AZGOPer using the legislature to advertise for one of his contributors

From a press release from the Arizona Senate Republican caucus -

New Bowl Comes to Arizona


(STATE CAPITOL, PHOENIX) – Arizona has hosted Super Bowls and National Championships. It hosts the Fiesta Bowl every year, and now a new bowl is coming to the state: the EGUMPP Grammar Bowl. Instead of football, this bowl focuses on grammar concepts and terminology.

The Grammar Bowl is open to all 9th grade students in Arizona.

Incoming Senate Education Chair Rich Crandall is a key force behind this Inaugural Grammar Bowl.

{snip}

The Grammar Bowl is sponsored by Grand Canyon University and EGUMPP (Electronic Grammar Usage Mechanics Proficiency Program), a web-based solution for learning grammar, usage, punctuation, and writing mechanics. EGUMPP was developed by Bob Safran, a publisher and business school owner who realized his incoming students had poor grammar skills.

This may be a pretty good indication of how Crandall is going operate the Senate Education Committee -

Safran publishes curricula materials for the homeschool market (and the software pimped in the press release, EGUMPP, is targeted for that market), and on 8/4/2010, he gave a max contribution ($410) to Crandall's Senate campaign committee (page 11 of the linked .pdf).

Heretofore, Crandall had been known as someone who wasn't a full-blown winger.  He would *occasionally* do something that could be interpreted as being in the best interests of his constituents and the state.  It didn't happen often, but it happened enough that the far right GOPers hate him.  Of course, if it happened even once, they'd have gone after him.

Now however, it looks like he is trying to out-Huppenthal former Senate Education chair and soon-to-be Superintendent of Public Instruction John Huppenthal.

Little old ladies standing near signs that are critical of him better be on alert...

Kyrsten Sinema looking for ways to reinstate funding for lifesaving transplants

From KSAZ (Fox 10 in Phoenix) -

For this story, the phrase, "cutting the fat" slices both ways.
Start with State Representative Kyrsten Sinema, who says liposuction is among billions of dollars in yearly tax exemptions in Arizona.

{snip}

Sinema argues taxing lipo could raise a couple million dollars a year, enough to pay for transplants.


"But I think liposuction is probably not one of those. If we had to close a loophole in order to pay for people like Mr. Felix to get his liver transplant, I think it's a fair thing to do," she said.

32-year-old Francisco Felix lost a chance at a liver transplant due to cuts in AHCCCS, Arizona's Medicaid agency .

Safe to say, Sinema won't be running for Congress in a district that covers any part of Scottsdale, the elective surgery capital of Arizona, any time soon.

Best way to rig a game: buy off the referee

From TPM Livewire:

Henry E. Hudson, the federal judge in Virginia who just ruled health care reform unconstitutional, owns between $15,000 and $50,000 in a GOP political consulting firm that worked against health care reform. You don't say!

So...which class in Hudson's law school alma mater (American University) teaches the maxim "If At First You Don't Succeed, Cheat"?

Republican approach to redistricting: If the facts aren't on your side, then lie

Last week, the Arizona Commission on Appellate Court Appointments finalized the short list of applicants for the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC).  The leadership of the Arizona Legislature have 10 Democrats and 10 Republicans to choose from, and their four eventual picks have five Independent candidates to choose from when they select someone to be the chair of the AIRC.

The Appellate Court Appointments did a pretty good job of screening the applicants and establishing a pool of well-qualified group for the legislators to select from.

So naturally, the Republicans, in the form of Senate President-elect Russell Pearce and House Speaker Kirk Adams, have objected strenuously to the process.

They want a do-over on the nominating and interview process so they will have fewer "qualified" applicants to select from and more "malleable" ones instead.

However, they're not getting too far with their technical objections to the process, mostly because the Appellate Court Appointments Commission didn't do anything incorrectly.

So, being good Republicans, they aren't letting a little detail like the facts aren't on their side stop them from agitating for a change in their favor.

From a press release from Kirk Adams -

“Last week, an applicant for the Independent Redistricting Commission was blocked by the Commission on Appellate Court Appointments, apparently because of his religious faith.  In an open meeting, a Commissioner opposed the application of Christopher Gleason for the sole reason that his application indicates he is a man of faith.

Ummm...this is one of those occasions where being a lowly unpaid blogger has its advantages.  I get to use the word "I".

I was there last week when the member of the Appellate Court Appointments Commission expressed his reservations regarding the candidacy of Mr. Gleason.

The reservations weren't over the fact that Mr. Gleason is a "man of faith" or even over his specific faith.  It was over his involvement in an organization, 4 Tucson, that desires to increase religious involvement and control of secular society.  The Appellate Court Appointments Commission member, Louis Araneta of Maricopa County, expressed the concern that there should be a "separation between church and state."

As a citizen, Gleason has the complete right to participate in such an organization.  That participation is protected by the first amendment to the United States Constitution (and probably other things, but I'm not a lawyer.  If someone wishes to add to the list, comments are open.)

However, the law creating the redistricting process mandates that the district maps produced consider many characteristics; districts that are favorable to one religious denomination or another isn't on the list. 

And neither the law nor the Constitution allow the imposition of religious standards on secular society.

It's no coincidence that the Center for Arizona Theocracy Policy is chiming in on this matter, loudly.  They've demanded the resignation of Araneta, the "offending" member of the Appellate Court Appointments Commission.

The PR full court press is on, as the Republican side of the AZ blogosphere has also jumped in on this, from Greg Patterson at Espresso Pundit through the lesser lights/press release sites like Sonoran Alliance and ICArizona.

In our society, redistricting is boring, and most folks don't pay attention to it.  Religion, however, is and has always been, one of the hottest of "hot button" topics, and it has the emotional ooomph required to motivate otherwise disinterested people to take a position on the matter without knowing the real facts of the matter.

Or even caring that their faith, the part of their being that is so important to them, is being used for base partisan politics.

This tactic is being used to bring pressure to bear on Rebecca White Berch, the Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court and chair of the Arizona Commission on Appellate Court Appointments.  Republican though she may be, she isn't known as a pushover, especially for the likes of noted blusterers such as Pearce and Adams. 

That leaves this move, attempting to manufacture a little targeted public outrage based on false pretenses.

Time will tell if it works.


Note: Mary Reinhart of the Arizona Guardian has a story up saying that a special meeting of the Appellate Court Appointments Commission may be called for next week, but the story is behind a subscription firewall, so I can't read the whole thing.


BTW - check out Gleason's application.  He's not "unqualified" for the AIRC per se, but his primary professional qualification seems to be that he has found a way to profit from kidney stones.  Even if one ignores his delusions of theocracy, his absence from the list of finalists still isn't exactly a huge loss for the AIRC or Arizona.

Time for a change at the DNC...

Most grassroots Democrats, and even many Independents, are thoroughly ticked off at the White House over its recent "compromise" with the Republicans over tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans.  Most of us could have stomached the deal (with some changes), but the fact is it's just the latest example of the White House's complete lack of a backbone.

It's been a health care reform package that was so watered-down to appease Republicans and corpra-Dems in the Senate that it stopped being a "reform" package and started being a "corporate profit margin stabilization" package.

It's been a Wall Street regulatory package that was written by Wall Street lobbyists.

It's been dozens of issues, ones where the White House staked out one position, the Republicans staked out the opposite.  When the Rs wouldn't negotiate for the good of the American people, the White House would unilaterally move to the center. (See: replacing single-payer with a "public option" during the discussion of HCR).  And then when the Rs wouldn't talk even then, the White House would self-negotiate themselves into the position that the Rs never left (see: Changing the public option into only a mandate that Americans purchase private health insurance).

And now they don't even have that much, thanks to today's ruling by a federal judge.


As a result of the spinelessness of the White House and the leadership of the Democratic National Committee, Democrats at all levels lost races this year as many voters abandoned the Democratic Party even though the Democratic positions on most issues synch up pretty completely with the majority of Americans.

However, most voters, hell, most *people* won't support a party that they don't respect, regardless of positions on specific issues, and nobody respects spinelessness.

It's time for a change.

It's the time to make the push to return Howard Dean to the DNC chairmanship.

His "50 state strategy", implemented during his tenure as DNC chair after 2004, is widely credited as one of the reasons for the significant Democratic gains in 2006 and also as a major part of Barack Obama's success in 2008.

In every state in the country, as well as the territories, the local Democratic Party organizations are holding their biennial reorganization meetings. We need to see that each state org elects officers and National Committee representatives who will support and push for a change at the top of the DNC.

Toward that end, a website, Draft Howard Dean For DNC Chair 2011, has been put up at dean4dnc.org.  There is also a Facebook page of the same name.

Both are designed to help with organization and communication in this effort.

Right now, the effort is focused on the various state parties, which are going through their biennial reorganizations.


If you are a Democrat, lobby your local state committee members. Talk to DFA members and encourage them to do the same.  Let them know that you support electing state party officers and National Committee members who support a change.

The current chair of the DNC has helped turn an organization that is supposed to be dedicated to electing all Democratic candidates into an organization that is focused on one candidate.

Even if that focus is detrimental to the success of all of the other Democratic candidates on the ballot.

This is the time for a strong grassroots effort to start moving the party, and the country, forward again.

And if you aren't a Democrat, do the same things - we're all in this together.

We need everyone who cares about the future of the country and the people of America to lend their voices to this.

Help return Howard Dean as chair of the Democratic National Committee.

Stay tuned, and stay active.

Government Transparency Taking An Early Christmas Break In Arizona

When Kirk Adams took over as Speaker of the Arizona House in 2009, he and the rest of the Republicans pledged that Arizona's legislature and its operations would be more transparent than it had been.

After years of dealings conducted in an environment so murky that even legislators had just a few minutes or hours to study legislation before them, it sounded as if *something* was going to improve on West Washington.

Then reality hit, with the crafting of "budgets" behind closed doors without public input and feedback, a massive number of "stealth" legislation pushed via strike-everything amendments or slipped into budget reconciliation bills, and the ramming through of bad bills despite massive public opposition.

That disregard for transparency and the public is continuing this week.

- Tuesday at 10 a.m., the Joint Legislative Income Tax Credit Review Committee will meet in House Hearing Room 3 (HHR3).  They'll be reviewing seven income tax credits.

Six of those will be reviewed in executive session, meaning there won't be any public observation of the proceedings, nor will the public have access to the records of the proceedings.

- Tuesday at 1 p.m., the Joint Committee on Capital Review will meet in Senate Hearing Room 109 (SHR109). 

They'll be considering six items, one of which will be conducted in executive session.  That doesn't sound *too* bad, until you realize that the item that they'll be hiding from public scrutiny is a contract for an "Energy Management System" for the Arizona Department of Corrections.

- Tuesday at 2:30 p.m., also in SHR109, the Joint Legislative Budget Committee will meet.  They'll consider five items on their agenda.

Consideration of four of those items will be cloaked in secrecy.

Those items include a Request for Proposals for 5000 private prison beds and consideration of Correction Health Services Per Diem rates.

An interesting pattern of trying to obscure the machinations of certain public officials, especially in light of the fact of the close ties between Jan Brewer, (Senate President-elect) Russell Pearce, and private prison lobbyists.

While the lack of transparency is deplorable, I actually understand the need for it in this situation -

If the people of Arizona to notice that Brewer and Pearce (and Senseman, Coughlin, et. al.) are sacrificing the lives of other Arizonans by redirecting the $4.5 million that they are "saving" by cutting out transplants from AHCCCS coverage in favor of funnelling the funds (and more) into the pockets of private prison operators, the gravy train on West Washington could be derailed.

Here's hoping...

Republicans looking to change the nomination process for the Redistricting Commission

From the Arizona Capitol Times (subscription required) -

Republican legislative leaders aren't happy with their choices for the Independent Redistricting Commission and are asking that a nominating commission reconvene and reconsider.

Kirk Adams, the Republican Speaker of the Arizona House, and Russell Pearce the Tea Party Republican President of the Arizona Senate, profess reservations about the eligibility of three members of the pool - two, Republicans Mark Schnepf and Stephen Sossaman. are members of water district boards, and one, independent Paul Bender, has held offices in a couple of tribal courts.  Redistricting commission members cannot have held public office within the last three years.  However, the tribal courts are part of sovereign nations, not Arizona.
Whatever the letter to Chief Justice Berch says, however, the Republicans seem to have two real main objections to the list of candidates that they have to choose from.

1.  Nine of the ten R candidates are from Maricopa County.  Under the law, only two of the four members can be from the same county.  As both Kirk Adams and Chad Campbell (the House Democratic leader) are expected to pick Maricopa County residents, that would leave one eligible person for Russell Pearce to pick, Benny White of Tucson.

2. OK, they reallllllly don't want Bender in the pool of applicants.  Apparently, his personal politics make most Democrats look like the second coming of Barry Goldwater. 

The word from sources is that Pearce and Adams don't have much of a shot with this, but since we are in Arizona, the place where the principle of the rule of law has been replaced by the principle of IOKIYAR, anything could still happen.

Stay tuned...

ADP Chair race: Cherny close to announcing

Sources close to Andrei Cherny say that he is likely to officially announce that he will be a candidate for the chairmanship of the Arizona Democratic Party when it meets in January for it biennial reorganization meeting.

Cherny was the Democratic nominee for Arizona State Treasurer this year and he has been an Assistant Ariizona Attorney General, White House adviser/economic policy wonk, author, and officer in the United States Naval Reserve.

Assuming the sources are correct, Cherny will join Rodney Glassman (subscription needed) and (sort of*) Don Bivens in the race for the chairmanship.

* - At the meeting of the ADP's state committee in November, Bivens "sort of" announced his candidacy for reelection.  However, many observers at the time thought that the announcement was intended to fend off fringe candidacies.

If so, it seems to have worked so far - haven't heard of any fringe candidates yet.

Tedski at R-Cubed has his take on the race in this post from November.

Later...

Filibuster...

...of the old-fashioned, "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" variety.

This one stars Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who is making a stand against the "compromise" that the White House made with Congressional Republicans to extend the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans.

I don't know how long it will last, but you can watch it on the C-SPAN2 video feed on the cspan.org website.

Sad to say, the best Democrat in the Senate may not be a Democrat at all...

Candidates for MCDP officer spots

On Saturday, after the funeral services of teacher, lawyer, author, and  long-time community and Chicano activist Cecilia Esquer, the Maricopa County Democratic Party will convene its biennial reorganization meeting where they will select officers for the 2011-2012 election cycle. 

The funeral service will be at the Newman Center in Tempe at 10:30 a.m.  The MCDP meeting will be at 1 p.m. at IBEW Local 640 in Phoenix.

While other candidates may be nominated from the floor, the following people have announced their candidacies for the various offices -

Chair - Ann Wallack, current MCDP chair, from Phoenix (LD11)

1st Vice Chair - Jerry Gettinger, from Scottsdale (LD8) and Lauren Kuby, from Tempe (LD17)

2nd Vice Chair - Arif Kazmi, from Chandler (LD21)

Treasurer - Steven Slugocki, current MCDP Secretary, from Phoenix (LD7)

Secretary - Lawrence Robinson, from Phoenix (LD16)

Sergeant at Arms - Ken Barner, from Mesa (LD21)


MCDP, in conjuction with Representative-elect Ruben Gallego, is conducting a toy drive for the children of Guadalupe and is asking interested attendees to bring a new unwrapped toy to the meeting to help make the toy drive successful.


See you Saturday!

And the first one out of the gate is...

...State Sen.-elect David Schapira (D-LD17).

The first bill proposal posted on the Arizona Legislature's website for the 50th Session is Schapira's SB1001, relating to transplant services and AHCCCS.

If passed (and I'm under no illusions that it will be), it would remove the exclusions of various transplant services from being paid for by AHCCCS, Arizona's version of Medicaid.

It's too late for Mark Price, one of the first people who were denied a needed transplant, but it may not be too late the other patients who have been endangered by the Governor's quest to destroy Arizona's social safety net.

Later...

Arizona Democrats call on the Governor to restore transplant funding

David Schapira, Senate Democratic leader-elect, Chad Campbell, House Democratic leader-elect, transplant patients, and health care providers called on the Republicans in the legislature and the Governor's office to correct their "mistake"* of cutting AHCCCS funding for transplants.

The press conference video from earlier this week -


12/07/2010 - AHCCCS Transplant Program Press Conference from ACTV on Vimeo.


The press release from the Arizona House Democratic Caucus is here.

* = They call it a mistake, but I think they are being overly charitable toward the Republicans.  I think it was a decision made after a careful calculation, one where the Rs determined that they were less bothered by dead poor people than by corporations paying a marginally higher amount of taxes.

The short list for the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

On Wednesday, the Arizona Commission on Appellate Court Appointments, chaired by Rebecca White Berch, Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court, interviewed 39 applicants for the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC).  They screened the pool down to 25 (10 Ds, 10 Rs, 5 Independents).

The leadership of the legislature - House Speaker Kirk Adams, Senate President Russell Pearce, House Democratic leader Chad Campbell, and Senate Democratic leader David Schapira - will each select a member (presumably from their own parties) and those four will select someone from the pool of Independent applicants to act as chair.

As is unusual on West Washington, but apparently the norm for meetings conducted by Chief Justice Berch, the meeting started on time. 

However, I arrived late.  Not to worry though.  Punctual they may be, they are still (mostly) lawyers, and they like to talk.  They were still in the preliminary, executive session part the meeting when I arrived at approximately 9:25 a.m. and hadn't started the actual interviews. (That punctuality caught up to me after lunch, but not too badly.)

The interview session started at around 9:40. 

They asked each of the candidates the same three questions, periodically rotating the questioners.

The first question asked the candidates to explain their understanding of the purpose and process of the Redistricting Commission.

The second question inquired as to the candidates' ability and willingness to make the time committment necessary for the AIRC.

The final, wrap-up, question asked the candidates to talk about what experience and skills that they would bring to the Commission, and why the Appellate Court Appointments Commission should forward their name to the legislature for final consideration.

To sum up, paraphrasing Chief Justice Berch, it was the shortest job interview any of the applicants (and the onlookers) had likely ever seen.

Most of the answers to the first question were decent, ranging from a few who gave answers that sounded like they were straight out of a tea party textbook (the U.S. House of Representatives is "the People's House", etc.) to a thorough understanding of the AIRC (to be fair though, that candidate had an advantage - he had been the executive director of the first AIRC).

The answers for the second question varied a little more.  While most of the candidates stated that yes, they would be able to make the time committment necessary, they were all over the place in their understanding of the time that they would need.

The conception of that ranged for 4 hours per week (huh?!?) to 5300 hours total.  The number heard most often was 15 hours/week, but most of that will be front-loaded into the first 6 - 8 months of the Commission's activities.  Presumably after that period, the bulk of the Commission's work will be complete, though litigation is all but inevitable.

Redistricting, even if it is done fairly, honestly, and transparently, ticks off special interest groups, who will sue to try to get an outcome more favorable to their interests.  Perhaps they will sue especially if redistricting is done fairly, honestly, and transparently.

After the first few months, the workload should lessen for the rank-and-file members of the AIRC.  However, in light of the likely litigation, the chair of the AIRC will be busy for at least a couple of years, dealing with lawyers, the media, and more lawyers.

The Independent applicants are in line for the chairmanship, and most of them exhibited almost no clue as to what they are in for.

*Someone* is going to feel like they got hit by a bus.

Anyway, the list of finalists, linked to their applications:

Democrats -

Robert Cannon of Phoenix

Marshall Worden of Tucson

Lawrence Mohrweis of Flagstaff

Jose Herrera of Phoenix

William Roe of Tucson

Marcia Busching of Phoenix

Eric Henderson of Holbrook

Mark Rubin of Tucson

Jimmie Smith of Yuma

Linda McNulty of Tucson

None of the Democratic candidates were unanimously supported.  One of the Republicans on the Appellate Court Appointments Commission, Doug Cole, wouldn't support strong D candidates.  The list, however, was approved unanimously.

Cole works for High Ground Inc. for Chuck Coughlin, Governor Jan Brewer's chief "adviser."  He was appointed by Brewer in 2009 and is widely regarded as "the Governor's guy" on the Appellate Court Appointments Commission.


Independents -

Raymond Bladine of Phoenix

Colleen Mathis of Tucson

Kimber Lanning of Phoenix

Paul Bender of Phoenix

Margarita Silva of Laveen

Bladine was the only candidate here who was unanimously supported.  Paul Bender was the most highly qualified of all of the candidates but one considered by some to be too liberal to be acceptable.  Many of the Republicans refused to vote for him individually.  Two of the Republicans, including Doug Cole, didn't even vote to approve the list that included Bender.


Republicans -

Jim Bruner of Scottsdale

Mark Schnepf of Gilbert

Louis DeLeon of Phoenix

Lynn Werner of Tempe

Benny White of Tucson

Susan Shultz of Paradise Valley

Michael Perry of Phoenix

Patrick McWhortor of Cave Creek

Scott Freeman of Phoenix

Stephen Sossaman of Queen Creek

Two of the Republican applicants were supported unanimously - Mark Schnepf and Louis DeLeon.  Color me shocked.  Or not.

Schnepf received 14 votes (Chief Justice Berch didn't vote and wouldn't have unless there was a tie in need of breaking.  There wasn't, so she didn't.) and Louis DeLeon received 13 because Louis Araneta, one of the nominating commission members, is his cousin.  Mr. Araneta recused himself during consideration of his cousin's application.

It was interesting to see how the tenor of the interviews changed once the Republicans took the floor.  While the panel was professional and courteous during the interviews of the Democratic and Independent candidates, they became almost deferential with the Republicans.  For example, if Cole and Schnepf were any more buddy-buddy, we'd have (politely) suggested that they  get a room.  (Relax Rs, that's just a metaphor for "they liked each other a lot."  Let me be clear - there was no evidence that one or both is gay.)

The meeting ended a little early.  The projection had been for it to take until 3 p.m., but the meeting was adjourned at 2:43 p.m.

Now the four legislators will hear from *everybody* about who they should choose for the redistricting commission.  Those selections will start in mid-January, with the final, fifth, selection occurring by the end of February.  The redistricting commission should (in theory!) be done its work by next fall.

In theory.

Stay tuned.


All of the applications, including those of the candidates who didn't make the cut, and the written public comments submitted in support of/opposition to particular candidates, here.

Arizona Republic coverage, courtesy Mary Jo Pitzl, here.

Jan Brewer in D.C. dismissing those who need transplants

YouTube video from ThinkProgress -



One of the reasons that I became actively involved in politics was because I became thoroughly embarrassed in 2006 by my then-Congressman, J.D. Hayworth and some local guy named Harry Mitchell ran against him.  Mitchell was a retired teacher (you may have heard of him :) ) and brought a measure of dignity and respect for public service to the office.

In 2010, things in AZ have regressed, and if he were still in office, Hayworth would be considered "middle of the pack" in terms of his embarrassment factor.  There is a glimmer of hope, however -

Some folks who previously were as thoroughly disinterested in politics as I am disinterested in Lifetime cable network movies are now as embarrassed by Jan (and her clan) as I was by Hayworth.  They're now realizing how much trouble Arizona (and Arizonans) is in because of Brewer's heartlessness.

Hopefully, enough of them will become active and be able to help change the course of this once-great state.

Open Letter To President Obama Regarding The "Compromise" On The Budget-Busting Bush Tax Cuts For The 2%-ers

On Monday, President Obama announced a tentative deal with the Republicans in Congress over extending the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans.

In addition to the tax cuts for the wealthy, the deal includes an extension of Unemployment Insurance benefits for the long-term unemployed as well as some tax code tweaking that benefits the middle class.  However, like the Bush-era tax cuts, those seem to disproportionately benefit the wealthy (i.e. - the adjustments to the estate tax).

While the UI benefits are necessary, and middle and working-class tax relief is welcome, the disproportionate nature of the deal makes it less a "compromise" than an "abject surrender" and should be taken off the table. 

Below is the open letter I wrote to the President on the subject.  It turns out to be a little too long for the White House's online submission form, so it wasn't submitted to the White House verbatim.  However, I will submit a brief comment with a link to this post so they can read the entire thing if they choose to (they won't so choose, but the option will be theirs.)

The letter -

Dear President Obama,


I read with great interest regarding the deal you have struck with the Republicans in Congress over a two-year extension of the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest two percent of Americans.

I understand and laud your desire to ensure continued relief for those unemployed Americans who have seen their Unemployment Insurance benefits expire, especially during the holiday season.

I further understand that a lot of effort went into the negotiations for this compromise.

And I believe that you should take the deal off the table.

Not because I’m opposed to extending UI benefits to those who need them so desperately, but because on many levels the benefit of the deal isn’t worth the price was paid for it.

The deal isn’t paid for. It both increases expenditures and reduces revenues and will necessitate more borrowing from foreign sources in order to sustain the “budget.” It effectively deepens the deficit at a time when most observers, Democratic, Republican, and non-partisan, support bringing the federal government’s fiscal situation under control.

It’s bad short-term politics. As with health care reform, Wall St. regulation reform, and so many other earlier initiatives, the Republicans staked out a position and didn’t “compromise” so much as waited for you and the Democratic leadership in the Congress to water down your positions to the point that your positions were meaningless. There is a difference between “compromise” and “surrender.” Compromise is the settlement of differences by mutual concessions; surrender is what has been going on in D.C.

It’s bad long-term politics. This deal, and the ones the preceded it, have totally dispirited the base of the Democratic Party and alienated Independent voters. In 2010, Democratic candidates all over the country were swamped in a Republican wave, due in no small part to the fact that Independent voters trended toward Republicans and low-efficacy Democrats stayed home. How bad will 2012 be if the malaise spreads to high-efficacy Democrats?  In addition, by kicking the can down the road for two years, the Republicans have a ready-made talking point for the 2012 campaign.

If the election were held today, any Republican with a heartbeat would win the White House, not because everyone will vote Republican.

Most voters will just refuse to vote Democratic.

At some point, D.C. Democrats will have to start fighting for the American people. Otherwise, the American people will completely abandon them.

That time should be now. It’s time to stand up for average Americans AND for fiscal responsibility.

Take the current deal off of the table. The Republicans will scream about it, but face facts – you could cure cancer, the common cold, and male pattern baldness and they would still find a rationale to criticize you (though the “male pattern baldness” cure might cause a few of them to hesitate).

If the Republicans want the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% and the reduction of the estate tax on the largest estates, and they do, make them negotiate in good faith and actually “compromise.”

For example, for a one year extension of the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% and their estates, a similar-length extension of long-term UI benefits would be in order, along with passage of START.

For a two year extension, a similar-length extension of UI benefits, START, passage of the DREAM Act, and repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

And before they get anything, make sure they hold up their end of the deal first. Two years of them demanding concessions on significant legislation and then voting against that watered-down legislation anyway has rendered them totally devoid of credibility.

They could still balk at this. In fact, they probably will – their strategy of obstruction has worked for them for two years, and they have no reason to stop following that strategy.

Until you make it stop working for them.

Mr. President, thank you for your time, and may you and your family have a joyful holiday season.

Regards,

[cpmaz]

Hardly my best writing, but that's what happens when I write while pissed off.  The sad part is that I'm less pissed off at the Rs for simply doing what Republicans do (yes, they're benefitting from low expectations here) than I am at the Democrats for enabling the Rs.