An open letter to the moderate Republicans in the Arizona Legislature -

This one is a bit of a vent for some of the frustration that has built up from watching the lege inaction over the last seven months...

Relax and please don't be insulted by the term "moderate." I'm not saying that you are actually anything other than very conservative Republicans who, in most other parts of the country, would be considered some of the leading lights of the far-right branch of the local GOP.

However, some of you have a sense of civic duty and professionalism, and by the standard set by the Arizona GOP, that makes you moderates.

And with the collapse of yet another horrible budget deal, a deal that wasn't horrible enough to suit certain members of your caucus, it's time for you to step up for your constituents and for all Arizonans.

It may mean working with the Democrats to get something done...OK, there's no "may" about it at this point.

It's time to fashion a budget with no tax hikes or cuts.

A small tax hike or two could be put to the voters, but any budget should be crafted assuming that nothing will pass; if one does, in fact, gain voter approval, a brief (and probably fairly relaxed) special session can be called to deal with the additional revenue.

Yes, your more extreme colleagues will threaten electoral retaliation during next year's primary season, but let's be honest here - they're coming after you anyway.

If you don't believe that, just ask former colleagues like Pete Hershberger, Tom O'Halleran, and even Jennifer Burns. And that's just from the 2008 election cycle.

You were elected to do a job, to represent the best interests of your constituents, and in the past you have done it pretty well.

I may not always agree with some of your proposals and your votes, but always thought that the intent of those proposals and votes was honorable.

Now, your state and your constituents need that integrity and professionalism like they've never needed them before.

Step up.


To the Democrats in the legislature -

I realize that most of you already realize this, but even a more moderate budget proposal will still have massive cuts to services and schools. Unfortunately, the revenue just isn't there to be able to avoid some heartrending decisions.

And equally unfortunately, fiscal sanity isn't going to return to Arizona government until January 2011 at the earliest, and then only if enough voters do their part and step up by actually voting for the best candidates, not for blind ideology.

If some Republican moderates approach you (and you know who they are), step up and work with them in good faith. The state needs you to do so.


To Governor Brewer -

To be totally blunt Governor, by no real world standard could you be *ever* be considered a moderate.

However, Arizona is *not* the real world.

By the standard set by your GOP brethren in the legislature, you *are* a moderate.

Whether or not you stand for a full term as governor, there is going to be a vicious battle in the Republican primary.

If you choose to enter the race, you will be the underdog, even if you roll over for the extremists' budget.

However, if you do so and are able to win in the Republican primary, in the general election you will be running on the legacy as "The Governor who crippled Arizona for two decades, and did it in less than two years."

Not the best legacy, or platform, for a general election campaign.

When the moderates and the Democrats come to you with a feasible compromise, step up and work with them.


To the majority of the Republicans in the legislature -

You had pretty much everything you wanted - significant budget cuts to education and human services, huge tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, gifts to the homebuilder's association in the form of a moratorium on impact fees, and privatizing state assets so that private companies can profit from taxpayers, and more, but that still wasn't enough for you.

You didn't want to allow the voters to consider a temporary tax hike that would have slightly mitigated some of the impact of the devastation you were wreaking upon society's infrastructure.

Simply put, you got greedy.

Now, if the moderates and the Democrats can find the spine to stand up to your ideological bullying, you'll get *far* less of your ideological agenda than you would have if you had just taken what was there in early June.

When the Democrats and the moderates bring together a budget, step aside.


And lastly, to the voters of Arizona -

Step up and get involved.

Step up and pay attention to candidates, their qualifications, and their records.

Step up and vote for the candidate, not the party.


I'd love for most of you to become active Democrats (hey, I am a Democrat after all :) ), but many of you cherish your independence. Also, some of you are dyed-in-the-wool Republicans, and I respect that, believe it or not.

Get involved anyway.

Independents - find a candidate or candidates that you can support, regardless of their party affiliations, and volunteer your time and financial support.

Republicans - do your part to ensure that the candidates that your party puts forward places the long-term needs and interests of their constituents and all Arizonans before the blind ideology of Grover Norquist and the craven avarice of corporate lobbyists.

Bottom line - Before we are Democrats, Republicans, Greens, Libertarians, or Independents, we are Arizonans.

If nothing else, remember that when you cast your votes.

Live blogging Senate Approps, via streaming video

Joining it in progress...

8:34 - I was hoping to see how this all turns out on the floor of the Senate, but I have to work in the morning. Good night...

8:28 - Tax package passes after Gould calls out his own party on spending too much. A correspondent noted he seems "pissy about getting smacked down by Burns yesterday." Aboud calls out Republicans and their diminishing credibility by cutting taxes for the wealthy while cutting voter-protected services. Pearce is spouting off about marijuana and meth and people who "have decided to not earn a living." A while back, I apologized to my readers for resorting to name-calling and said I wouldn't do so again (other than in a humorous way.)

I apologize again, because I have to say - Pearce is a putz.

8:15 - Harper sounding off on tax pledge, saying that this doesn't violate the pledge he and most of the Rep caucus gave to Grover Norquist. No explanation offered as to why a pledge to an anti-government special interest group is more important than his oath of office or his duties to his constituents.

8:05 - SB1029, the tax package. Ugly.

8:01 - SB1028 passes, Dems and Gould opposing.

7:58 - SB1028, Environment BRB.

7:57 - SB1027 passes 6 - 3.

7:51 - Huppenthal still lecturing. Even Pearce is now calling on him to get to the point. Gould votes "no" out of protest of the suspension of the rules that allowed the bills to be brought forward today.

7:48 - Finally voting on SB1027. Huppenthal lecturing on tax theory. Thinks AZ's cities have "lived high on the hog."

7:45 - Now Harper is going off on the NEA and the "homosexual agenda." And this guy wants to run statewide next year. God help us all.

7:42 - Gould just showed up.

7:38 - Still on SB1027. Back to a debate on tax policy theory. And they haven't gotten to the actual tax bill yet.

7:32 - OMG, quote of the freakin' year! Sylvia Allen - "We have to think 'What are *we* doing for the wealthy?' "

7:26 - Still on SB1027. They broke into a debate on taxes. Listening to Sylvia Allen (R-6000 years) spout off in defense of tax cuts for the wealthy was funny, if not actually enlightening.

7:03 -SB1027, striker into K-12 Education BRB. Rolling back the few good things that came out of the special session earlier this month. Pearce trying to stifle Paula Aboud a little. Unsurprisingly, that's not working too well. :))

7:01 - SB1026, striker into Health and Welfare BRB - eliminates KidsCare Parents among other things. Passes 6-2, Reps for, Dems against. Harper disappointed that it doesn't cut more.

6:56 - SB1025, striker to amend into General Revenues BRB - passing on a party line vote, with a Harper amendment attached that attacks Rio Nuevo in Tucson. Paula Aboud protested, but it still passed.

More budget games at the lege...

...Games played by the Republicans to avoid having to go to the Democrats to get votes in committee for their budget.

Latest move: Sen. Pam Gorman (R-Princess) is off of Appropriations and John Huppenthal (R-More Pliable Unless You're An Elderly Democratic Volunteer) is on...

Currently budget bills are moving through Senate Appropriations on party-line votes, with Gould, Hale, and Aguirre (I think) absent.

Update, and a note: After talking to someone down at the lege, it seems that Gorman was replaced because she is now out of town. No such replacement of absent members was offered to the Democrats. In addition, the "Princess" nickname for Gorman was *not* invented by me; it was overheard at the lege from multiple sources, including both elected and unelected folks.

And here I was, thinking that the Reps had completely sold out years ago..

But it turns out that after selling off their souls to corporate interests, they plan to officially sell off the infrastructure of government too...

From AZCentral.com -

Call it a sign of desperate times: Legislators are considering selling the House and Senate buildings where they've conducted state business for more than 50 years.

If successful, by this time next year we could have -

The Arizona Community Financial Services Association House of Representatives Building

The Home Builders of Central Arizona Arizona State Senate Building

The Pinnacle West Executive Tower

Maybe we could sell off

...the state's parks and ADEQ to mining interests (Sydney Hay needs a job, doesn't she?)

...the Department of Education and the state's universities to the American Association of Cosmetology Schools (bonus - AACS is based in Scottsdale)

...DPS could be sold to Redflex Traffic Systems

...the county jails in the state to the Mob (the state's prisons are probably going to The GEO Group, AZSOS filer ID 201000125, as soon as the Reps pass their budget)

...and the list goes on.

Of course, a lot of this, especially the stuff involving the Capitol buildings, would just be officially acknowledging what most people know is currently reality.

So remind me again Republicans - why were auto industry bailouts bad, but banking bailouts good?

Last fall, at the height of D.C.'s bailout mania during the waning days of the Bush administration (and yes, into the beginning of the Obama administration), there was strong support in Congress for bailing out the white collar banks whose irresponsible and even fraudulent practices helped precipitate the deepest U.S. economic crisis since the Great Depression.

Yet, when the auto industry came calling, with its hundreds of thousands blue collar manufacturing jobs, the Republicans in Congress, led by AZ's own Jon Kyl, expressed outrage at the mere thought of bailouts for them.

Fast forward to today, when Andrew Cuomo, Attorney General for the State of New York, released a report on the bonus practices of bailed-out banks. (warning: the .pdf file is rather large; if you are using a dialup connection, it may take a while to download in its entirety.)

From the New York Times' article on the report -

The Wall Street millionaire club had nearly 5,000 members in 2008.

At least 4,793 bankers and traders were paid more than $1 million in bonuses last year even as profits at the biggest banks dwindled and they accepted tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer money, according to a report released on Thursday by the New York Attorney General’s Office.

Something tells me that of all the things that these "bankers and traders" might have bought with their bonuses, none of them bought even a small amount of shame.

Back to AZ later...

The Republicans' budget proposal: Long term ugliness

The Arizona Economic Council has sent out an email where in memo format, they clearly summarize the regressive effects of the Republicans' plans for Arizona's tax structure.

Shamelessly copied-and-pasted from that email -

MEMO: Budget Deal Shifts Heavier Tax Burden to Middle Class

TO: Interested Parties
FROM: Seth Scott, The Arizona Economic Council
DATE: July 30, 2009

Governor Jan Brewer and the State Legislature are at it again - desperately trying to bail out corporations and Wall Street insurance companies on the backs of Arizona's children and middle class families.

Just like the Governor's June proposal, the current plan concocted by Governor Brewer, Senate President Bob Burns and House Speaker Kirk Adams is wrong for Arizona. The Brewer-Burns-Adams Grand Tax Shift unfairly places a heavier tax burden on the middle class, and uses an 18 percent increase in the sales tax - as well as school cuts - to pay for hundreds of millions of dollars in corporate tax giveaways and bailouts we simply cannot afford.

Specifically, the Brewer-Burns-Adams Grand Tax Shift:

- Raises the state sales tax by 18 percent. Under Brewer-Burns-Adams, Arizona's sales tax would climb to the 7th highest in the nation, and that's before county and local taxes are taken into account. [Source: Tax Foundation 2009 Facts and Figures]

- Takes some revenue from the middle class tax hike to pay for a 30 percent cut to the state's corporate tax rate, shifting the burden to individuals.

- Takes another portion of revenue from the sales tax increase, which targets middle class families, and cut income taxes for those who make over $150,000 a year.

- Puts schools on the ropes and eliminates the $250 million education equalization fund, which goes directly to Arizona schools. This would shift funds from schools to the pockets of Big Business. For example, one of the biggest beneficiaries of this maneuver is New York-based Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. [Source: The Arizona Republic, April 4, 2009]

- Strips voter-mandated protections of school funds, so the Legislature would be free to override the will of the voters and further cut classroom resources in FY2010, FY2011 and FY2012.

The Brewer-Burns-Adams Grand Tax Shift is another example of misplaced priorities at the State Capitol.

Arizonans continue to lack confidence in the Governor and Legislature's handling of the budget crisis. A recent survey of 500 likely voters indicates that 72 percent of voters believe Governor Brewer is doing only a "fair" or "poor" job handing the state budget crisis. Eighty-one percent of those surveyed said the state legislature is doing only a "fair" or "poor" job handling the crisis.

###

The Arizona Economic Council is a non-partisan, non-profit organization that aims to promote ideas and policies to create jobs, strengthen our schools and the state's economy and educate Arizonans about the economic issues that face our state.

Eli Blake at Deep Thought has his take one one aspect of the Reps' schemes here.

AZBlueMeanie has an excellent piece on the entire situation here. It seems that the Reps' are running into trouble from their own caucus because, as bad as the current proposal is, certain members (i.e. Gould, Harper, Gorman, aka "The Usual Suspects") don't think that it is anywhere near bad enough.

Stay tuned today...

Quick update - budget

Well, the budget may or may not pass tonight.

Update: Change that to will NOT pass tonight. Apparently, they've adjourned until tomorrow. Legislators have been told to change their vacation and other plans.

The motivation to get it done soon is two-fold -

1. There is a deadline, Friday, for passage of any referendum questions to make it to the ballot in November.

2. They don't think that they'll have a quorum, much less the votes to pass a GOP-authored package, after tonight. Too many legislators have made plans to be out of the state this weekend.

Of course, the Senate may not have the votes even tonight. AZCentral.com's Political Insider is reporting that Sen. Ron Gould (R-Freon Freedom Now!) has already said that he won't support referring a tax increase to the ballot.

And given that only 24 Senators answered the roll call today, Senate President Burns et. al. are going to need all of the votes that they can get.

I recommend visiting the lege website's streaming video page and watching the (in)action from the comfort of your home.

While you are waiting for them the jump back on the railroad train to Third World status for Arizona, for your reading pleasure -

HB2006, General Appropriations - text, fact sheet
HB2007, General Revenues BRB - text, fact sheet
HB2008, General Government BRB - text, fact sheet
HB2009, Assets BRB - text, fact sheet
HB2010, Criminal Justice BRB - text, fact sheet
HB2011, K-12 Education BRB - text, fact sheet
HB2012, Higher Ed BRB - text, fact sheet
HB2013, Health and Welfare BRB - text, fact sheet
HB2014, Environment BRB - text, fact sheet
HB2015, Taxes, Budget Stabilization - text (no text available online yet), fact sheet

I have to work tomorrow, so I'll be reading the updates instead of writing them.

Later...

Quick update - Huppenthal

The trial of State Senator John Huppenthal took place today in the San Marcos Justice Court. The testimony is complete, but the decision has been postponed.

Background on the incident that precipitated the trial here.

The testimony was interesting, however, and is worthy of a post.

...While the charges, misdemeanor theft and political sign tampering, are not partisan in and of themselves, much of the defense's questioning of prosecution witnesses and almost all of Huppenthal's own testimony painted the whole matter with a "Democrats v. Republicans" brush.

This included the moment when the defense attorney announced that he was a Democrat and the Chandler PD officer who responded to the call announced that he was a Republican.

...Huppenthal *really* hates criticism. He said that the reason that he found the sign so objectionable was that it was "misleading and even fraudulent." The sign in question highlighted his vote against a move in the lege to help address the air quality issues in Corona del Sol High School. He claimed that the amendment was proposed to make him look bad because he voted against it in favor of a holistic package of remedies that he claimed credit for created.

However, there is nothing in the political sign ordinance that allows someone to take it down because they don't like or agree with what the sign says.

Minor detail, that.

...Huppenthal has trouble understanding the English language.

He asked the assistant property manager of the apartment complex that was serving as a polling place if he could take a sign. She testified today that she said "sure, I don't care" after trying to refer him to the poll workers overseeing election activities at the site.

He testified that he heard that as "yes, you have my permission."

Ummm...nothing that I can write can top this.

...The defense also tried to say that it's not "stealing" if you don't try to go home (or elsewhere) with someone else's property, and that the fact that Huppenthal just move the sign to a dumpster on the apartment complex property meant that he didn't deprive the owner of the property (aka - the sign) of the use of the property.

Yeah, right. Try using that defense against a shoplifting charge where the defendant dumped the goods in the trash before leaving the store premises.

...The whole thing proceeded in that vein. The highlight of the hearing was when Huppenthal claimed that he thought he "was being carjacked by an older woman" when the Democratic volunteer at the polling place told him that he couldn't take the sign and tried to prevent him from leaving with it.

The "Democratic volunteer" is Ruth Levin. She's 78. She's the epitome of the "little old lady." Donna at Democratic Diva has a pic of her in this post.

...No decision was handed down today. The cynic in me believes that the pro tem judge assigned to the case wants to take time to find a technicality upon which to hang a complete acquittal. The not-so-cynical part of me also realizes that he has a lot of BS to sort through, and even the likes of Huppenthal deserves a fair trial.

Of course, being the partisan hack that I am, I also think that he deserves a fair conviction, too. :)

I did spend most of my time in the courtroom wondering why Huppenthal has insisted on pushing this as far as he has. The bottom line is that the charges are extremely minor, and even a conviction on both counts would result in no more than two lashes with a wet noodle on his wrist.

aka - A small fine, a suspended sentence, a few hours of public service (of the non-legislative variety), and maybe some unsupervised probation.

Instead, this incident has stayed in the news, and the public eye, for months. Months during which Huppenthal has been working to set up a statewide campaign for State Superintendant of Public Instruction.

Anyway, the AZRep has coverage here.

State Budget Deal In The Works

And it is a BAD one...

It looks like the Republicans are back to their old game of shutting out Democrats from budget discussions. The budget proposal that appears to be headed to a floor vote tomorrow or perhaps Thursday includes things like (from a House Democrats press release) -

· A huge risk that a one-cent sales tax increase won't pass at the ballot, but their proposed income tax decrease of $400 million a year and the permanent repeal of the state education equalization tax of $250 million a year will be implemented regardless, digging Arizona into an even bigger hole, with no new revenue guaranteed. This only benefits big corporations and the wealthy. Republicans now support the sales tax increase after signing a no-tax pledge.

· A 3-year TABOR (Taxpayer Bill of Rights)-like spending cap for education, the disabled, seniors and more, guaranteeing that new growth will not be funded and schools will have to make deep cuts to meet the cap. That includes fewer classroom supplies and increased class sizes. Brewer vowed not to “decimate” these areas, but now supports it.

· A ballot initiative to repeal the protections of education and health care funding afforded by Proposition 105. Voters originally brought the Voter Protection Act, which protects voter-approved initiatives to the ballot, preventing the legislature
from raiding funding for or changing voter-approved measures, which would undermine the will of the voters.

It was obvious that this was going to be a bad one when in the summary of the plan given to the House Dems by a lobbyist (the Rep leadership doesn't even have the professionalism or simple civility to give the info to the Democratic members of the lege themselves!) referred to the scheme to undermine the Voter Protection Act as "improving" Prop 105, the Voter Protection Act.

Anyway, the best quote regarding the AZGOP's unilateral plotting and scheming on the budget came from Rep. Chad Campbell (D-Phoenix), the House Democratic Whip.

“If the state wanted a recipe for economic disaster, it got the best cooks in town,” said House Democratic Whip Chad Campbell. “Arizonans should be prepared because no one wins from this except big corporations and the wealthy.”

Assuming for the moment that this packages passes pretty much in its current form, I'll probably be voting against any sales tax hike because it isn't intended to help balance the budget so much as to provide cover for massive tax breaks to corporations and the wealthy.

Still, my opposition to the Republican tax hike scheme pales in comparison to my outrage at other parts of the budget proposal.

Specifically, any attempts to weaken the Voter Protection Act,

NO.

NO.

NO.

A million times, NO!!!

These brazen ideologues have proven unequivocally that they have no regard for the will or welfare of most of the people of Arizona, only the ones who can get their attention with large campaign contributions.

Additionally, they have no fiscal sense, either.

There's no way they should be allowed anywhere near the VPA.


AZBlueMeanie at Blog for Arizona has more here.

Tedski at Rum, Romanism, Rebellion has his take here. I won't say that the Republicans have hired/delegated staffers to "fight the good fight" on Democratic blogs, but check out the comments from "Ryan Bailey."

State Rep. Daniel Patterson (D-Tucson) offers his insights here.

AZCentral.com coverage here.

Updates to "The coming week..."

The post is just a day old, but there have already been some significant changes to the schedules this week.

...Over at the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, the previously-scheduled uneventful week now has a Special and Executive session scheduled for Thursday at 10 a.m.

...And in the court case of State Senator John Huppenthal, the jury trial in another case that had been scheduled for the San Marcos Justice Court (the court where Huppenthal's case is assigned) has been cancelled/postponed (not sure which), so Huppenthal's case is back in the San Marcos Justice Court's courtroom.

Until it is changed again, anyway. :)

Some interesting info has come to light concerning the "pro tem" JP assigned to hear the case, Daniel Washburn.

He ran for Superior Court Judge in Pinal County last year, losing in the Republican primary.

After he lost in the primary, he left a message on his website -

Of course I am saddened that I did not win the primary election; however, I am grateful to have time once again to spend with my family and friends. Additionally, as a judicial candidate, I was restricted from publicly supporting the Republican Party and its candidates. I am no longer a judicial candidate; therefore, I now publicly support all Republican candidates and encourage all Republicans to support the Republican ticket that is now set for the general election in November.

Washburn also wrote this law school journal article regarding student religious speech in schools.

Washburn was also cited in a Phoenix New Times' article documenting "questionable" expenditures of Clean Elections monies. From the article -

John Fillmore, a Republican running for state representative in Apache Junction, didn't even bother writing a check to a company he owned. Instead, he simply paid himself $2,861 in "petty cash/miscellaneous." Fillmore says he used the cash to avoid his bank's "exorbitant" checking fees.

Fillmore also paid $17,350 to Mesa attorney Daniel Washburn for "communications," according to records. Washburn was "helping me a lot, helping me orchestrate polling places throughout the district," Fillmore says.

Hmmmm....I don't know who assigns pro tem JPs to cases in Maricopa County, but Judge Washburn is an interesting choice for a politically-charged case involving a Republican politician as a defendant. Especially given that the original JP, Judge Keith Frankel, recused himself because of his own political involvements.

Note: I did hear other things regarding Washburn's political involvements, but couldn't independently verify them. There was nothing earth-shattering anyway, just more details.

Wednesday morning should be interesting, if only to see if the case is assigned to yet another judge.

Later...

Flake's jihad against earmarks: The reality is not quite as pure as the image

Even though I've criticized AZ Congressman Jeff Flake (R-AZ6) in the past - and will continue to do so in the future - I actually have a great deal of respect for him.

While I rarely agree with him on most issues (and would never vote for him if I lived in his district), he is nothing if not consistent.

For instance, he has been calling for an House Ethics Committee investigation into the relationship between the PMA Group lobbying firm and Demcratic appropriators for months now. At one point, after his fifth or sixth "privileged resolution" was introduced in the House, I wondered where his righteous indignation and high ethical standards were during the Tom Delay mess a few years ago.

Turns out that he was one of the Republicans pressuring then-Majority Leader Tom Delay to step down.

So he gets some serious points for not being a hypocrite on ethics.

Unfortunately, he does have a record on earmarks of being, if not outright hypocritical (he doesn't seek earmarks for his own district), well, it *is* a little "gray."

He has proposed a number of anti-earmark amendments to bills this year, and the vast majority of them opposed earmarks in other states. And the ones that don't target other states' earmarks? They're general amendments.

He almost never targets AZ.

Hey, as someone who lives here, I suppose I should be a little grateful at his mercy, but as much as I love Arizona, even I don't think that all federally-funded projects here are good, while all such projects in other states are bad.

Yet Jeff Flake seems to think that the only improper expenditures of federal money occur in other states.


To whit, from the various authorization and appropriations bills (and the stimulus bill) that Congress has considered this year (note: pages linked to the word "amendments" are the Rules Committee pages listing all amendments proposed for a particular bill, not just Flake's) -

- For H.R. 3288, the Transportation and HUD appropriations act, Flake proposed 12 amendments.

He attacked projects in North Dakota, Texas, Ohio (twice), Pennsylvania (twice), New York (three times!), West Virginia, Wisconsin, and New Mexico. The closest he came to targeting an AZ earmark was one of the Pennsylvania projects he attacked. It was in Phoenixville, Pennsylvania.

- For H.R. 3170, the Financial Services and General Government appropriations act, Flake proposed 11 amendments.

He went after projects in Georgia, Arkansas, Idaho, Minnesota, Maryland, Florida, California (twice), Pennsylvania (twice) and South Carolina.

- For Energy and Water Appropriations, he proposed 12 amendments.

He went after projects in Missouri, California (twice), Georgia, Arkansas, New York, Vermont, Nevada, District of Columbia, Washington, Massachusetts, and Minnesota.

- For H.R. 3082, Veterans Affairs and Military Construction appropriations, Flake proposed one amendment. This one would have prohibited "all of the member-requested earmarks for military construction projects." That amendment would have eliminated over 100 projects, one of which was in AZ.

- For H.R. 3081, State Department and foreign operations appropriations, Flake proposed one amendment, eliminating funding for "the one-time special educational, professional, and cultural exchange grants program."

- For H.R. 2997, Agriculture, Rural Development and FDA appropriations, Flake proposed 12 amendment, some of which were of the "MIRV" variety, attacking multiple states in one strike.

He went after projects in Pennsylvania, Idaho (twice), Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oregon (twice), Tennessee, West Virginia, Iowa (twice), Georgia, Washington (twice), Minnesota, Ohio, Maryland, Texas, Illinois, and Maryland,

- For H.R. 2996, Interior, Environment and related appropriations, Flake proposed 10 amendments.

He went after projects in Indiana, Minnesota (twice), New York, Alabama (twice), Tennessee, Connecticut, Georgia, and Wisconsin.

- For H.R. 2647, the FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act, Flake proposed two amendments. The first would have "prohibit the Defense Secretary from expending money for earmarks if (1) the recipient (or any employee, director, or PAC) contributed to a Member of Congress who sponsored the earmark or (2) any registered lobbyist (or its PAC) whose client is the recipient of the earmark contributed to the Member of Congress who sponsored the earmark" and the second would have required "the Defense Secretary to report to Congress on the competitive processes used to award earmarks listed in the joint explanatory statement for the FY2008 defense appropriations bill. If competitive processes were not employed in making such awards, the decision-making process and justifications as to why should be cited in the report."

- For H.R. 2892, Homeland Security appropriations, Flake proposed 11 amendments.

In those, he went after projects in Arizona (whoooo hoooo! Finally!!), Kentucky, New York (twice), North Carolina, Texas, California (FOUR times!), and one amendment that would have struck "all the earmarks for emergency operations centers from FEMA's State and Local Programs account."

Note: Why do I think that it may not be the brightest idea for a Republican to go after FEMA? Maybe he can campaign on this one as his "Katrina Memorial" amendment.

- For H.R. 2918, Legislative Appropriations, Flake proposed one amendment. That one would have prohibited "funds from being used to implement the House Ethics Manual provision on page 239 in the Certification of No Financial Interest in Fiscal Legislation section of Chapter Five that states "A contribution to a Member's principal campaign committee or leadership PAC generally would not constitute the type of 'financial interest' referred to in the rule." "

- For H.R. 2200, the Transportation Security Administration Authorization Act, Flake proposed one amendment. That one would have prevented "earmarking in a new grant program established in the bill, and would clarify that Congress presumes that grants awarded through that program will be awarded on a competitive basis, and if they are not, require the Assistant Secretary to submit a report to Congress explaining the reason."

- For H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Flake proposed seven amendments. He didn't attack specific states. Instead he went after AmeriCorps, the National Endowment for the Arts, Amtrak, the National Mall Revitalization Fund, "any duck pond, museum, skate park, equestrian center, dog park, ski hill, historic home, ice rink, splash playground, or speaker system", and energy efficient federal buildings.


So in 81 amendments that Jeff Flake has proposed to authorization and approps bills (and ARRA), Flake has gone after one AZ earmark directly (regarding solar power of all things. I mean, it's totally foolish to invest money on solar power projects in Arizona, right? BTW - that's sarcasm folks :) ) and one, a fire station, that was included on a long hit list of military construction projects.

I'm sure that at least a few of the earmarks that he targeted are ones that most reasonable people would consider to be wasteful, However, his nearly-unswerving aim at targets outside of AZ, a state that owes a huge amount of credit for its growth to federal infrastructure spending, gives lie to the purity of his motives.

He may be touted as a "limited government spending", Libertarian-leaning Republican, but it seems that he only wants to limit government spending in other parts of the country.

Perhaps so that more money is available for Arizona. Not that he'll ask for any. He leaves that sort of petty "looking out for his state and district" stuff to mere mortals.

Like Ann Kirkpatrick, Harry Mitchell, Gabrielle Giffords, Ed Pastor, and Raul Grijalva, the Democratic members of AZ's Congressional delegation.

Jim Rice's Hall of Fame Induction speech

An incredibly overdue and wholly deserved moment...

Courtesy NESN.com -

Thank you. Good afternoon. I've only got a couple of minutes now, guys.

I'd like to start by thanking Jane Clark, the chairman of the board of directors of the National Baseball Hall of Fame. Thank you, Jane, for welcoming us into your Hall of Fame family.Jeff Idelson, who is the president of the National Baseball Hall of Fame. Thank you so much for a smooth transition into the Hall of Fame. I'd like to thank the Hall of Fame staff for their hospitality and impeccable attention to detail. Congratulations to Rickey Henderson, Joe Gordon and my fellow Hall of Fame inductees. Also, congratulations to Tony Kubek and Nick Peters as they receive their respective awards. Thank you Dick Bresciani, Red Sox historian, who kept my stats in the public eye.

I am a husband, called Rice. I am a father, called Dad. I am a brother, called Ed. I am an uncle, called Uncle Ed. I am a grandfather, called Papa. I am a friend that doesn't call -- some of my friends know that -- and sometimes best not call at all. Finally, I do mean finally, I am Jim Rice, called a Baseball Hall of Famer.

You always feel that after every great once-in-a-lifetime moment, there cannot be anything else to top it. You find your lifelong partner, that one true love. You have your first child, and you spend hours wondering at the perfection of tiny little fingers and toes. You rejoice and cry through pre-, elementary, middle and high school, and, if you're lucky, college graduation. You marvel at how sanity endures. Right when you thought it couldn’t get any better, you have grandchildren. And a new, astonishing love blossoms.

And then after 15 years, you get a phone call that you thought you'd never get. Your aspiration realized. Your tears overflow because you know now that the highest honor of your career means so much [more] than you ever thought it would mean before. Because what it feels like most is being welcomed at home plate after hitting a walkoff home run. You find yourself repeating the same phrases over and over: "We made it. We made it. We made it."

And suddenly you think: "Where’s my wife?"

And I really didn't think I would have gotten a newsflash while watching my favorite soap opera, The Young and the Restless -- every day at 12:30 -- and that's what I was doing. Jeff knows when he called I was watching The Young and the Restless.

To me, it doesn't matter that I got called this year versus getting it in my first eligible year. What matters is I got it. A call that 20 years from now will make a great trivia question.

It is hard to comprehend that I am in a league of only 1 percent of all professional baseball players. I am in awe to be in this elite company and humble to be accepting this honor. I am also one of the very few players that spent an entire career with the same baseball team. For that I thank the Boston Red Sox, a professional baseball club where any player would be proud to spend a career.

Of course I have many people to thank and share this honor with. To do that, we're going to have to go back to my hometown of Anderson, South Carolina. By the time I was heading into my senior year at West Side High School, I had lettered in football, basketball and baseball. In 1970, my senior year, integration finally came to town. I went to pick up my schedule at West Side High School and I was looking forward to graduating with my West Side class of 1971. Imagine how I felt when I was told that I had to go to T.L. Hanna High School, which had the majority of non-blacks. Integration had come to town and the lines were drawn in such a way that kept schools as segregated as possible. I simply would not be allowed to attend my alma mater for my senior year. Evidently the city of Anderson wanted me to attend T.L. Hanna my senior year. I lived on Reese Street and the integration line stopped at Murray Avenue, excluding most black students. The line would have extended to my street, but my sister was allowed to go Hanna, not me. I was forced to leave West Side High. What could have been worse? I had to leave everything that I knew: my future wife, my friends, my coaches, my everything. I showed up at Hanna and it was like a walk in the park. I was received with open arms and so were my fellow West Side High transplants. I was even voted co-class president.

Nearing the end of my senior year, I had some decisions to make. Nebraska was offering me a four-year scholarship for football. I talked to my dad about it. My dad said, "I think you've got a better shot at becoming a professional baseball player than a professional football player." So that was it, the life-defining decision that led me to being drafted by the Boston Red Sox at the age of 18 years old and eventually being called up to the big leagues in 1974.

In the minor leagues, I went from being Ed Rice to being Jim Rice. I was a quiet leader, not a follower. I played through the pain and I suffered. No regrets. Well, wait a minute. Maybe those last few at-bats in 1989 that saw my .300 average drop to .298. That I do regret.

Along the way, there were many people who gave me encouragement and shared their wisdom.

First and foremost, my wife, who after 37 years of marriage, still gives me relevant tips and advice whether I want it or not.

Julia Mae and Roger, my parents. If they were alive today, they would be so proud.

Thomas MacDuffy, who treated me like his own son, always helping me out, even giving me a kangaroo glove. And I think it was a Willie Mays glove at the time. I think at the time Willie Mays and Hank Aaron both had the kangaroo gloves, but they both were great.

John Moore, my West Side High School coach from the seventh grade. John taught me things that they were teaching me in minor leagues, so I learned techniques that minor league coaches were teaching players when I got there.

Olin Saylors. I played American Legion ball for Post 14. He came by my house every day and picked me up. I didn't really want to play ball, but Olin was very [determined] to make me play baseball for American Legion Post 14.

Mitch Brown and Sam Mele. I really thank those guys for signing me.

Rac Slider took me up under his arm as far as being an Instructional League manager of mine and I went to Florida to work on my skills. The things I remember the most about going to the Instructional League were those hot wool uniforms where you had to go down to spring training and work every day.

Don Zimmer. He believed in me. He was my mentor. Zim was more of a manager and a father figure to me.

Johnny Pesky was my personal hitting instructor. Don Zimmer, the manager at the time, told Pesky to stay with me day and night. Pesky took me under his wing when I was still a kid, kept me grounded and we could always talk. And he's still with me today.

And, of course, a good friend of mine, Cecil Cooper. My roomie, my ace, my buddy, my friend to the end.

By now you may be wondering how did I get such a notorious reputation with the media. Well you see, the media often asked me questions about my [fellow] players. I refused to be the media's mouthpiece. Of course my stance didn't really make any media friends. I came to Boston to play professional baseball and that's what I did, and I did it well until I retired in 1989. And who would have ever guessed that I would be working in media at NESN sitting across the desk from Tom Caron, allowing all of you to see my winning smile.

And here we are in 2009 and I'm standing amongst baseball elite, in front of my family, friends and fans, proudly accepting baseball’s pinnacle, a professional achievement. I cannot think of anywhere I would rather be than to be right here, right now, with you [the fans] and you [my fellow Hall of Famers].

Thank you.

Back to politics on Monday...

The coming week...

As usual, all info gathered from the websites of the relevent political bodies/agencies, and subject to change without notice...

...In the U.S House of Representatives this week, the agenda is again a full one, and again, most of the bills up for consideration are pretty mundane.

Of course, again there are a couple of nuggets that will generate some serious conflict.

- H.R. 1035, the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental Policy Amendments Act of 2009, sponsored by AZ's Raul Grijalva and cosponsored by the other four Democratic members of AZ's delegation, Ann Kirkpatrick, Gabrielle Giffords, Harry Mitchell, and Ed Pastor.

- H.R. 3326, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010. Lots of money, lots of arguments. Jeff Flake alone plans to file 540 amendments to this bill.

H.R. 3326 is scheduled for a Rules Committee hearing on Tuesday at 3 p.m. (noon AZ time).

- H.R. 3269, the Corporate and Financial Institution Compensation Fairness Act of 2009. CRS summary here. This one could have the effect of limiting some of the more outrageous executive compensation packages that were seen at the height of the economic bubble and that some corporations are itching to bring back.


...Over in the U.S. Senate, they'll be starting the week with floor consideration of H.R. 3183,"appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies." Various committees will be considering other budget bills during the week. Also, there will be continuing consideration of Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court.

In addition to all that, expect more hubbub over President Obama's health care reform plan.


...Back here in the AZ lege, the never-ending session is, well, not ending. Not this week, anyway. They are scheduled to meet this week, but thus far the plans seem to include only a prayer and a pledge. The rooms where the deals are made may no longer be "smoke-filled" (since smoking in public buildings is illegal), but closed doors are even less transparent. It's looking more and more like they're going to futz around until the last possible moment, then engage in a round of panic cutting in order to balance the rest of the budget.


...The Arizona Corporation Commission is scheduled to meet on Tuesday and Wednesday in Phoenix. The agenda is a full one. Hearing schedule here.


...The Governing Board for the Maricopa County Community College District will meet on Tuesday for an executive session at 5:30 p.m. and a regular meeting at 6:30. The agenda is long and mostly boring. There is a monitoring report on the District's budget status that might be a little interesting, and a contract award for management consulting services too, but that seems to be it thus far.


...The Citizens Clean Elections Commission is scheduled to meet at 9:30 a.m. on Thursday. No agenda posted yet.


...The political highlight of the week, at least in Central AZ, seems to be the trial of State Senator John Huppenthal on Wednesday. It is scheduled to be at 8 a.m. in the San Marcos Justice Court, but it is highly likely that it will take place in another courtroom in that building (there are four Justice Courts in that one building) as Huppenthal and his attorney have waived a jury trial in their case but there is a jury trial scheduled for that specific courtroom that day. If you are a total geek and plan to go watch the trial, get there a little early and inquire as to which courtroom the case has been assigned.

The incident that merited the charges pertain to some shenanigans on Election Day last November that involved tampering with some political signs critical of him and a confrontation/assault with an elderly Democratic activist.

All charges are misdemeanors (hence the assignment of the case to a justice court) and will result in no more than a slap on the wrist, even if he is convicted.

Background on the Huppenthal matter from Ray Stern of the Phoenix New Times here.


Thus far, the Arizona Board of Regents, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, the Boards of Directors of the Central Arizona Project and the Maricopa Integrated Health System, and the City Councils of Scottsdale and Tempe are not scheduled to meet this week.

AZ Supreme Court rules in favor of early childhood education

...and against legislative greed and arrogance.

From AZCentral.com -

The Arizona Supreme Court ruled Friday that Gov. Jan Brewer and state officials violated the state Constitution earlier this year when they took money from an early childhood-education fund to help balance the state budget.

That fund, known as First Things First, was created by state voters in 2006 with their passage of a ballot proposal that increased tobacco taxes to fund a variety of education and health programs for children.

In January, the governor and the Republicans in the lege took one look at the state's deepening deficit and immediately thought of Arizona's children -

Thought of them while looking for a source of revenue to tap.

In addition to protecting AZ's kids from some of the schemes of the lege and governor, today's ruling also buttresses the Voter Protection Act.

Look for further attempts by the Republicans in the lege to weaken it, both in the ongoing (but not actually going anywhere) special session, and next year's regular session, starting in January.

During the legislative session, the fun part, in a very sarcastic sense, was watching wingers like Russell Pearce and John Kavanagh (the chairs of the Appropriations committees in the Senate and House, respectively) pontificate gravely on the need for cuts in all parts of state government (including children's health and education) due to the state's shrinking revenues, yet constantly pimp huge tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy.

Today's decision was a small step in the right direction for the state; next year's elections and the change they can bring could be a huge step.

Greg Patterson at Espresso Pundit has a copy of the Court's decision here.

David Safier at Blog for Arizona has his take on the ruling here.

Congressman Harry Mitchell on Health Care Reform

Courtesy an email sent today -

Dear [cpmaz],

As you may be aware, Congress has begun to debate health insurance reform and may have a vote on a reform bill as early as the end of July. Currently, there is a bill being processed in the U.S. House of Representatives, H.R. 3200, the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act, and there are two bills making their way through the U.S. Senate. While I continue to review these proposals, you, too, can read these bills in their current forms here.

As I meet with people throughout the district, it seems that everyone has a personal story about health care. Like most Americans, I believe that rising costs and the threat of losing coverage is cause for great concern. There are too many examples of folks being denied the care their doctor prescribes because their insurance company says no, or of businesses being unable to create more jobs because the cost of health insurance will bust their budget, or of parents who cannot afford to pay for routine medical treatment to keep themselves and their children healthy.

Those conversations, along with recommendations received from doctors, nurses, patients, and health care providers in Arizona have convinced me that our system needs reform. In fact, since 2000, health care premiums have more than doubled and small businesses have faced a 129 percent increase in health care costs.

Let me be clear, I believe reform needs to protect what works and fix what doesn't. Reform should not only improve access to affordable and quality care for all Americans, but it also needs to preserve individual choice and protect competition in the marketplace. Reform should not leave individuals with fewer options, should not add to the national deficit, and should not leave doctors with inconsistent and low reimbursement rates as is often the case with Medicare.

While content of H.R. 3200, the America’s Affordable Choices Act, continues to be amended in committee, I will be reviewing and monitoring changes before I decide whether I will support this legislation. However, there are important benchmarks that should be met in order to gain my support:

• Choice: Reform must preserve patient choice. You should be able to choose your own coverage and doctors. If you like them you should be able to keep them, even if you change or lose your job or move to a new state. And you should be free to change coverage as you see fit.

• Competition: Reform should encourage competition and should not leave individuals with fewer options. In its current form, H.R. 3200 contains a public alternative that is funded at the same rate of Medicare which is troubling for patients, doctors, and hospitals alike. For example, in 2008, Scottsdale Healthcare lost $56 million in Medicare underpayments. While a public alternative, if designed carefully and properly, may help increase competition, one that reimburses according to Medicare rates could undercut private plans, weaken the financial stability of local hospitals and potentially leave individuals with fewer options.

• Small business: Reform must not overburden small businesses that create jobs that are essential in jump starting Arizona’s economy. According to The Arizona Republic, while small businesses make up 73 percent of Arizona businesses, only 32 percent of Arizona small businesses provided health coverage benefits in 2006, down from 50 percent in 2000. Health care reform should not exacerbate the problems small businesses are currently facing.

• Affordability, wellness, technology and best practices: Reform should ensure that our health care system is affordable and covers pre-existing conditions. To ensure the highest quality of care for all Americans, reform should reward healthy lifestyles and personal responsibility, and take full advantage of technological advances and best practices that will help reduce costs for doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies.

Finally, I also believe that in the long term reform should not add to the national deficit. I believe that much of the cost of instituting reform should come from savings within the current system, by eliminating waste and inefficiencies, yet there may likely be the need find additional revenue sources to pay for it. As a member of Congress with a strong record of opposing tax increases, I will closely watch the debate on paying for reform.

As the debate in Congress continues, I value your input and ideas. I encourage you to visit my healthcare resource page on my website to receive more information about the health care reform process and invite you to contact my office to share your story and opinion.

Sincerely,

Harry

Let me translate this into English -

Those of you reading this who support health care reform should contact Harry and let him know (politely) that you support a public option in any health care reform package, and urge him to support it too.


And for those of you who live in other CDs -

CD1 - Ann Kirkpatrick's contact page is here; she can use the encouragement too.

CD2 - Trent Franks' page is here; I don't expect it to help, but why not let him know that there are more than Kool Aid drinkers in his district?

CD3 - John Shadegg's page is here; ditto.

CD4 - Ed Pastor's contact page is here; I expect him to support a decent bill if one makes it to the floor, but I'm sure a "Thank You, Congressman Pastor" would be appreciated.

CD6 - Jeff Flake's contact page is here; Franks or Shadegg are more likely to vote for health care reform than Flake (and there isn't a snowball's chance in Phoenix of either of them voting for it), but whatthehell...

CD7 - Raul Grijalva's contact page is here; like Pastor, he is probably going to vote for it when it reaches the House floor, but a word of thanks would be appreciated.

CD8 - Gabrielle Giffords' contact page is here; as with Ann Kirkpatrick and Harry Mitchell, she can probably use a little encouragement.

Later...

Palin development: Interesting, but it's probably not "the other shoe dropping"

When Sarah Palin abruptly resigned at governor of Alaska a couple of weeks ago, many observers speculated that some pending scandal was behind her decision.

Today, the Associated Press is reporting that "[a]n independent investigator has found that Gov. Sarah Palin may have violated ethics laws by accepting private donations to pay her legal debts."

The ironic part is that Palin's legal debts were mostly incurred defending her against ethics charges, so her way of dealing with the fallout from (alleged) ethics violations is to commit an (alleged) ethics violation.

And to think one of the knocks against her during last year's presidential campaign was that she wasn't ready for the big leagues, aka "The Beltway."

This latest report? Well, it shows that she's got the "shameless" part of being a Beltway Insider down pat.

Of course, as much fun as it is to poke a little fun at her over this, the stuff that has come out so far isn't enough to force *any* politician from office, much less one with the aspirations/delusions of grandeur that afflict the Palins of the political sphere.

Stay tuned to this one...

The Democratic front-runner for Governor

Of course, right now he's the *only* Democrat who's formed a committee for a run at the gubernortorial nomination next year, but let's not quibble over details.

This is breaking news here. :))

According to the AZ Secretary of State's website, Benjamin Jankowski of Phoenix has formed a committee (traditional financing, filer ID 201000160) to pursue the job on the 9th floor of the Executive Tower.

Don't know much about him (never heard of him, and he wasn't elected as a Democratic PC last year) but he ran write-in campaigns in 1998 for Congress (old CD3) and an abortive run at John McCain in 2004 (Stuart Starky ended up as the Democratic nominee that year).

In spite of that {ahem} daunting resume, I expect that Mr. Jankowski will face a primary challenge next year.

And for my next prediction, I'll predict a sunny day in Arizona.

However, until another candidate declares, Jankowski *is* the Democratic front-runner.

One small step...

pics courtesy Life Magazine via Google

(pic is of Buzz Aldrin; close examination of the reflection on his faceplate reveals the image of Neil Armstrong taking the pic)

40 years ago today, a phrase that will be written (or typed! :) ) so many times today that it will become nothing more than a cliche, America and the world experienced one of the few near-universally shared generational "where were you when?" moments.

On July 20, 1969, astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin became the first men to walk on the moon. Michael Collins remained in control of the orbiter above the moon.

Even now, four decades later, people remember exactly where they were and what they felt when they saw/found out about Armstrong and Aldrin walking on the moon.

An informal and unscientific survey of the folks that I work with determined that most were located in front of the nearest TV (probably listening to the late Walter Cronkite), riveted there by the images transmitted back from the moon, and most were feeling "WOW!"

NASA's Apollo 11 page is here.

Armstrong, Aldrin, Collins

My only question is when and why did America quit striving forward, creating a bright future for the U.S. and the world, and become nothing more than another generic corporate profit center?

Perhaps illustrating the generational difference, the Apollo 11 crew is calling for a push to Mars; Republican Senators U.S. are pushing for a return to Jim Crow-era attitudes (apparently because only rich old white guys are qualified to be Supreme Court justices) and Rep Senators AZ are pushing for unregulated Uranium mining because the Earth is 6000 years old and doing fine.

For today, let's enjoy the moment; tomorrow we can wonder how we've regressed so far so quickly.

Note: Tedski's pithy rebuttal to Senator Allen (R-Mining Lobbyist) is here.

More 2010 candidate committees

A visit to the Secretary of State's website shows that a number of committees have been formed for next year's elections.

- Bob Thomas, Republican, has formed a committee to explore a run at the LD15 State Senate seat, filer ID 201000141.

- Sue Dolphin, Democrat, has formed a committee in her pursuit of the LD4 State Senate seat, filer ID 201000142.

- Diane Douglas, Republican, has formed a committee for an LD9 State Representative spot, filer ID 201000152.

- Adam Driggs, Republican, has formed a committee to explore a run at an office unlisted, filer ID 201000155. Driggs is currently a State Representative from LD11. I don't really have any info on what he could be "exploring," but his background is in law (former prosecutor in Maricopa County), so I suppose he could be yet another Rep mulling a run at AG next year.

- An independent expenditure committee, Leading Arizona Forward IE, filer ID 201000143, was formed with Troy Hyde as the chair and Michelle Marini as the treasurer. "Independent" is a bit of a misnomer here, as both Hyde and Marini are Republican political operatives.

They've also formed another similarly-named committee, Leading Arizona Forward - S/O, filer ID 201000153.

Note: "S/O" = "Support/Oppose"; they can use funds from that committee to directly support or oppose specific candidates.

Later...

The coming week...

...The technical issues have been addressed, for now at least...

As usual, all info gathered from the websites of the relevant political bodies/agencies, and subject to change without notice.


...In the AZ legislature, nothing is posted yet in terms of floor and committee schedules; this may be another pro forma, "prayer and the pledge" sort of week in the special session that has been called to balance the state's budget.

Stay tuned for updates...


...The U.S. House will see an agenda that has many of the usual memorials, post office namings, and such. There are a few items of more interest though.

---There is an as-yet-unnumbered motion for the House to ask the Senate to not proceed with the impeachment of federal Judge Sam Kent. Kent lied to federal investigators about sexually assualting two women, and is currently serving a sentence in federal prison. After the House impeached him, he offered his resignation, making a Senate trial on the articles of impeachment moot.

--- H.R. 2873, Enhanced S.E.C. Enforcement Authority Act.

--- H.R. 2920, the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2009. It will be fun watching the Republican caucus twist themselves into knots trying to find ways to call this one "fiscally irresponsible."

--- Two as-yet-unnumbered appropriations bills - the "Department of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act" and the "Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Act, 2010."


...Over in the Senate, on Tuesday, the Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court.


And in both chambers of the U.S. Congress, health care reform could come to the floor any time that the leadership thinks that they have a package with the votes to pass. That probably won't happen this week, but it's worth keeping an eye out for developments in that area.

...The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors will hold two regularly scheduled meetings this week.

--- On Monday, they'll meet in "informal" session at 10 a.m. That agenda includes an economic forecast, a "green" update, some liquor license stuff, and (stop me if you've heard this one before), an executive session.

--- On Wednesday, they'll meet in "formal" session at 9 a.m. That agenda is much longer (63 pages vs. the informal session's 3) and that agenda includes spending on the county's Constables (2 laptops, 3 bullet-proof vests, 5 sets of "safety lights" for vehicles, and 8 tasers) and a number of rather mundane items like grant acceptances and IGAs (intergovernmental agreements).

On this one, I admit to not having the attention span necessary for a full evaluation. I did skim most of the agenda, however, and nothing stood out as being particularly bad. It seemed mostly to be housekeeping kind of stuff.


...The Board of Directors of the Maricopa Integrated Health System will hold special meetings on Monday and Wednesday at 1 p.m. No agendas posted as yet.


Not scheduled to meet this week: Arizona Corporation Commission, Board of Directors of the Central Arizona Project, the Board of Governors of the Maricopa County Community College District, the City Councils of Tempe and Scottsdale.

The Citizens Clean Election Commission had been scheduled to meet this week, but that meeting has been postponed until next Wednesday.

More later...

Technical issues

Due to some technical issues (aka - I need a new home PC), posting will be light to nonexistent into early next week...Kind of like rain in central Arizona. :)

Have a great weekend!

Is Arpaio engaging in jury retaliation now?

Everyday he seems less like a law enforcement professional and more like some tinhorn would-be jerkwater despot...

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio was interviewed this spring by a writer from The New Yorker magazine. During part of that interview, Arpaio received a rather interesting phone call.

From AZCentral.com -

...[Writer William] Finnegan visited the Valley this spring to research the article. While riding along with the sheriff one day, he writes, "someone named Jim, who sounded like a deputy, called from the courthouse."

Arpaio put the call on speaker phone, Finnegan writes, and Jim "said he was observing jury selection in a case there."

After one prospective juror told the judge that Arpaio was her hero, the caller reportedly said, "So the next lady says, 'Joe is not my hero.' Then she says she's the wife of the mayor of Mesa."

According to the article, Arpaio responded, "I knew it! I never trusted that mayor. He's pro-immigrant. He's never going to fire that chief. We gotta raid Mesa again."

Note: An abstract of the New Yorker article is here; a subscription is required to view the article in its entirety.

The courthouse in question is the federal courthouse in Phoenix. The wife of Mesa's mayor had been called for federal jury duty.

Ignoring, for the moment, the part about retaliating against a juror from Mesa for saying something vaguely critical of Arpaio, I have to ask -

What was an MCSO deputy doing in federal court?

The county sheriff's office provides security in *county* courts, not federal courts.

Was the deputy there spying for Arpaio, and if so, was it on the County dime?

If he was there as part of the case at hand (a human smuggling case, so it's not exactly out of the realm of possibility that one of Arpaio's deputies was there as part of his professional duties), did he violate any rules concerning the dissemination of a juror's personal info to someone who wasn't in the courtroom, especially since the unauthorized recipient threatened retaliation against the juror?


As for the part about jury tampering/intimidation/retaliation, Title 18, Chapter 73, Section 1503 of U.S. Code lists the penalties for such as starting at 10 years in prison. However, a problem with that section of code (for that matter, the problem with most such statutes) is that the language seems to assume that only the alleged "bad guys" (such as defendants) would engage in jury tampering/etc., not the alleged "good guys" (such as sworn law enforcement officers and elected officials).

Still, it would be rather ironic if Arpaio skated on the federal investigations into the way he runs the county's jails only to be brought down by a wiseass comment made to a writer, a comment on an unrelated matter.

Later...

Renzi and his lawyers object...

...to a federal judge ruling that the Constitution doesn't protect criminal conspiracies...

From AP via KTAR.com -

Lawyers for former U.S. Rep. Rick Renzi are objecting to a federal magistrate's denial of their motion to dismiss the public corruption case against him on constitutional grounds.

Renzi's lawyers contend that the government violated the U.S. Constitution's speech and debate clause in wiretapping his conversations with aides concerning a failed land swap deal in which he's been accused of conspiracy.

Yup - Renzi and his lawyers want to exclude recordings of conversations concerning legislation by claiming that those conversations are protected under the "speech and debate" clause of the U.S. Constitution.

That clause is in Article 1, section 6 of the Constitution (emphasis mine) -

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.

The most obvious problems with Renzi's arguement?


The "speech" wasn't in the House, and it concerned legislation that was the "quo" in a "quid pro quo" conspiracy that involved Renzi using his office for the personal financial benefit of himself and a business associate.


I *really* wish Renzi's trial was going to be held here in the Valley. It's going to be in Tucson, and that is too far for me to travel for what is certain to be a long (as in more than one day) trial.

Guess I'll just have to settle for John Huppenthal's assault trial (two weeks! July 29, San Tan Justice Court in Chandler...unless they put it off again due to the special session).

Later...

Maybe Visa executives need the money for this year's bonuses?

From AP via AZCentral.com -

MANCHESTER, N.H. - A New Hampshire man says he swiped his debit card at a gas station to buy a pack of cigarettes and was charged over 23 quadrillion dollars.

Josh Muszynski checked his account online a few hours later and saw the 17-digit number - a stunning $23,148,855,308,184,500 (twenty-three quadrillion, one hundred forty-eight trillion, eight hundred fifty-five billion, three hundred eight million, one hundred eighty-four thousand, five hundred dollars).

You know, I poke fun, but this scheme would balance the federal budget ($1 trillion deficit), California's ($26 billion deficit), Arizona's ($2.6 billion deficit remaining), the rest of the state government budgets (as well as county and municipal budgets) and have enough left over to fund health care reform *and* permanently fund the Republicans' Forever Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And make Social Security solvent.

And maybe even allow us to establish a "rainy day" fund of a measly trillion or two.

Hmmmm...something to think about here...

Time for a new tobacco tax? Make it big enough and we'd only have to sell one or two packs to balance *everything.*

Hmmm....

:))

Open Letter To Congressman Harry Mitchell Regarding Health Care Reform

On Tuesday, the Democrats in the U.S. House introduced a health care reform package. It will be considered and marked up by three committee (Energy and Commerce, Education and Labor, and Ways and Means) before reaching the House floor.

That floor vote is expected to occur before the House's summer break.

The Senate is expected to vote on its package by the summer break also, allowing the two chambers to reconcile their packages and handle final passage sometime early in the fall.

As such, this is an opportune time to contact my representative, Congressman Harry Mitchell.

The letter I wrote, submitted via his contact page -

Dear Congressman Mitchell.

Thank you for the great work you have been doing to represent the people of Scottsdale and Tempe. You may not hear it about it as much as you should, but your constituents appreciate your committment to them.

Tonight I am writing to urge you to support the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009.

Lobbyists are spending millions of dollars everyday to convince you and your colleagues that a "public option" should not be part of any health care reform package.

National polls show that more than 2/3 of Americans have a different opinion (http://tcf.org/publications/healthcare/wtprw.healthcare.pdf)

The individual people in your district (and your colleagues' districts) don't have the resources to fund and conduct national TV and print ad campaigns or to flood Representatives' offices with mass-produced post cards and letters.

More importantly, too many of your constituents also don't have the resources to pay for adequate medical care under the current system.


What they do have is you, their elected representative.


To be sure, any bill produced by the legislative process will have aspects you (and I) will be less than enthusiastic about.

Unless one or more of those aspects is *utterly* unacceptable, it would be good to keep in mind something first said by Voltaire and used by Secretary of State (then Senator) Clinton at last year's Democratic Convention in Denver when discussing health care reform -

"Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good."

Again, thank you for everything you have done for the people of the Fifth District.

Regards,

[cpmaz]

The House Energy and Commerce Committee has a good resource page on the proposal here.

CQPolitics' summary is here.

Later...

Brewer's bill dispositions: mostly bad

Updated on 7/14 with dispositions of certain bills, courtesy this AZCentral.com piece

Her dispositions of the last group of bills sent her by the lege consisted mostly of signing bad bills, but there were a few nuggets of good work among the pile of road apples sent to her.

The summary of all of her dispositions (signing, vetoing, transmitting w/o signature) can be found here. It's updated as of 3:30 p.m on Monday.

Among the highlights of the vetoes:

HB2258, relating to consumer fireworks; vetoed for safety reasons

SB1017, relating to the creation of specialty license plates supporting MS research, the Masons, hunger relief and children's cancer research; vetoed because of "flawed" wording

HB2369, which would have allowed the legislature to seize and reappropriate "non-custodial" federal monies (such as block grants)


Among the lowlights (aka - the bad bills) that she signed into law:

HB2101, a bill to force Pinal County to change the size of its Board of Supervisors from three to five members. It was going to happen soon anyway because of Pinal's growth, but there is a Republican former legislator who wants back in an elected office of one sort or another, so the Rep caucus in the lege accelerated the process.

HB2396, compelling ADOT to establish and enter into "public-private partnerships" for the construction of toll roads and other "eligible facilities"

HB2564, adding all sorts of restrictions to abortion access; AZCentral.com coverage here

HB2400, redefining "partial birth abortions" and increasing the criminal penalties for the performance of a partial birth abortion...something that is already illegal under federal law

SB1113, the guns in bars and restaurants bill; AZCentral.com coverage here


Status unclear as of this writing:

HB2103, to allow the state treasurer to bypass the state attorney general and hire outside counsel for legal advice. Also known (by me, anyway :) ) as the "Dean Martin doesn't like Terry Goddard" bill

HB2288, creates a larger tax credit (for insurers) who make donations to school tuition organization and eliminates the sunset date for the existing corporate tax credit for STO contributions

SB1022, usurping local ordinances regarding "tampering" with political signs - Vetoed

SB1123, forcing Tucson to hold non-partisan elections, aka Jonathan Paton's scheme to see more Republicans win office in Tucson's municipal elections

SB1168, the NRA's bill to allow guns in cars on other people's private property

SB1175, prohibiting someone who is not "an osteopathic or allopathic physician" from performing an abortion

SB1243, the NRA's "defensive display" of guns bill


My expectation for the "no info yet" category of bills is that most were signed into law, especially given that most are bad bills. I just haven't found any reports on those yet.

More tomorrow, especially details on the other bills...

Senator Al Franken's statement at today's confirmation hearing

Al Franken, the long-elected but only recently-sworn junior U.S. Senator from Minnesota, has immediately stepped into the center of the fray in D.C. as a member of the Senate's Judiciary Committee.

Today, the confirmation hearings for Sonia Sotomayor's appointment to the Supreme Court opened.

Here is the opening statement, as written, by Senator Franken -

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is an incredible honor to be here. Less than a week into my term as a United States Senator, my first major responsibility is here, at this historic confirmation hearing.

I am truly humbled to join the Judiciary Committee, which has played, and will continue to play, such an important role in overseeing our nation's system of justice. Chairman Leahy, for several years now I have admired your strength and integrity in leading this Committee. I'm grateful for the warm welcome and consideration you have given me, and I am honored to serve alongside you.

Ranking Member Sessions, I want you to know that I plan to follow the example of my good friend and predecessor, Paul Wellstone, who was willing and ready to partner with his colleagues across the aisle to do the work of the American people. I look forward to working over the years with you and my other Republican colleagues in the Senate to improve the lives of all Americans.

To all the members of this committee, I know that I have a lot to learn from each of you. Like so many private citizens, I have watched at least part of each and every Supreme Court confirmation hearing since they have been televised. And I would note that this is the first confirmation hearing that Senator Kennedy has not attended since 1965. We miss his presence.

These televised hearings have taught Americans a lot about our Constitution – and the role that the courts play in upholding and defending it. I look forward to listening to your questions and to the issues that you and your constituents care about.

To Judge Sotomayor, welcome. For the next few days, I expert to learn from you as well. You are the most experienced nominee to the Supreme Court in 100 years. And after meeting with you in my office last week, I know that aside from being a fine jurist, you are also an exceptional individual. Your story is inspiring and one in which all Americans should take pride.

As most of you know, this is my fifth day in office. That may mean that I am the most junior Senator, but it also means that I am the Senator who has most recently taken the oath of office. Last Tuesday, I swore to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States" and to "bear true faith and allegiance" to it. I take this oath very seriously as we consider Judge Sotomayor's nomination.

I may not be a lawyer, but neither are the overwhelming majority of Americans. Yet all of us, regardless of our backgrounds or professions, have a huge stake in who sits on the Supreme Court and are profoundly affected by its decisions.

I hope to use my time over the next few days to raise issues that concern people in Minnesota and around the country. This hearing will help folks sitting in living rooms and offices in Winona or Duluth or the Twin Cities to get a better idea of what the court is, what it does and what it is supposed to do, and most importantly, how its actions affect the everyday lives of all Americans.

Justice Souter, whom you will replace if you're confirmed, once said: "The first lesson, simple as it is, is that whatever court we're in, whatever we are doing, at the end of our task some human being is going to be affected. Some human life is going to be changed by what we do. And so we had better use every power of our minds and our hearts and our beings to get those rulings right." I believe he had it right.

In the past months, I've spent a lot of time thinking about the court's impact on the lives of Americans and reading and consulting with some of Minnesota's top legal minds. And I believe that the rights of Americans, as citizens and voters, are facing challenges on two separate fronts.

First, I believe the position of Congress with respect to the Courts and the Executive is in jeopardy. Even before I aspired to represent the people of Minnesota in the United States Senate, I believed that the Framers made Congress the first branch of government for a reason. It answers most directly to the people and has the legitimacy to speak for the people in crafting laws to be carried out by the executive branch.

I am wary of judicial activism and I believe in judicial restraint. Except under the most exceptional circumstances, the judicial branch is designed to show deep deference to Congress and not make policy by itself.

Yet looking at recent decisions on voting rights, campaign finance reform, and a number of other topics, it appears that appropriate deference may not have been shown in the past few years – and there are ominous signs that judicial activism is on the rise in these areas.

I agree with Senator Feingold and Senator Whitehouse that we hear a lot about judicial activism when politicians talk about what kind of judge they want in the Supreme Court. But it seems that their definition of an activist judge is one who votes differently than they would like. Because during the Rhenquist Court, Justice Clarence Thomas voted to overturn federal laws more than Justices Stevens and Breyer combined.

Second, I am concerned that Americans are facing new barriers to defending their individual rights. The Supreme Court is the last court in the land where an individual is promised a level playing field and can seek to right a wrong:

• It is the last place an employee can go if he or she is discriminated against because of age, gender, or color.

• It is the last place a small business owner can go to ensure free and fair competition in the market.

• It is the last place an investor can go to try to recover losses from securities fraud.

• It is the last place a person can go to protect the free flow of information on the internet. • It is the last place a citizen can go to protect his or her vote.

• It is the last place where a woman can go to protect her reproductive health and rights.

Yet from what I see, on each of those fronts, for each of those rights, the past decade has made it a little bit harder for American citizens to defend themselves.

As I said before, Judge, I'm here to learn from you. I want to learn what you think is the proper relationship between Congress and the Courts, between Congress and the Executive. I want to learn how you go about weighing the rights of the individual, the small consumer or business-owner, and more powerful interests. And I want to hear your views on judicial restraint and activism in the context of important issues like voting rights, open access to the Internet, and campaign finance reform.

We're going to have a lot of time together, so I'm going to start listening.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

No, he's not a Senator from AZ, but since the two "official" representatives of Arizona in the U.S. Senate don't actually expend much time or effort representing Arizona, I'm sort of adopting Senator Franken as one of my honorary AZ senators, the other being Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Senator Sanders is officially an Independent, but he still the best Democrat in the Senate.

All of the written statements submitted by the members of the Committee and Judge Sotomayor are available here.

Later....