As usual, all info gathered from the websites of the relevent political bodies/agencies (except where noted), and subject to change without notice...
This will be a quick post, mostly because almost everybody is on a holiday schedule this week. Meaning that almost nothing will be happening.
...Having said that, let's start off with the highest profile exception to that statement, the U.S. Senate. They'll be in session most of the week, considering health care reform (LA Times). Expectations are that a final vote will be taken by Christmas, meaning that the bill won't go to conference committee until after the new year as the House is adjourned for the holidays. (Actually, there's a session planned for Wednesday, but that seems to be a pro forma session. I'll update if that changes.) The Senate's committee schedule is here; there's only one committee scheduled to meet this week - Judiciary on Thursday.
...Back here in AZ, the Arizona Corporation Commission has a Securities and Utilities meeting scheduled for Tuesday. Agenda here. The ACC's full hearing schedule is here. It's a light one.
...The Arizona Board of Regents isn't meeting this week. However, they are looking for a President of the Board.
...The Tempe City Council isn't meeting this week, but their Council Calendar is here. There's one item on it this week - a holiday open house on Tuesday at 9 a.m.
...The Scottsdale City Council isn't meeting this week, but the Community Meeting Notice is here. Summary: there's nothing scheduled this week. You might think that there is a holiday or something coming up. :)
...Everybody else isn't going to meet this week: Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, Boards of Directors of the Central Arizona Project and the Maricopa Integrated Health System, Governing Board of the Maricopa County Community College District, Citizens Clean Elections Commission, Arizona State Legislature.
Have a happy and safe Christmas everybody, even Republicans...and a certain Libertarian commenter! :))
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Et tu, Steve?
During Saturday's debate in the House on the latest round of budget cuts, things got a little heated, with Democrats and Republicans criticizing each for various things. Mostly the Republicans were trying pin the blame for the state's finances on the Democrats, the group that has been totally shut out of almost all discussions at the lege this year, while the Democrats were having none of it.
Most of it was stuff that we have heard before, with just a little more rancor than usual (apparently, the idea of having to work on the Saturday before Christmas on matters that should have been dealt with by the end of June put the legislators in a less than "seasonally cheery" mood. What a shock. :) )
Time permitting, I'll cover some of those gems in a later post after the lege has posted the video of today's session.
However, one utterance caught my ear and then my eye when Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services included it in his piece on Saturday's happenings at the lege.
From the article, courtesy VerdeNews.com -
This from one of the people most responsible for the state's mess, what with his devotion to his STO and protecting its ability to siphon revenue from the state into his pockets and his signing on to Grover Norquist's "no taxes" pledge.
Yarbrough, along with almost all of his Republican colleagues, haven't just voted against all attempts to address revenue (and not just taxes), including the "passing of the buck," a referral of a sale tax increase to the ballot, they've simply refused to even consider them.
How about we change his statement to -
"It may be politically expedient to say 'I voted against the taxes.' But that is political gamesmanship, not statesmanship."
Change a couple of words, and Yarbrough's statement is true, but truth was never a part of the special session agenda for Yarbrough and his friends. Gamesmanship was.
On the other hand, gamesmanship and ideological rigidity may be what passes for "statesmanship" in today's GOP.
Yarbrough is one of the leaders of the gang that has sacrificed fiscal sanity and legislative professionalism on the altar of "political gamesmanship."
If he wants to assess blame for the toxic atmosphere and culture of ineffectiveness at the Capitol, that is his prerogative.
He just needs to be looking in a mirror when he's pointing fingers.
Most of it was stuff that we have heard before, with just a little more rancor than usual (apparently, the idea of having to work on the Saturday before Christmas on matters that should have been dealt with by the end of June put the legislators in a less than "seasonally cheery" mood. What a shock. :) )
Time permitting, I'll cover some of those gems in a later post after the lege has posted the video of today's session.
However, one utterance caught my ear and then my eye when Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services included it in his piece on Saturday's happenings at the lege.
From the article, courtesy VerdeNews.com -
Rep. Steve Yarbrough, R-Chandler, said the Democrats voted against every spending reduction that came to the floor, not just this session but earlier this year.
"It may politically expedient to say, 'I voted against the cuts,' ' Yarbrough said. "But that is political gamesmanship, not statesmanship.'
This from one of the people most responsible for the state's mess, what with his devotion to his STO and protecting its ability to siphon revenue from the state into his pockets and his signing on to Grover Norquist's "no taxes" pledge.
Yarbrough, along with almost all of his Republican colleagues, haven't just voted against all attempts to address revenue (and not just taxes), including the "passing of the buck," a referral of a sale tax increase to the ballot, they've simply refused to even consider them.
How about we change his statement to -
"It may be politically expedient to say 'I voted against the taxes.' But that is political gamesmanship, not statesmanship."
Change a couple of words, and Yarbrough's statement is true, but truth was never a part of the special session agenda for Yarbrough and his friends. Gamesmanship was.
On the other hand, gamesmanship and ideological rigidity may be what passes for "statesmanship" in today's GOP.
Yarbrough is one of the leaders of the gang that has sacrificed fiscal sanity and legislative professionalism on the altar of "political gamesmanship."
If he wants to assess blame for the toxic atmosphere and culture of ineffectiveness at the Capitol, that is his prerogative.
He just needs to be looking in a mirror when he's pointing fingers.
Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends
In this case, "the show" refers to the state's ongoing fiscal crisis and the refusal of the Governor and the Republican leadership to open their eyes to the reality of the depth of the state's problems.
Today, the House passed $193 million in budget cuts in a bill that the Governor is expected to sign. After that, they adjourned the Fifth Special Session of the lege so that they could all make it home for Christmas. (AZ Capitol Times coverage here.)
The next act in the show will take place on Monday morning at 9. That's the time that the Governor has set for an "emergency" meeting of her cabinet.
In an unusual move, the cabinet meeting will be open to the press (I'm pretty sure that does *not* includewiseass "intrepid" bloggers :) ).
Normal practice has been to hold cabinet meetings and then issue press releases/do coordinated interviews afterward. All this means is that Paul Senseman and the rest of the Governor's communications staff are hard at work today writing up a script for the meeting...instead of its aftermath.
I've got a couple of phone calls out about the special session and the Governor's set piece scheduled for Monday, but the people that I've reached don't have any info about the cabinet meeting or are out doing non-AZ government stuff, like spending time with their families and friends.
Sounds like some crazy priorities, but whaddya expect on a Saturday? :)
Later...
Today, the House passed $193 million in budget cuts in a bill that the Governor is expected to sign. After that, they adjourned the Fifth Special Session of the lege so that they could all make it home for Christmas. (AZ Capitol Times coverage here.)
The next act in the show will take place on Monday morning at 9. That's the time that the Governor has set for an "emergency" meeting of her cabinet.
In an unusual move, the cabinet meeting will be open to the press (I'm pretty sure that does *not* include
Normal practice has been to hold cabinet meetings and then issue press releases/do coordinated interviews afterward. All this means is that Paul Senseman and the rest of the Governor's communications staff are hard at work today writing up a script for the meeting...instead of its aftermath.
I've got a couple of phone calls out about the special session and the Governor's set piece scheduled for Monday, but the people that I've reached don't have any info about the cabinet meeting or are out doing non-AZ government stuff, like spending time with their families and friends.
Sounds like some crazy priorities, but whaddya expect on a Saturday? :)
Later...
And the race is on...
...for the most coveted annual award in blogdom, the Random Musings Legislative Loon Award...
Perhaps the challenge of upstart Legislative Loon candidate Judy Burges has served to inspire previous winners Jack Harper and Russell Pearce, but they are getting an early start on their efforts to regain the title (last year's award went to the entire Republican caucus).
They've teamed up on a couple of pretty rancid pieces of "legislation."
One is SCR1006, a proposed amendment to the AZ Constitution to repeal the right of folks to sue to recover damages in the event of death or injury. This is the localized AZ expression of the GOP's obeisance to the insurance industry.
AKA the "their constituents aren't as important to them as are big business lobbying groups" act.
The other is SB1011, a bill to complete the "turning Arizona into an armed encampment" trifecta that they started last year. Last session they passed guns in cars and guns in bars. Next session, they will be trying for guns in schools. Specifically, SB1o11 would allow faculty members to carry concealed weapons on the campus of their university or community college.
If this one passes, students should duck if they show up to class late... as should Appropriations chairs who visit the campuses of the universities whose budgets they are gutting.
In normal years, this kind of nuttiness would barely rate a line, much less an entire post, but given the train wreck of a session this past session and the obvious lack of focus on the parts of Pearce and Harper and the other GOPers on addressing the state's worsening fiscal crisis in the coming session, the complete fiscal insolvency of Arizona looms ever more likely.
Perhaps the challenge of upstart Legislative Loon candidate Judy Burges has served to inspire previous winners Jack Harper and Russell Pearce, but they are getting an early start on their efforts to regain the title (last year's award went to the entire Republican caucus).
They've teamed up on a couple of pretty rancid pieces of "legislation."
One is SCR1006, a proposed amendment to the AZ Constitution to repeal the right of folks to sue to recover damages in the event of death or injury. This is the localized AZ expression of the GOP's obeisance to the insurance industry.
AKA the "their constituents aren't as important to them as are big business lobbying groups" act.
The other is SB1011, a bill to complete the "turning Arizona into an armed encampment" trifecta that they started last year. Last session they passed guns in cars and guns in bars. Next session, they will be trying for guns in schools. Specifically, SB1o11 would allow faculty members to carry concealed weapons on the campus of their university or community college.
If this one passes, students should duck if they show up to class late... as should Appropriations chairs who visit the campuses of the universities whose budgets they are gutting.
In normal years, this kind of nuttiness would barely rate a line, much less an entire post, but given the train wreck of a session this past session and the obvious lack of focus on the parts of Pearce and Harper and the other GOPers on addressing the state's worsening fiscal crisis in the coming session, the complete fiscal insolvency of Arizona looms ever more likely.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Legislative Republicans: Still more interested in partisanship than in professionalism
They are sure to gripe that their Democratic counterparts are the hyperpartisan ones, that they are engaging in dilatory tactics for no good reason (no, the Rs don't think that legislators and the public having time to read the bills before the lege is a good reason), but they "doth protest too much."
The proof is in the numbers.
From SB1001 of the Fifth Special Session -
General Fund cuts and fund sweeps from the Attorney General's office: $8,195,500.
GF cuts and fund sweeps from the House, Senate, and the other constitutional offices (Governor, Treasurer, Superintendent of Public Ed, Secretary of State, and Mine Inspector): $2,153,000.
In other words, the Democrat-occupied AG's office is taking a hit that is more than 3.8 times larger than the other constitutional officers and the House and Senate.
Even when adding in cuts to two agencies under control of the lege, the Auditor General and Joint Legislative Budget Committee ($1.34 million and $200K, respectively), that ratio stays above 2.2X.
Bottom line - the Governor and the Republican leadership in the lege still don't take this stuff seriously.
The proof is in the numbers.
From SB1001 of the Fifth Special Session -
General Fund cuts and fund sweeps from the Attorney General's office: $8,195,500.
GF cuts and fund sweeps from the House, Senate, and the other constitutional offices (Governor, Treasurer, Superintendent of Public Ed, Secretary of State, and Mine Inspector): $2,153,000.
In other words, the Democrat-occupied AG's office is taking a hit that is more than 3.8 times larger than the other constitutional officers and the House and Senate.
Even when adding in cuts to two agencies under control of the lege, the Auditor General and Joint Legislative Budget Committee ($1.34 million and $200K, respectively), that ratio stays above 2.2X.
Bottom line - the Governor and the Republican leadership in the lege still don't take this stuff seriously.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Jan Brewer could be a placekicker for the Buffalo Bills
...because she has the "wide right" part of the job down pat already...
I was going to title this post "Does A Special Session Make A Noise In The Woods If It Doesn't Do Anything?" but that was too long and snarky, and God knows I could never be accused of "snarkiness."
:-)
Anyway, it's looking more and more like tomorrow's 5th Special Session of the Arizona Legislature (in 2009 alone!) has already fizzled.
Mary Jo Pitzl at the Arizona Republic's Political Insider is reporting that they don't have the votes, even with some Dems crossing over, to pass anything through the House.
Mary Reinhart of The Arizona Guardian (subscription required) confirms this, but writes that the session is going forward anyway. Of course, as Tedski at Rum, Romanism, Rebellion advises, Brewer's call for a special session can't be rescinded, so they have to meet, pray, pledge, collect their per diems, and go home for the holidays. Maybe take some time to work on a few bills for next session, drop off campaign paperwork at the SOS' office, or just generally schmooze with people they last saw so manymonths weeks days ago.
Anyway, if any changes happen, I'll write about them tomorrow after work...or you can just read about it at Tedski's site. :)
Have a good night!
I was going to title this post "Does A Special Session Make A Noise In The Woods If It Doesn't Do Anything?" but that was too long and snarky, and God knows I could never be accused of "snarkiness."
:-)
Anyway, it's looking more and more like tomorrow's 5th Special Session of the Arizona Legislature (in 2009 alone!) has already fizzled.
Mary Jo Pitzl at the Arizona Republic's Political Insider is reporting that they don't have the votes, even with some Dems crossing over, to pass anything through the House.
Mary Reinhart of The Arizona Guardian (subscription required) confirms this, but writes that the session is going forward anyway. Of course, as Tedski at Rum, Romanism, Rebellion advises, Brewer's call for a special session can't be rescinded, so they have to meet, pray, pledge, collect their per diems, and go home for the holidays. Maybe take some time to work on a few bills for next session, drop off campaign paperwork at the SOS' office, or just generally schmooze with people they last saw so many
Anyway, if any changes happen, I'll write about them tomorrow after work...or you can just read about it at Tedski's site. :)
Have a good night!
Health care reform: It's not time to get out the tar and feathers...yet
Desert Beacon in Nevada puts it far better than I can here...but that's not going to stop me from trying anyway. :)
Most of the recent developments regarding health care reform in the Senate have been disheartening to those of us who support substantive reform.
Between Joe Lieberman behaving as if he is relevant, the death of a single-payer plan, and the way that the Senate plan has morphed from a plan to "reform" health care to a plan to "enhance" insurance industry profits, it's easy to be discouraged.
Don't be, not yet anyway.
This whole mess still has to go to conference committee to be merged with the bill that passed the House.
What is more important than the Senate bill is the final bill, the one that reaches the President's desk.
Many people in the center and on the left may not understand that, but you can be sure that the Republicans understand it all too well. They are less interested in seeing that a "bad" bill passes the Senate than in seeing *no* bill pass the Senate.
They know that it is easier to fix the shortcomings in a bad program than to start one from scratch (witness the months-long kerfluffle over health care reform).
Now is the time for all of us to contact our representatives in Congress again (I know a couple of office staffers who aren't going to be happy about that line :)) ) and let them know that the only acceptable reform is real reform, not an insurance industry wish list. Let them know that their constituents need them to stand strong in supporting substantive reform.
We've given up on single-payer (with all due respect to Senator Sanders, his amendment was never going to pass even if he hadn't withdrawn it). but a non-mandatory public option is a must, and it's a reasonable compromise.
Well, "reasonable" to most anyone who doesn't work for the insurance industry, like Jon Kyl, John McCain, and Joe Lieberman (ok, so it's Lieberman''s wife who works for the industry. He works for her.)
We can get that in conference, but first, we have to *get* to a conference committee.
For that, we need the Senate to pass *something.*
Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (CD8) can be contacted via this online form.
Congressman Raul Grijalva (CD7) can be contacted here.
Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick (CD1) can be reached here.
Congressman Harry Mitchell (CD5) has a contact form here.
Congressman Ed Pastor (CD4) can be reached via this generic House contact form.
I'm not bothering to list the contact info for any of the Arizona Republicans in the House or Senate. They've all made it clear that they are opposed to any form of health care reform, or at least any that isn't structured to increase insurance company profits and reduce choice for average Americans. If you want to contact them, then use a search engine to find their official websites and work from there.
Most of the recent developments regarding health care reform in the Senate have been disheartening to those of us who support substantive reform.
Between Joe Lieberman behaving as if he is relevant, the death of a single-payer plan, and the way that the Senate plan has morphed from a plan to "reform" health care to a plan to "enhance" insurance industry profits, it's easy to be discouraged.
Don't be, not yet anyway.
This whole mess still has to go to conference committee to be merged with the bill that passed the House.
What is more important than the Senate bill is the final bill, the one that reaches the President's desk.
Many people in the center and on the left may not understand that, but you can be sure that the Republicans understand it all too well. They are less interested in seeing that a "bad" bill passes the Senate than in seeing *no* bill pass the Senate.
They know that it is easier to fix the shortcomings in a bad program than to start one from scratch (witness the months-long kerfluffle over health care reform).
Now is the time for all of us to contact our representatives in Congress again (I know a couple of office staffers who aren't going to be happy about that line :)) ) and let them know that the only acceptable reform is real reform, not an insurance industry wish list. Let them know that their constituents need them to stand strong in supporting substantive reform.
We've given up on single-payer (with all due respect to Senator Sanders, his amendment was never going to pass even if he hadn't withdrawn it). but a non-mandatory public option is a must, and it's a reasonable compromise.
Well, "reasonable" to most anyone who doesn't work for the insurance industry, like Jon Kyl, John McCain, and Joe Lieberman (ok, so it's Lieberman''s wife who works for the industry. He works for her.)
We can get that in conference, but first, we have to *get* to a conference committee.
For that, we need the Senate to pass *something.*
Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (CD8) can be contacted via this online form.
Congressman Raul Grijalva (CD7) can be contacted here.
Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick (CD1) can be reached here.
Congressman Harry Mitchell (CD5) has a contact form here.
Congressman Ed Pastor (CD4) can be reached via this generic House contact form.
I'm not bothering to list the contact info for any of the Arizona Republicans in the House or Senate. They've all made it clear that they are opposed to any form of health care reform, or at least any that isn't structured to increase insurance company profits and reduce choice for average Americans. If you want to contact them, then use a search engine to find their official websites and work from there.
New Republican challengers in CD5
They seem to be crawling out from every rock these days, begging the question -
Is it Congressman Harry Mitchell who they think is vulnerable, or repeat (soon to be perennial) candidate David Schweikert?
Even though Schweikert never stopped campaigning after his loss last year, hoping to scare off any GOP challengers for the nomination, the carpetbaggers and newbies are lining up around the block to face off against him (and at least one former foe is rumored to be eyeing a return match).
- Eric Wnuck, a "resident" of Arizona and owner of a small, out-of-state, business (OK, it seems to be one not-so-small business with offices in a number of states) is appealing to the teabaggers in the district. Never held elected office.
- Jim Ward, a professional investor and video game guy has settled in the district to run for Congress. Not a total carpetbagger he - his wife is from PV. Never held elected office.
- Chris Salvino, a doctor at Banner Good Samaritan specializing in trauma and weight loss surgery, has filed paperwork to run. His campaign treasurer is one Kelly Lawler. That name should be familiar to CD5-watchers - Lawler was the treasurer for the ethically-challenged JD Hayworth. Never held elected office.
- Jeffrey W. Smith of Gilbert has also filed for CD5. That's a particularly lousy name for an internet search, but there is a "Jeffrey W. Smith" who started a landscape maintenance company in Queen Creek last year. I am *not* sure that is him, however. What is clear is that his campaign address in Gilbert is well outside of the district (not that that ever stopped Virginian Rick Renzi from running up in CD1). I can't find any record that he has ever held elected office, but with a name like that... :)
On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that he's not this "Jeff Smith."
- And then, lurking in the tall grass (that's a metaphor, there's not much grass, tall or otherwise, in CD5), is fellow perennial candidate Susan Bitter Smith. She was the strongest challenger to Schweikert in 2008 and is rumored to be looking at jumping into this cycle's race.
At the beginning of the year, it was an open secret that Schweikert was considered to be the "presumed" GOP nominee in CD5 by GOP insiders.
Apparently, those "insiders" forgot to let the "outsiders" (and at least one other "insider") in on the secret.
Is it Congressman Harry Mitchell who they think is vulnerable, or repeat (soon to be perennial) candidate David Schweikert?
Even though Schweikert never stopped campaigning after his loss last year, hoping to scare off any GOP challengers for the nomination, the carpetbaggers and newbies are lining up around the block to face off against him (and at least one former foe is rumored to be eyeing a return match).
- Eric Wnuck, a "resident" of Arizona and owner of a small, out-of-state, business (OK, it seems to be one not-so-small business with offices in a number of states) is appealing to the teabaggers in the district. Never held elected office.
- Jim Ward, a professional investor and video game guy has settled in the district to run for Congress. Not a total carpetbagger he - his wife is from PV. Never held elected office.
- Chris Salvino, a doctor at Banner Good Samaritan specializing in trauma and weight loss surgery, has filed paperwork to run. His campaign treasurer is one Kelly Lawler. That name should be familiar to CD5-watchers - Lawler was the treasurer for the ethically-challenged JD Hayworth. Never held elected office.
- Jeffrey W. Smith of Gilbert has also filed for CD5. That's a particularly lousy name for an internet search, but there is a "Jeffrey W. Smith" who started a landscape maintenance company in Queen Creek last year. I am *not* sure that is him, however. What is clear is that his campaign address in Gilbert is well outside of the district (not that that ever stopped Virginian Rick Renzi from running up in CD1). I can't find any record that he has ever held elected office, but with a name like that... :)
On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that he's not this "Jeff Smith."
- And then, lurking in the tall grass (that's a metaphor, there's not much grass, tall or otherwise, in CD5), is fellow perennial candidate Susan Bitter Smith. She was the strongest challenger to Schweikert in 2008 and is rumored to be looking at jumping into this cycle's race.
At the beginning of the year, it was an open secret that Schweikert was considered to be the "presumed" GOP nominee in CD5 by GOP insiders.
Apparently, those "insiders" forgot to let the "outsiders" (and at least one other "insider") in on the secret.
McCain, Hayworth camps taking swipes at each other
Posted without much comment, mostly because the sight of Republicans tearing strips off of each other is highly entertaining on its own merits. :)
From AZCentral.com -
*SMACK* goes the McCain campaign. :)
From AZCentral.com -
A former Arizona attorney general filed a federal complaint Tuesday seeking to stop KFYI radio-talk show host J.D. Hayworth from using his microphone to promote a potential primary race against Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.
The complaint filed by Grant Woods with the Federal Election Commission claims Hayworth, a former Republican congressman, cannot use his radio show to further his latest political aspirations. Woods estimates Clear Channel Communications, which broadcasts Hayworth's program, is effectively providing air time to Hayworth that would cost $540,000 each week to rebut in radio ads.
{snip, to include my favorite line in the article, emphasis mine}
"He's [McCain's] more distraught about the Cardinals' (loss Monday night) than a potential Hayworth candidacy," Woods said.
*SMACK* goes the McCain campaign. :)
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Rep. Judy Burges (R-LD4) making an early run for the Legislative Loon Award
It's early (since the 2010 session hasn't actually started yet), but Rep. Judy Burges is making a spirited declaration of her candidacy for the 2010 Legislative Loon Award.
Let's see...
She's a primary sponsor of...
...HB2001, creating a voluntary tax fund for taxpayers who feel that they didn't pay enough. Call this one the "F--- you Arizona" Act.
...HB2005, creating a special license plate for the Arizona Masonic Fraternity, with 68% of the revenue from the fees for that plate going to the Masons. Call this the "43 Special Plates Isn't Enough" Act.
...HB2015, expanding the definition of justifiable use of deadly force to allow deadly force to be used in situations where only the mere display of a weapon ("defensive display of a firearm") had been justified. Call this one the "Violent Paranoiac's Free Pass" Act.
...HB2016, allowing convicted felons with concealed weapons permits from other states to possess and carry firearms in AZ if their rights have been restored in that other state. Not sure what to call this mess.
...HB2017, specifying that firearms instructors working in K-12 schools be certified by either the Arizona game and fish department or the NRA. Changes current language that only specifies "a national association of firearms owners." Call this one the "NRA Employment Act."
...HCR2001, a concurrent resolution asserting the state's sovereignty over the federal government under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Call this one the "Go Away Feds, We Don't Need Your Civil Rights Act, Environment Regulations, Worker Safety Laws, Or Product Safety Laws. Just Leave Lots Of Money Before You Go" Resolution.
Yes, Rep. Burges is making a serious play for the Award, but if she is going to be a real contender, she needs to expand her activities to all areas of legislation. She needs some nativist proposals, some anti-balanced budget stuff, maybe some anti-choice proposals, and, of course, massive tax cuts for the wealthy and for corporations.
Her emphasis on appeasing the gun lobby is admirable (in a "well, it helps identify the wingnuts" sort of way), but she needs to embrace the all around lunacy exhibited by her Senate colleague from LD4, Jack Harper, if she wants a real chance to take the LLA home this coming year.
Later...
Let's see...
She's a primary sponsor of...
...HB2001, creating a voluntary tax fund for taxpayers who feel that they didn't pay enough. Call this one the "F--- you Arizona" Act.
...HB2005, creating a special license plate for the Arizona Masonic Fraternity, with 68% of the revenue from the fees for that plate going to the Masons. Call this the "43 Special Plates Isn't Enough" Act.
...HB2015, expanding the definition of justifiable use of deadly force to allow deadly force to be used in situations where only the mere display of a weapon ("defensive display of a firearm") had been justified. Call this one the "Violent Paranoiac's Free Pass" Act.
...HB2016, allowing convicted felons with concealed weapons permits from other states to possess and carry firearms in AZ if their rights have been restored in that other state. Not sure what to call this mess.
...HB2017, specifying that firearms instructors working in K-12 schools be certified by either the Arizona game and fish department or the NRA. Changes current language that only specifies "a national association of firearms owners." Call this one the "NRA Employment Act."
...HCR2001, a concurrent resolution asserting the state's sovereignty over the federal government under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Call this one the "Go Away Feds, We Don't Need Your Civil Rights Act, Environment Regulations, Worker Safety Laws, Or Product Safety Laws. Just Leave Lots Of Money Before You Go" Resolution.
Yes, Rep. Burges is making a serious play for the Award, but if she is going to be a real contender, she needs to expand her activities to all areas of legislation. She needs some nativist proposals, some anti-balanced budget stuff, maybe some anti-choice proposals, and, of course, massive tax cuts for the wealthy and for corporations.
Her emphasis on appeasing the gun lobby is admirable (in a "well, it helps identify the wingnuts" sort of way), but she needs to embrace the all around lunacy exhibited by her Senate colleague from LD4, Jack Harper, if she wants a real chance to take the LLA home this coming year.
Later...
Well, the special session has been called...
...now we have to wait and see if they can actually do anything, or even reach a quorum...
The Governor has issued the proclamation for a special session of the lege, planned start date of Thursday, December 17, 2009.
From the proclamation -
Reports from The AZ Guardian (subscription required) are that the Governor is expressing confidence that they have the votes, including some from Democrats, to pass the measures on the agenda. However, other denizens of the Capitol aren't so sure.
From the Arizona Capitol Times -
This is just a guess, as I haven't talked to any legislators since last night, but it seems that this special session is more a hail mary pass from Brewer, hoping that she only has to call the play(special session), while praying for somebody else to step up to actually make it work (catch the pass), than any example of real leadership.
AZCentral.com coverage here.
The Governor has issued the proclamation for a special session of the lege, planned start date of Thursday, December 17, 2009.
From the proclamation -
The subjects to be considered at the Special Session shall be:The lege's website has a fifth special session up, but there aren't any bills or committee hearings posted yet.
1. Adjustments to address the fiscal year 2009-2010 state budget.
2. A referendum to voters to impose a temporary tax for the purpose of raising state revenues for primary and secondary education, health and human services and public safety expenditures.
3. A referendum to voters to temporarily suspend the provisions in Article IV, Part 1, Sections 6 and 14 of the Arizona Constitution.
Reports from The AZ Guardian (subscription required) are that the Governor is expressing confidence that they have the votes, including some from Democrats, to pass the measures on the agenda. However, other denizens of the Capitol aren't so sure.
From the Arizona Capitol Times -
Legislative Republicans and Democrats haven’t agreed on much this year, but both are puzzled by Gov. Jan Brewer’s proclamation earlier today that the two parties have set aside their differences and hashed out a deal that would allow a sales-tax increase she favors to be sent to the ballot in March.
{snip}
Earlier today, media outlets reported Brewer was saying she had been assured by Adams and Senate President Bob Burns that they have secured the necessary Democratic votes to send the temporary one-cent sales tax hike to the ballot.
But that came as news to Democratic leaders.
“She hasn’t asked for a single (vote). We haven’t gotten a call,” said House Assistant Minority Leader Kyrsten Sinema. “She hasn’t talked to anybody.”
This is just a guess, as I haven't talked to any legislators since last night, but it seems that this special session is more a hail mary pass from Brewer, hoping that she only has to call the play(special session), while praying for somebody else to step up to actually make it work (catch the pass), than any example of real leadership.
AZCentral.com coverage here.
Maybe justice will be served this time
I guess elections *do* matter, because I'm pretty sure the corrupt cops named in these indictments would have been given a free pass by the Bush-era DOJ...
From CNN.com -
The federal indictment alleges that Piekarsky, Donchak, and four police officers, including the chief of Shenandoah's PD, conspired to obstruct investigations into the crime.
Note: while CNN is reporting that 3 police officers have been indicted, the USDOJ's press release says 4. I'm going to go with the DOJ's number, under the presumption the DOJ knows who they've indicted (which is a rather large presumption, I know :)).
While it is heartening to see the action regarding the murder itself (especially given the fact that the killers were sentenced to less than 2 years in jail on state charges), the obstruction and conspiracy charges are what are really encouraging.
Especially given the amount of obstruction and conspiracy spewing forth from the similarly bigoted offices of the Maricopa County Attorney and Sheriff.
While none of this will bring Mr. Ramirez back to his friends and family, it could work to prevent future murders and coverups by officialdom.
At least one can hope...
From CNN.com -
Five people, including three police officers, have been indicted in the fatal race-related beating of a Latino man in Shenandoah, Pennsylvania, the Justice Department said Tuesday.The charges stem from the July 2008 beating and murder of Luis Ramirez, a Mexican immigrant, in Shenandoah. Two teenagers, Derrick Donchak and Brandon Piekarsky, beat Mr. Ramirez while shouting racial and ethnic slurs (hence the hate crime charges).
Two indictments charge the five with federal hate crime charges, as well as obstruction of justice and conspiracy, authorities said in a written statement. A federal grand jury handed up the indictments last week, and they were unsealed Tuesday.
The federal indictment alleges that Piekarsky, Donchak, and four police officers, including the chief of Shenandoah's PD, conspired to obstruct investigations into the crime.
Note: while CNN is reporting that 3 police officers have been indicted, the USDOJ's press release says 4. I'm going to go with the DOJ's number, under the presumption the DOJ knows who they've indicted (which is a rather large presumption, I know :)).
While it is heartening to see the action regarding the murder itself (especially given the fact that the killers were sentenced to less than 2 years in jail on state charges), the obstruction and conspiracy charges are what are really encouraging.
Especially given the amount of obstruction and conspiracy spewing forth from the similarly bigoted offices of the Maricopa County Attorney and Sheriff.
While none of this will bring Mr. Ramirez back to his friends and family, it could work to prevent future murders and coverups by officialdom.
At least one can hope...
Monday, December 14, 2009
Special session Thursday?
Mary Reinhart of The Arizona Guardian is reporting that a one-day special session of the lege is in the works for Thursday (subscription required). There is some confusion over the details of the timing, but her article covers the topic well.
As planned, the session would include a referral of a sales tax hike to the ballot as well as a question to allow the lege to breach the protections of the Voter Protection Act (aka "Prop 105") to raid the funds of measures approved directly by the voters. In addition, there would be $200 million in budget cuts on the agenda.
According to State Rep. David Schapira (D-LD17), the tentative schedule is for the session to begin on Wednesday for Appropriations Committee consideration (and back room arm-twisting [my phrase, not his]) with COW and final passage (and probably more arm-twisting) on Thursday.
There are some serious questions if any package can pass a special session - most of the R caucus in the House and some of the Rs in the Senate have made it clear that they won't support even the referral of a temporary tax hike unless they pass permanent tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy.
In addition, they still aren't talking to Democrats (other than to notify them of the session itself).
As Rep. Schapira said, referring to the Republicans in the House and the chances of a special session passing anything -
Stay tuned for developments as this is a fluid situation. While it seems likely to fall apart at any moment, it could also be a done deal by Wednesday, with the leadership just holding the session to cross some "Ts" and dot some "Is" (pro forma consideration of something that they have worked out behind closed doors).
Assuming that the fifth "special" session goes off as planned, I'm not sure how I'd vote on a sales tax hike.
If it is simply to backfill revenue lost to tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, then my vote will be "HELL NO!!"
If it is part of a complete package designed to actually balance the budget while minimizing the pain to Arizona's neediest residents, then "maybe".
As for giving the lege the ability to breach Prop 105, that's a "HELL NO!!" Period. End of question.
These people have shown that they have neither the ability nor the inclination to govern responsibly. As long as they continue to ignore the wishes of their constituents, they must not be given the legal ability to do so.
And regarding any proposed budget cuts, I know that they are inevitable, but I want to see what they are first.
Time to cut the lege's budget, as well as those of state officials who have thus far been untouched by previous budget restrictions (like the Governor, Secretary of State, Treasurer, and State Superintendent of Public Instruction).
Later...
As planned, the session would include a referral of a sales tax hike to the ballot as well as a question to allow the lege to breach the protections of the Voter Protection Act (aka "Prop 105") to raid the funds of measures approved directly by the voters. In addition, there would be $200 million in budget cuts on the agenda.
According to State Rep. David Schapira (D-LD17), the tentative schedule is for the session to begin on Wednesday for Appropriations Committee consideration (and back room arm-twisting [my phrase, not his]) with COW and final passage (and probably more arm-twisting) on Thursday.
There are some serious questions if any package can pass a special session - most of the R caucus in the House and some of the Rs in the Senate have made it clear that they won't support even the referral of a temporary tax hike unless they pass permanent tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy.
In addition, they still aren't talking to Democrats (other than to notify them of the session itself).
As Rep. Schapira said, referring to the Republicans in the House and the chances of a special session passing anything -
"They fall in line, or it falls apart."More coverage here from Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services, published by the EV Tribune.
Stay tuned for developments as this is a fluid situation. While it seems likely to fall apart at any moment, it could also be a done deal by Wednesday, with the leadership just holding the session to cross some "Ts" and dot some "Is" (pro forma consideration of something that they have worked out behind closed doors).
Assuming that the fifth "special" session goes off as planned, I'm not sure how I'd vote on a sales tax hike.
If it is simply to backfill revenue lost to tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, then my vote will be "HELL NO!!"
If it is part of a complete package designed to actually balance the budget while minimizing the pain to Arizona's neediest residents, then "maybe".
As for giving the lege the ability to breach Prop 105, that's a "HELL NO!!" Period. End of question.
These people have shown that they have neither the ability nor the inclination to govern responsibly. As long as they continue to ignore the wishes of their constituents, they must not be given the legal ability to do so.
And regarding any proposed budget cuts, I know that they are inevitable, but I want to see what they are first.
Time to cut the lege's budget, as well as those of state officials who have thus far been untouched by previous budget restrictions (like the Governor, Secretary of State, Treasurer, and State Superintendent of Public Instruction).
Later...
Brewer to the people of Maricopa County: You're on your own
First she abandoned any pretense of leadership during the state's budget crisis, now she has abandoned the people of the state's most populous county during the crisis (OK, it's a clusterf***) facing Maricopa County as a result of the conflicts (OK, it's a civil war) between the County's elected officials.
From AZCentral.com -
The sad part is that Brewer was a Maricopa County supervisor before winning election to the AZ Secretary of State's job.
Yet despite the fact that the people of Maricopa County are her constituents and neighbors, she is washing her hands of the situation, claiming that the state's budget situation demands her complete attention.
So where's the balanced budget, or at least a proposal that's balanced?
Where's her call for a special session to fix the latest fix for the budget?
I suppose this is a cheap shot (but she has made it so easy), but if the budget is the most important thing on her radar right now, more important even than the complete meltdown of Maricopa County government, why is she flitting about the countrycampaigning speaking at hotel openings, elementary schools, conferences, Christmas tree lightings, and more? (Public schedules for the last two weeks here and here)
Maybe one of her advisers should remind her that she will need the votes of Maricopa County voters during next year's elections if she hopes to win a full term on the ninth floor.
From AZCentral.com -
Gov. Jan Brewer said the state's budget crisis precludes her from even considering any intervention in current legal and personality clashes within the Maricopa County government.
Brewer told The Associated Press on Monday that she has not looked into whether she should or could intervene.
"I have been paying attention and I have been reading the newspaper and, you know, listening to television and hearing about it," said Brewer. "Certainly I've got my hands full with what I'm facing here at the state level."
The sad part is that Brewer was a Maricopa County supervisor before winning election to the AZ Secretary of State's job.
Yet despite the fact that the people of Maricopa County are her constituents and neighbors, she is washing her hands of the situation, claiming that the state's budget situation demands her complete attention.
So where's the balanced budget, or at least a proposal that's balanced?
Where's her call for a special session to fix the latest fix for the budget?
I suppose this is a cheap shot (but she has made it so easy), but if the budget is the most important thing on her radar right now, more important even than the complete meltdown of Maricopa County government, why is she flitting about the country
Maybe one of her advisers should remind her that she will need the votes of Maricopa County voters during next year's elections if she hopes to win a full term on the ninth floor.
Not seeing the forest for the trees
The Arizona Daily Star has an interesting article (byline: Rhonda Bodfield) up today about Clean Elections and its perceived failures.
From the article -
There are other quotes, from both sides of the partisan aisle, but almost all boil down to "it's made the lege less partisan and less civil."
Have no doubt - the legislature *is* less civil than it used to be (not that it was ever an afternoon tea party with the Queen of England). Just ask anybody who has been down there for more than five years.
Yet for all of the statistics and anecdotal quotes, the article (and the "quotees" in that article) make one fundamental error - Clean Elections was not and is not about changing partisanship or the behavior of legislators at the Capitol.
It was about giving an opportunity to citizens who don't have the corporate fundraising connections needed to fund "traditional" campaigns to run for lege or statewide office.
It has done so. I personally know a number of people who have run, and a few who have won, races who could never afford to do so under traditional financing.
It was about reducing the influence of lobbyists over the lege, or at least reducing the amount of influence that they have over who is *in* the lege.
This one may be a something of a failure. OK, more than "something" of a failure. Too many legislators (mostly, but not totally, from the R caucus) are openly in the pockets of corporate lobbyists. Of course, that may be due more to the ideology and lack of ethics of the legislators involved than any failures on the part of the Clean Elections law.
And there were elected officials around who were more interested in serving their personal ideologies and/or personal wealth than their constituents long before Clean Elections was ever proposed, much less enacted.
What the Clean Elections law is being blamed for are the effects of two phenomena that are utterly out of its control -
1. The far-rightward shift of the GOP and the harshening tone of its rhetoric, even toward its own members. As this piece from the Washington Post demonstrates, this tendency is a nationwide thing and not limited to Arizona.
Has the right wing of the AZGOP used Clean Elections candidates to take out moderate Rs with primary challenges (here "moderate" = "not conservative enough to bring smiles to the faces of Grover Norquist and David Duke")? Yes.
However, CE was just a tool for the extremists. Blaming CE for that is like blaming a hammer because the carpenter put up an ugly house.
In a state like Arizona, one that is thus far a Republican-majority state, the harshening of the GOP's rhetoric and the polarizing of its internal politics has the effect of similarly "harshening and polarizing" the overall political atmosphere, beyond just the GOP itself.
That's been seen in states that don't have publicly-financed elections, such as Texas and New York ("Scozzafava-ed" is a verb now). Blaming CE for the loss of civility in public discussions is misleading and inaccurate.
2. The apathy toward politics and governance on the part of most Americans. It seems that the vast majority of voters don't pay attention to what is going on in their government until campaign season heats up. And some, not even then.
The cynic in me believes that certain demagogues have deliberately made politics more distasteful so that more people turn away in disgust, leaving the demagogues and their vassals in office to wreak their havoc with minimal oversight.
However, the apathy toward politics has existed for, like, *ever*, so it isn't fair to blame the demagogues for the existence of that tool.
Of course, it *is* fair to blame them for their use of that tool, a use that is detrimental to the state and to the country, but that is a topic for another day.
This post is already long enough. :)
Anyway, I don't have a solution for this problem, other than to tell folks, D, R, or I, to watch the votes and actions of their elected officials, ask hard questions of their electeds, and listen to and consider the answers.
And to do it all the time, not just during campaign season or when things have already gotten ugly.
During one of the pro-education rallies at the lege last session, I was talking to one of the teachers present. He stated that he was a Republican and he was surprised at how bad things were at the lege (i.e. - the level of contempt for education, students, and educators on display from most of the Republican caucus).
He was a Republican, but he had never attended a meeting of his LD party or even a candidate forum other than for school board. He was shocked at the low priority his legislators give to the needs and views of the majority of their constituents.
I suggested that he switch parties or just show up.
I advised him that while as a Democrat, I would welcome him to the party if he chose to change his registration, I would understand if he chose to remain an R. What he could, and should, do, is get involved, at least a little. He doesn't have to be a PC to talk to and evaluate candidates, nor to talk about candidates. Just be there and let the candidates know that average people are watching them, not just the blind ideologues.
And by paying attention, and showing candidates and potential candidates, folks such as him can have a greater voice in which candidates are nominated by their party.
Because ultimately, voters decide who is in office; Clean Elections has only expanded the number of options that they can choose from.
Edit on later on 12/14 to add:
Donna at Democratic Diva has a post on this same subject here where she provides the perspective of someone who has run a campaign as a Clean Elections candidate.
End edit...
From the article -
It's been more than a decade since voters made Arizona one of only two states at the time to offer public financing of campaigns for statewide races.
It was supposed to mitigate the effects of special interests, give voters more choices and help new faces compete against the power of incumbency.
But even the guy who helped bankroll the campaign to get it approved, former Democratic Party Chairman Jim Pederson, now says it it was a mistake — not only failing to achieve those goals, but actually contributing to more partisanship and the exclusion of political minority perspectives.
There are other quotes, from both sides of the partisan aisle, but almost all boil down to "it's made the lege less partisan and less civil."
Have no doubt - the legislature *is* less civil than it used to be (not that it was ever an afternoon tea party with the Queen of England). Just ask anybody who has been down there for more than five years.
Yet for all of the statistics and anecdotal quotes, the article (and the "quotees" in that article) make one fundamental error - Clean Elections was not and is not about changing partisanship or the behavior of legislators at the Capitol.
It was about giving an opportunity to citizens who don't have the corporate fundraising connections needed to fund "traditional" campaigns to run for lege or statewide office.
It has done so. I personally know a number of people who have run, and a few who have won, races who could never afford to do so under traditional financing.
It was about reducing the influence of lobbyists over the lege, or at least reducing the amount of influence that they have over who is *in* the lege.
This one may be a something of a failure. OK, more than "something" of a failure. Too many legislators (mostly, but not totally, from the R caucus) are openly in the pockets of corporate lobbyists. Of course, that may be due more to the ideology and lack of ethics of the legislators involved than any failures on the part of the Clean Elections law.
And there were elected officials around who were more interested in serving their personal ideologies and/or personal wealth than their constituents long before Clean Elections was ever proposed, much less enacted.
What the Clean Elections law is being blamed for are the effects of two phenomena that are utterly out of its control -
1. The far-rightward shift of the GOP and the harshening tone of its rhetoric, even toward its own members. As this piece from the Washington Post demonstrates, this tendency is a nationwide thing and not limited to Arizona.
Has the right wing of the AZGOP used Clean Elections candidates to take out moderate Rs with primary challenges (here "moderate" = "not conservative enough to bring smiles to the faces of Grover Norquist and David Duke")? Yes.
However, CE was just a tool for the extremists. Blaming CE for that is like blaming a hammer because the carpenter put up an ugly house.
In a state like Arizona, one that is thus far a Republican-majority state, the harshening of the GOP's rhetoric and the polarizing of its internal politics has the effect of similarly "harshening and polarizing" the overall political atmosphere, beyond just the GOP itself.
That's been seen in states that don't have publicly-financed elections, such as Texas and New York ("Scozzafava-ed" is a verb now). Blaming CE for the loss of civility in public discussions is misleading and inaccurate.
2. The apathy toward politics and governance on the part of most Americans. It seems that the vast majority of voters don't pay attention to what is going on in their government until campaign season heats up. And some, not even then.
The cynic in me believes that certain demagogues have deliberately made politics more distasteful so that more people turn away in disgust, leaving the demagogues and their vassals in office to wreak their havoc with minimal oversight.
However, the apathy toward politics has existed for, like, *ever*, so it isn't fair to blame the demagogues for the existence of that tool.
Of course, it *is* fair to blame them for their use of that tool, a use that is detrimental to the state and to the country, but that is a topic for another day.
This post is already long enough. :)
Anyway, I don't have a solution for this problem, other than to tell folks, D, R, or I, to watch the votes and actions of their elected officials, ask hard questions of their electeds, and listen to and consider the answers.
And to do it all the time, not just during campaign season or when things have already gotten ugly.
During one of the pro-education rallies at the lege last session, I was talking to one of the teachers present. He stated that he was a Republican and he was surprised at how bad things were at the lege (i.e. - the level of contempt for education, students, and educators on display from most of the Republican caucus).
He was a Republican, but he had never attended a meeting of his LD party or even a candidate forum other than for school board. He was shocked at the low priority his legislators give to the needs and views of the majority of their constituents.
I suggested that he switch parties or just show up.
I advised him that while as a Democrat, I would welcome him to the party if he chose to change his registration, I would understand if he chose to remain an R. What he could, and should, do, is get involved, at least a little. He doesn't have to be a PC to talk to and evaluate candidates, nor to talk about candidates. Just be there and let the candidates know that average people are watching them, not just the blind ideologues.
And by paying attention, and showing candidates and potential candidates, folks such as him can have a greater voice in which candidates are nominated by their party.
Because ultimately, voters decide who is in office; Clean Elections has only expanded the number of options that they can choose from.
Edit on later on 12/14 to add:
Donna at Democratic Diva has a post on this same subject here where she provides the perspective of someone who has run a campaign as a Clean Elections candidate.
End edit...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)