action Forum, a center-right Republican advocacy group and the Blue Dog Research Forum, a center-left Democratic advocacy group. It was conducted by Purple Insights, the research division of Purple Strategies, a bipartisan political consulting firm.

To conduct the poll, Purple Insights last week directed e-mails, and follow-up phone calls at a group of former clerks and attorneys who have argued before the court. In the end, 43 former clerks and 23 attorneys responded to the on-line poll. “From a methodology standpoint, this was a very hard to population to reach…some of the most elite attorneys in the country,” said Doug Usher, who conducted the survey for Purple Insights. “We were pleased with their participation rate and we think the results will add to the discussion.”

Given that level of participation, the results are more suggestive than conclusive. But they may reflect a gap between a political community, where the dominant expectation is that the Court’s five Republican-appointed Justices will unify to strike down the law, and a legal community operating on different assumptions.

The devil is in the details: The JOBS Act is a pending disaster waiting to happen

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The banksters of Wall Street still control our government despite these "masters of the universe" having nearly destroyed the world's financial system and economy. No lessons have been learned our political leaders.

Other than President Obama's veterans employment bill, this Tea-Publican Congress has not passed any jobs bills. "Mr. Boehner, where are the jobs?"

One bill for which there is bipartisan support, I am sorry to report, is the JOBS Act which passed the Senate last week on a vote of 73-26 and heads back to the House where a different version of the bill previously passed on a vote of 390-23.

The JOBS Act is not about creating jobs; it is a "Trojan horse" for Wall Street deregulation to allow the banksters of Wall Street to return to unregulated "casino capitalism" and allow the "masters of the universe" to destroy the world's financial system and economy, again. Job creation legislation seen eviscerating shareholder protections in U.S. (Bloomberg News):

U.S. legislation that would roll back securities disclosure and governance rules in the name of job creation is being attacked by consumer advocates and former regulators as an evisceration of investor protections in place since the 1930s.

The package of bills awaiting Senate action after receiving broad bipartisan support in a House vote last week would destroy safeguards dating as far back as the laws that created the Securities and Exchange Commission, according to Lynn E. Turner, a former SEC chief accountant.

“It won’t create jobs, but it will simplify fraud,” Turner said in an interview last week. “This would be better known as the bucket-shop and penny-stock fraud reauthorization act of 2012,” he said, referring to practices banned under securities law.

The Republican-led House, in a show of election-year comity, voted 390-23 to approve measures that would among other things undo a ban on closely held firms soliciting investments, increase the number of investors such firms can have and exempt newly public companies with less than $1 billion in revenue from some reporting requirements of the Dodd-Frank and Sarbanes-Oxley laws. President Barack Obama has backed the legislation as a way to help spur job creation, and Senate Democrats have said they will move quickly on their own version.

No love for the Ryan 2.0 Budget even from conservatives

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Did you hear that the "Roadmap to America's Ruin II" Budget from the GOP's boy genius, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), barely made it out of a House committee controled by Tea-Publicans? There is no love for the Ryan 2.0 Budget even from conservatives.

Joan McCarter posts House Republican budget opposed by Republican committee members:

The House Republican budget authored by Rep. Paul Ryan isn't getting a great deal of love, even from conservatives. Fred Hiatt's Washington Post editorial page slammed it as "dangerous," and the Club for Growth is opposing it because it isn't dangerous enough. That opposition extended to Ryan's committee yesterday, where the budget was passed by just one vote, despite having 22 Republicans to just 16 Democrats.

* * *

The conservative skeptics all voice the same problem with the Ryan budget: It does not go far enough, fast enough. The budget doesn't balance till 2040. The spending levels envisioned in this year's budget are slightly higher than the spending levels envisioned in last year's budget. The Medicare reforms have been moderated to preserve fee-for-service Medicare as an option, and Social Security remains untouched.

That's obviously not enough for the nihilists, which is pretty astounding. Ryan's budget is as extreme a policy document as could be imagined.

* * *

There's a surreality to the thought that elected representatives' primary goal is the destruction of the government they're serving. It gets even more surreal when you look at the Ryan plan, which would achieve that destruction in less than half a century, and his party responds, "That's not fast enough."

Here's the best part. The GOP's boy genius said on a Sunday morning bobble-head show (FAUX News, naturally) that he would consider the VP slot on a ticket with Willard "Mittens" Romney. This is all about him campaigning for the VP slot. That committee vote is a good indication that this went over like a lead balloon.

(Repost) Recusal! More than just an 'appearance' of impropriety

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The U.S. Supreme Court today begins oral arguments on the Affordable Care Act. But an issue the mainstream media is largely ignoring is the serious conflict of interest that Justice Clarence Thomas has in this matter. Justice Thomas should have recused himself from participating in these cases, but did not. And this is a serious breach of judicial ethics.

-----

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in three appeals challenging the Affordable Care Act. In all of the reporting I have read on this matter, what I have not seen is any indication that Justice Clarence Thomas recused himself from hearing and deciding the case based upon his wife Virginia "Ginny" Thomas' extensive poliitcal activities with the Tea Party organization Liberty Central that she founded which very publicly opposed the Affordable Care Act.

I posted about this back when "Ginny" Thomas may have had one glass of wine too many and drunk dialed Anita Hill to ask her to apologize to her husband. Remember that? And the evil billionaire bastard Koch brothers make a cameo appearance as well. What was really going on with the Anita Hill sideshow:

On Tuesday evening, the New York Times published a story about the Billionaire Kock brothers (aka the "Kochtopus"), who are trying to buy themselves a Congress this election thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court decsion in Citizens United v. FEC, planning to host a meeting in January for the plutocratic "two percenters" and their newly purchased Congress. Koch Industries and Network of Republican Donors Plan Ahead. 21 paragraphs into this disturbing story of political corruption is this passage:

To encourage new participants, Mr. Koch offers to waive the $1,500 registration fee. And he notes that previous guests have included Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court, Gov. Haley Barbour and Gov. Bobby Jindal, Senators Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn, and Representatives Mike Pence, Tom Price and Paul D. Ryan.

Would that have been before or after the Citizens United v. FEC decision in January 2010? Was the decision a quid pro quo for Justices Scalia and Thomas patronizing the Koch brothers biannual shindig for the plutocatic "two percenters"? Was the Citizens United ruling and how it could most benefit the Koch brothers and other far-right corporate funded 501(c)(4) non-profit political organizations ever discussed at this meeting? There are some serious ethical questions raised by Supreme Court Justices ruling favorably for their friends and associates who have business before the court, especially on something as controversial as Citizens United.

Justice Thomas' ethical lapses are not limited to his friends the Koch brothers. As I told you in March of this year, shortly after the Citizens United decision, Thomas' wife, Virginia "Ginny" Thomas, formed a 501(c)(4) nonprofit political organization. Wife of Justice Clarence Thomas launches a Tea Party organization. (3/15/2010).

Supreme Court Justices and their spouses traditionally are not politically active nor actively involved in anything remotely controversial that could bring disrepute upon the Court or give cause for the public to question the impartiality and fairness of the Justice or the Court.

Apparenlty Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife Ginny are not happy with this longstanding tradition and feel it is appropriate for them to politicize the U.S. Supreme Court. I posted that legal experts were critical of Mrs. Thomas' ethically challenged decision to establish a 501(c)(4) nonprofit political organization, i.e., Tea Party, at the time. Wife of Justice Clarence Thomas is violating law. (3/19/10).

I recently posted about Justice Thomas' conflict of interest with his wife's political activities in DNC goes on the offensive against foreign-funded "U.S." Chamber of Commerce:

It turns out Justice Clarence Thomas has a serious conflict of interest as the Citizens United decision directly benefitted his wife's 501(c)(4) conservative political action committee. Thomas should have recused himself. Activism of Thomas’s Wife Could Raise Judicial Issues:

[Virginia] Thomas is the founder and head of a new nonprofit group, Liberty Central, dedicated to opposing what she characterizes as the leftist “tyranny” of President Obama and Democrats in Congress and to “protecting the core founding principles” of the nation.

It is the most partisan role ever for a spouse of a justice on the nation’s highest court, and Mrs. Thomas is just getting started. “Liberty Central will be bigger than the Tea Party movement,” she told Fox News in April, at a Tea Party rally in Atlanta.

But to some people who study judicial ethics, Mrs. Thomas’s activism is raising knotty questions, in particular about her acceptance of large, unidentified contributions for Liberty Central. She began the group in late 2009 with two gifts of $500,000 and $50,000, and because it is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit group, named for the applicable section of the federal tax code, she does not have to publicly disclose any contributors. Such tax-exempt groups are supposed to make sure that less than half of their activities are political.

Krugman takes on ALEC

by David Safier

Paul Krugman's column, Lobbyists, Guns and Money, doesn't cover new ground in its discussion of ALEC's role in the conservative push for privatization and other corporate-backed agendas. But it performs a great service. It puts ALEC front and center in a well respected, syndicated column. Discussion of ALEC is now officially mainstream -- at least I hope it is.

Krugman begins by talking about the law that led to the killing of Trayvon Martin in Florida. He calls it the "now-infamous Stand Your Ground law," though I prefer a more accurate title, the "Shoot First Law." Then he moves on to ALEC's role in promoting the bill in state legislatures around the country. The rest of the article is a description and analysis of ALEC.

Some of the important passages:

[ALEC is] very much a movement-conservative organization, funded by the usual suspects: the Kochs, Exxon Mobil, and so on. Unlike other such groups, however, it doesn’t just influence laws, it literally writes them, supplying fully drafted bills to state legislators.

[snip]

ALEC seems . . . to have a special interest in privatization — that is, on turning the provision of public services, from schools to prisons, over to for-profit corporations. And some of the most prominent beneficiaries of privatization, such as the online education company K12 Inc. and the prison operator Corrections Corporation of America, are, not surprisingly, very much involved with the organization.

What this tells us, in turn, is that ALEC’s claim to stand for limited government and free markets is deeply misleading. To a large extent the organization seeks not limited government but privatized government, in which corporations get their profits from taxpayer dollars, dollars steered their way by friendly politicians. In short, ALEC isn’t so much about promoting free markets as it is about expanding crony capitalism. [boldface added]