Courtesy an emailed press release from the White House -
Good evening.
Tonight, I can report to the American people and to the world that the United States has conducted an operation that killed Osama bin Laden, the leader of al Qaeda, and a terrorist who’s responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent men, women, and children.
It was nearly 10 years ago that a bright September day was darkened by the worst attack on the American people in our history. The images of 9/11 are seared into our national memory -- hijacked planes cutting through a cloudless September sky; the Twin Towers collapsing to the ground; black smoke billowing up from the Pentagon; the wreckage of Flight 93 in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, where the actions of heroic citizens saved even more heartbreak and destruction.
And yet we know that the worst images are those that were unseen to the world. The empty seat at the dinner table. Children who were forced to grow up without their mother or their father. Parents who would never know the feeling of their child’s embrace. Nearly 3,000 citizens taken from us, leaving a gaping hole in our hearts.
On September 11, 2001, in our time of grief, the American people came together. We offered our neighbors a hand, and we offered the wounded our blood. We reaffirmed our ties to each other, and our love of community and country. On that day, no matter where we came from, what God we prayed to, or what race or ethnicity we were, we were united as one American family.
We were also united in our resolve to protect our nation and to bring those who committed this vicious attack to justice. We quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda -- an organization headed by Osama bin Laden, which had openly declared war on the United States and was committed to killing innocents in our country and around the globe. And so we went to war against al Qaeda to protect our citizens, our friends, and our allies.
Over the last 10 years, thanks to the tireless and heroic work of our military and our counterterrorism professionals, we’ve made great strides in that effort. We’ve disrupted terrorist attacks and strengthened our homeland defense. In Afghanistan, we removed the Taliban government, which had given bin Laden and al Qaeda safe haven and support. And around the globe, we worked with our friends and allies to capture or kill scores of al Qaeda terrorists, including several who were a part of the 9/11 plot.
Yet Osama bin Laden avoided capture and escaped across the Afghan border into Pakistan. Meanwhile, al Qaeda continued to operate from along that border and operate through its affiliates across the world.
And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al Qaeda, even as we continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network.
Then, last August, after years of painstaking work by our intelligence community, I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden. It was far from certain, and it took many months to run this thread to ground. I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside of Pakistan. And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action, and authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice.
Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. A small team of Americans carried out the operation with extraordinary courage and capability. No Americans were harmed. They took care to avoid civilian casualties. After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body.
For over two decades, bin Laden has been al Qaeda’s leader and symbol, and has continued to plot attacks against our country and our friends and allies. The death of bin Laden marks the most significant achievement to date in our nation’s effort to defeat al Qaeda.
Yet his death does not mark the end of our effort. There’s no doubt that al Qaeda will continue to pursue attacks against us. We must –- and we will -- remain vigilant at home and abroad.
As we do, we must also reaffirm that the United States is not –- and never will be -– at war with Islam. I’ve made clear, just as President Bush did shortly after 9/11, that our war is not against Islam. Bin Laden was not a Muslim leader; he was a mass murderer of Muslims. Indeed, al Qaeda has slaughtered scores of Muslims in many countries, including our own. So his demise should be welcomed by all who believe in peace and human dignity.
Over the years, I’ve repeatedly made clear that we would take action within Pakistan if we knew where bin Laden was. That is what we’ve done. But it’s important to note that our counterterrorism cooperation with Pakistan helped lead us to bin Laden and the compound where he was hiding. Indeed, bin Laden had declared war against Pakistan as well, and ordered attacks against the Pakistani people.
Tonight, I called President Zardari, and my team has also spoken with their Pakistani counterparts. They agree that this is a good and historic day for both of our nations. And going forward, it is essential that Pakistan continue to join us in the fight against al Qaeda and its affiliates.
The American people did not choose this fight. It came to our shores, and started with the senseless slaughter of our citizens. After nearly 10 years of service, struggle, and sacrifice, we know well the costs of war. These efforts weigh on me every time I, as Commander-in-Chief, have to sign a letter to a family that has lost a loved one, or look into the eyes of a service member who’s been gravely wounded.
So Americans understand the costs of war. Yet as a country, we will never tolerate our security being threatened, nor stand idly by when our people have been killed. We will be relentless in defense of our citizens and our friends and allies. We will be true to the values that make us who we are. And on nights like this one, we can say to those families who have lost loved ones to al Qaeda’s terror: Justice has been done.
Tonight, we give thanks to the countless intelligence and counterterrorism professionals who’ve worked tirelessly to achieve this outcome. The American people do not see their work, nor know their names. But tonight, they feel the satisfaction of their work and the result of their pursuit of justice.
We give thanks for the men who carried out this operation, for they exemplify the professionalism, patriotism, and unparalleled courage of those who serve our country. And they are part of a generation that has borne the heaviest share of the burden since that September day.
Finally, let me say to the families who lost loved ones on 9/11 that we have never forgotten your loss, nor wavered in our commitment to see that we do whatever it takes to prevent another attack on our shores.
And tonight, let us think back to the sense of unity that prevailed on 9/11. I know that it has, at times, frayed. Yet today’s achievement is a testament to the greatness of our country and the determination of the American people.
The cause of securing our country is not complete. But tonight, we are once again reminded that America can do whatever we set our mind to. That is the story of our history, whether it’s the pursuit of prosperity for our people, or the struggle for equality for all our citizens; our commitment to stand up for our values abroad, and our sacrifices to make the world a safer place.
Let us remember that we can do these things not just because of wealth or power, but because of who we are: one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Thank you. May God bless you. And may God bless the United States of America.
Monday, May 02, 2011
Sunday, May 01, 2011
Guest Column: Caleb
Jerry Gettinger, friend and friend of the blog, occasionally shares his thoughts on various matters.
Today, he shared something deeply personal and totally non-political.
I lost a very dear friend last week. Once one passes the signpost of 70 years, the obituaries often write about someone you know or knew. But this friend was special. His leaving was as difficult a loss as I have ever experienced.
There wasn’t one moment when our friendship was in doubt. Caleb was always there without question, much like a one’s child or brother. He was 15, a very old age for a dog that was sizable, and Caleb was a big dog. At the risk of sounding morose or self-indulgent, I request a few minutes of your time to tell you about Caleb.
I’ve always believed that it’s important for children to have a dog. The children learn from the dog and the dog is there to learn tolerance and devotion from the children. We had just put down our dog when I suggested to my youngest daughter that we go to the pound “just to look around.” My wife’s immediate response was “don’t you dare get another dog.” “Of course not’” I said. “We’ll just look.” And off we went.
Visiting the pound is difficult at the very least. A lot of dogs, very few potential owners. Most of the dogs are puppies that will grow into large dogs, but most never get that far. There are very few small dogs. We walked up and down the cement row looking at the puppies. My daughter and I did not say a word, but we knew that we were not going home without a dog. We just couldn’t. I started talking to one of the volunteers. She explained how few large dogs get adopted. I walked over to one cage where there was only one puppy. It was obvious by the size if the pup’s paws that this was going to be a large dog. The volunteer told me that the puppy had been at the pound the time limited to each dog and was going to be euthanized the next day. I looked at Sarah and she looked at me and we both said “you’re not going to hurt our dog.” Caleb was on the way home with us within a half an hour.
When we walked in the door with Caleb, my wife’s response was “I knew it.” As if on cue, Caleb walked over to my wife and started licking her toes. Caleb became family.
He was almost 15 when we took him to our Vet. He had been having trouble getting up and occasionally was in pain. A few days ago, he couldn’t get up without our assistance and was hurting almost all the time. I called our Vet and made the appointment. When we got there, I knew what was coming. Knowing didn’t make it easier.
Caleb was the kind of dog you would call “sweet.” He never hurt anyone, but there was that sense that you did not harm his family. When we had a gathering at our house, I would suggest to the visitor to have Caleb sniff his (or her) hand. Caleb did the duty and then walked away as if to say “OK, come on in.”
The only time Caleb was threatening concerned a time when I started receiving death threats because of a rather benign letter that was printed in the newspaper. We would come home from work and there would be messages on my answering machine verbalizing their opinions of me and what I could do with my opinion. And then one day, a car parked in front of our house and a man opened the car door and started walking toward the front door. The look on his face told me he wasn’t coming to praise me for my literary ability. Without my speaking or motioning, Caleb was by my side. We have a screen door, reinforced with wrought-iron. There was a slight hesitation when the gentleman saw Caleb. (Caleb was a wolfhound weighting over 100 pounds.) Then I heard a low, guttural sound from Caleb that I had never heard before. The man slowed down, but did not stop. Caleb’s posture and the depth in his voice became more intense and spoke volumes. The man was back in the car and driving away within minutes. Caleb didn’t move until the car was out of sight.
With tears in my eyes, I say goodbye to my friend and thank you. I will miss you and your presence. You were not just a good dog, you were family. There is an emptiness in our household that cannot be replaced. While your leaving has been painful, your friendship gave me something I will always cherish.
Jerry Gettinger
Today, he shared something deeply personal and totally non-political.
Caleb
I lost a very dear friend last week. Once one passes the signpost of 70 years, the obituaries often write about someone you know or knew. But this friend was special. His leaving was as difficult a loss as I have ever experienced.
There wasn’t one moment when our friendship was in doubt. Caleb was always there without question, much like a one’s child or brother. He was 15, a very old age for a dog that was sizable, and Caleb was a big dog. At the risk of sounding morose or self-indulgent, I request a few minutes of your time to tell you about Caleb.
I’ve always believed that it’s important for children to have a dog. The children learn from the dog and the dog is there to learn tolerance and devotion from the children. We had just put down our dog when I suggested to my youngest daughter that we go to the pound “just to look around.” My wife’s immediate response was “don’t you dare get another dog.” “Of course not’” I said. “We’ll just look.” And off we went.
Visiting the pound is difficult at the very least. A lot of dogs, very few potential owners. Most of the dogs are puppies that will grow into large dogs, but most never get that far. There are very few small dogs. We walked up and down the cement row looking at the puppies. My daughter and I did not say a word, but we knew that we were not going home without a dog. We just couldn’t. I started talking to one of the volunteers. She explained how few large dogs get adopted. I walked over to one cage where there was only one puppy. It was obvious by the size if the pup’s paws that this was going to be a large dog. The volunteer told me that the puppy had been at the pound the time limited to each dog and was going to be euthanized the next day. I looked at Sarah and she looked at me and we both said “you’re not going to hurt our dog.” Caleb was on the way home with us within a half an hour.
When we walked in the door with Caleb, my wife’s response was “I knew it.” As if on cue, Caleb walked over to my wife and started licking her toes. Caleb became family.
He was almost 15 when we took him to our Vet. He had been having trouble getting up and occasionally was in pain. A few days ago, he couldn’t get up without our assistance and was hurting almost all the time. I called our Vet and made the appointment. When we got there, I knew what was coming. Knowing didn’t make it easier.
Caleb was the kind of dog you would call “sweet.” He never hurt anyone, but there was that sense that you did not harm his family. When we had a gathering at our house, I would suggest to the visitor to have Caleb sniff his (or her) hand. Caleb did the duty and then walked away as if to say “OK, come on in.”
The only time Caleb was threatening concerned a time when I started receiving death threats because of a rather benign letter that was printed in the newspaper. We would come home from work and there would be messages on my answering machine verbalizing their opinions of me and what I could do with my opinion. And then one day, a car parked in front of our house and a man opened the car door and started walking toward the front door. The look on his face told me he wasn’t coming to praise me for my literary ability. Without my speaking or motioning, Caleb was by my side. We have a screen door, reinforced with wrought-iron. There was a slight hesitation when the gentleman saw Caleb. (Caleb was a wolfhound weighting over 100 pounds.) Then I heard a low, guttural sound from Caleb that I had never heard before. The man slowed down, but did not stop. Caleb’s posture and the depth in his voice became more intense and spoke volumes. The man was back in the car and driving away within minutes. Caleb didn’t move until the car was out of sight.
With tears in my eyes, I say goodbye to my friend and thank you. I will miss you and your presence. You were not just a good dog, you were family. There is an emptiness in our household that cannot be replaced. While your leaving has been painful, your friendship gave me something I will always cherish.
Jerry Gettinger
Breaking: President Obama announces the bin Laden is dead
Announcement on every TV channel at this moment...
And now the world wonders: How pissed is Donald Trump that Obama has "trumped" him two nights in a row?
And now the world wonders: How pissed is Donald Trump that Obama has "trumped" him two nights in a row?
Update: 2012 candidate committees
Edit on 5/2 to add another candidate who was brought to my attention in a comment at Blog for Arizona. My apologies to Ms. Baldenegro. No slight was intended...
Things are still slow on the candidate committee front, as it is still early, and many potential candidates seem to be waiting for redistricting to see exactly what district they will be running in.
However, a few noted candidates have announced or formed committees, as have a few less-noted candidates. Where a specific district is listed, expect that to change after redistricting.
Note: Some of these have been covered in earlier posts but are included here for comparison's sake. In addition, only new candidates for an office, or current office holders seeking a move to a different office are included. Incumbents running for reelection aren't included in this list.
For U.S. Senate -
Right now, the "big dog" in the race to replace the retiring Jon Kyl is Republican current CD6 Congressman Jeff Flake. He raised over $1 million in just a few months. Also in the race is Republican Bryan Hackbarth, a former mayor of Youngtown, AZ. As of this writing, no Democrats have formed committees this race, though once Congresswoman Gabby Giffords' condition/intentions become clearer, that is expected to change.
For U.S. Congress -
Republican former speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives Kirk Adams announced his intention to run for Congress immediately after becoming a "former" state legislator this past week. He doesn't have paperwork up on the FEC's website, but he did tweet about it -
No word if Adams' speeches and press releases will be written directly by Jon "not intended to be a factual statement" Kyl, or if Kyl's principles will just be the "guiding light" behind Adams' public statements.
Also running:
Ann Kirkpatrick, a Democratic former Congresswoman, looking for a rematch in CD1 with dentist and current occupant Paul Gosar.
Wenona Benally Baldenegro, an attorney and a 2010 graduate of EmergeArizona, is a candidate for CD1, also.
Russell Jenna, a Republican/tea party type, in CD3 (currently held by Republican Ben Quayle).
Chuck Gray, a Republican former state senator, in CD6 (currently held by Flake).
Matt Salmon, a Republican former Congressman and GOP state chair, in CD6.
Gabriela Saucedo-Mercer, Republican, CD7 (currently held by Democrat Raul Grijalva).
For legislature:
Thomas J. Shope, Jr., Republican, has opened an exploratory committee for LD23 House. Because he is a "Jr." and I don't know Pinal County all that well, some of this may be for his father, but he seems to have been the press guy for Paul Babeu's campaign for Pinal County Sheriff in 2008 and seems to be the son of the mayor of Coolidge, AZ. Shope Sr. is the committee chairman.
Bob Blendu, a Republican former state senator, has opened a committee for LD12 House.
Tom Murray, Republican, has opened a committee for LD12 House. He ran as a Libertarian candidate for Estrella Mountain constable in 2010. He didn't win.
For Tempe City Council -
Ann Heins, Republican
For City of Scottsdale -
Still quiet. So far.
For City of Phoenix (2011 elections) -
In full swing, with petitions due in the month starting tomorrow. Peggy Neely made her entry into the race for mayor official, and a number of candidates have jumped into the race to fill her seat in Phoenix' District 2. The full list of candidates is here.
More on this election as candidate petitions are filed.
Later...
Things are still slow on the candidate committee front, as it is still early, and many potential candidates seem to be waiting for redistricting to see exactly what district they will be running in.
However, a few noted candidates have announced or formed committees, as have a few less-noted candidates. Where a specific district is listed, expect that to change after redistricting.
Note: Some of these have been covered in earlier posts but are included here for comparison's sake. In addition, only new candidates for an office, or current office holders seeking a move to a different office are included. Incumbents running for reelection aren't included in this list.
For U.S. Senate -
Right now, the "big dog" in the race to replace the retiring Jon Kyl is Republican current CD6 Congressman Jeff Flake. He raised over $1 million in just a few months. Also in the race is Republican Bryan Hackbarth, a former mayor of Youngtown, AZ. As of this writing, no Democrats have formed committees this race, though once Congresswoman Gabby Giffords' condition/intentions become clearer, that is expected to change.
For U.S. Congress -
Republican former speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives Kirk Adams announced his intention to run for Congress immediately after becoming a "former" state legislator this past week. He doesn't have paperwork up on the FEC's website, but he did tweet about it -
No word if Adams' speeches and press releases will be written directly by Jon "not intended to be a factual statement" Kyl, or if Kyl's principles will just be the "guiding light" behind Adams' public statements.
Also running:
Ann Kirkpatrick, a Democratic former Congresswoman, looking for a rematch in CD1 with dentist and current occupant Paul Gosar.
Wenona Benally Baldenegro, an attorney and a 2010 graduate of EmergeArizona, is a candidate for CD1, also.
Russell Jenna, a Republican/tea party type, in CD3 (currently held by Republican Ben Quayle).
Chuck Gray, a Republican former state senator, in CD6 (currently held by Flake).
Matt Salmon, a Republican former Congressman and GOP state chair, in CD6.
Gabriela Saucedo-Mercer, Republican, CD7 (currently held by Democrat Raul Grijalva).
For legislature:
Thomas J. Shope, Jr., Republican, has opened an exploratory committee for LD23 House. Because he is a "Jr." and I don't know Pinal County all that well, some of this may be for his father, but he seems to have been the press guy for Paul Babeu's campaign for Pinal County Sheriff in 2008 and seems to be the son of the mayor of Coolidge, AZ. Shope Sr. is the committee chairman.
Bob Blendu, a Republican former state senator, has opened a committee for LD12 House.
Tom Murray, Republican, has opened a committee for LD12 House. He ran as a Libertarian candidate for Estrella Mountain constable in 2010. He didn't win.
For Tempe City Council -
Ann Heins, Republican
For City of Scottsdale -
Still quiet. So far.
For City of Phoenix (2011 elections) -
In full swing, with petitions due in the month starting tomorrow. Peggy Neely made her entry into the race for mayor official, and a number of candidates have jumped into the race to fill her seat in Phoenix' District 2. The full list of candidates is here.
More on this election as candidate petitions are filed.
Later...
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Brewer vetoes, signs a number of bills
Arizona's Governor Jan Brewer has signed a slew of bills passed by the legislature this year, and has also vetoed a larger-than-expected number of them.
While she usually lists technical reasons for her veto of a bill, her real reasons for vetoes usually boil down to either payback for past conflicts (see the linked story regarding her veto of SB1322) or protecting the turf of the governor from legislative encroachment.
From an Arizona Republic article by Alia Beard Rau and Jim Walsh -
AZBlueMeanie at Blog for Arizona has some good insight on the enactment of SB1333 here. It's one of Sen. Frank Antenori's "I hate Tucson, even though I represent part of it" bills. He has the info on many changes to election law here.
Dave Safier of BfA offers his perspective on two of Brewer's vetoes here.
Some of Brewer's veto/signing letters for specific bills (not just those dealt with Friday) include -
- SB1593, veto, health insurance, interstate purchase
- SB1088, veto, interstate compact, health care. Turf protection - it mandated something to the governor.
- SB1322, veto, privatizing city services in Phoenix and Tucson (Brewer listed some valid reasons for her veto, but the Republic's Mary Jo Pitzl points out the fact that Brewer and Phoenix City Council member Sal DiCiccio, the bill's main proponent, aren't exactly close personal friends.
- HB2707, veto, general fund revenue limit
- HB2335, enacted, making some changes to ballots for presidential and vice-presidential candidates (NOT a birther bill). An imperfect bill, but she signed it anyway, saying that sponsor Jack Harper has promised to run a bill making corrections next session in time for the fall election.
- HB2177, veto, a birther bill. Possibly the most surprising veto in the bunch. Look for an "after-birther" bill next year, just in time for the presidential election.
- HB2700, veto, creating an 11th paid holiday for state employees. Once every hundred years.
- SB1525, enacted, limiting the ability of municipalities to impose and collect development fees
- SB1186, veto, a "tax corrections" bill. An annual bill to simply sync up state tax laws with federal tax laws, it was hijacked by Sen. Steve Yarbrough with an amendment that added language expanding the state's school tuition tax credits.
- HB2577/SB1561, veto, taking the ability to allocate certain federal funds away from the governor and giving it to the legislature. Turf protection. Not sure why the lege passed this one twice in one session. Maybe they think she's dumber than they are and wouldn't notice (I may not agree on almost anything with her, and she isn't exactly the most intellectually impressive member of the Arizona political world, but she *has* been in one office or another for over two decades. She's got to have something going for her.)
This isn't a complete list of vetoes or enactments, but one can be found here on the lege's website. Right now, it doesn't include Friday's bill dispositions. It should be updated on Monday, however.
In addition, any remaining bills outstanding have to be vetoed/signed no later than Monday, otherwise they become law without the governor's signature.
Later...
While she usually lists technical reasons for her veto of a bill, her real reasons for vetoes usually boil down to either payback for past conflicts (see the linked story regarding her veto of SB1322) or protecting the turf of the governor from legislative encroachment.
From an Arizona Republic article by Alia Beard Rau and Jim Walsh -
Gov. Jan Brewer closed out this year's legislative session with a flurry of vetoes, nearly doubling what she blocked last year.The 9/11 bill is HB2230; the fireworks bill is SB1379; the "put the screws to county employees" bill is HB2650.
She issued a total of 29 vetoes, 14 of them coming at nearly 8 p.m. Friday night. She signed 357 bills into law.
Among her Friday night vetoes: a bill that would have required cities to allow the sale of fireworks during certain weeks of the year, one that would have removed 11 phrases from the state's 9/11 memorial and one that would have allowed most of the state's counties to turn many of its workers into at-will employees.
AZBlueMeanie at Blog for Arizona has some good insight on the enactment of SB1333 here. It's one of Sen. Frank Antenori's "I hate Tucson, even though I represent part of it" bills. He has the info on many changes to election law here.
Dave Safier of BfA offers his perspective on two of Brewer's vetoes here.
Some of Brewer's veto/signing letters for specific bills (not just those dealt with Friday) include -
- SB1593, veto, health insurance, interstate purchase
- SB1088, veto, interstate compact, health care. Turf protection - it mandated something to the governor.
- SB1322, veto, privatizing city services in Phoenix and Tucson (Brewer listed some valid reasons for her veto, but the Republic's Mary Jo Pitzl points out the fact that Brewer and Phoenix City Council member Sal DiCiccio, the bill's main proponent, aren't exactly close personal friends.
- HB2707, veto, general fund revenue limit
- HB2335, enacted, making some changes to ballots for presidential and vice-presidential candidates (NOT a birther bill). An imperfect bill, but she signed it anyway, saying that sponsor Jack Harper has promised to run a bill making corrections next session in time for the fall election.
- HB2177, veto, a birther bill. Possibly the most surprising veto in the bunch. Look for an "after-birther" bill next year, just in time for the presidential election.
- HB2700, veto, creating an 11th paid holiday for state employees. Once every hundred years.
- SB1525, enacted, limiting the ability of municipalities to impose and collect development fees
- SB1186, veto, a "tax corrections" bill. An annual bill to simply sync up state tax laws with federal tax laws, it was hijacked by Sen. Steve Yarbrough with an amendment that added language expanding the state's school tuition tax credits.
- HB2577/SB1561, veto, taking the ability to allocate certain federal funds away from the governor and giving it to the legislature. Turf protection. Not sure why the lege passed this one twice in one session. Maybe they think she's dumber than they are and wouldn't notice (I may not agree on almost anything with her, and she isn't exactly the most intellectually impressive member of the Arizona political world, but she *has* been in one office or another for over two decades. She's got to have something going for her.)
This isn't a complete list of vetoes or enactments, but one can be found here on the lege's website. Right now, it doesn't include Friday's bill dispositions. It should be updated on Monday, however.
In addition, any remaining bills outstanding have to be vetoed/signed no later than Monday, otherwise they become law without the governor's signature.
Later...
2011 Netroots Nation: scholarship help needed
Netroots Nation, the biggest event of the year for progressive activists, is taking place June 16 - 19 in Minneapolis. Thousands of grassroots activists from all over the country will gather to teach and learn from each other. They will exchange ideas and knowledge and simply network with other activists who are dedicated using online work to influence public debate and effect change in the offline world.
One of the sponsors of the gathering, Democracy for America, is offering a number of scholarships to the event to assist activists who want to attend but may not enough personal resources available for the trip.
Two of my friends, local activists Diane Palmer and Lauren Kuby, honored me by nominating me for a scholarship, and I have been humbled by the outpouring of support and votes by friends, family and even people that I've never met but who are regular readers.
I've been saying "WOW" a lot today.
Even if the scholarship doesn't happen (and there are a lot of worthy candidates for just a few scholarships), I've learned that what I've observed and studied and communicated and, on more than one occasion, just simply vented, is appreciated and respected by people who I appreciate and respect.
That's truly the most humbling aspect of this, and regardless of the results of this, I am incredibly grateful to Diane, Lauren, and everyone else who has supported and voted for my application.
Now for the "shameless begging" part -
They and I need your help too. The voting closes at 11:59 p.m. (EDT) and as many votes as possible are needed. Please go to my DFA application page and cast a vote for my candidacy.
While this has been a humbling experience (in a very good way), a trip to Minneapolis will be even more humbling -
A couple of friends live live in MN, and I *may* have, on occasion (not more than one or two..OK...one or two *dozen* times), in totally respectful and harmless jest, have mentioned something about MN being a place that has two seasons - "Winter" and "Road Repair." And about how "Road Repair" season lasts less than a month.
I'm pretty sure I'm going to hear about this whole "working to visit Minnesota" thing. Loudly. :)
Thanks everyone!
One of the sponsors of the gathering, Democracy for America, is offering a number of scholarships to the event to assist activists who want to attend but may not enough personal resources available for the trip.
Two of my friends, local activists Diane Palmer and Lauren Kuby, honored me by nominating me for a scholarship, and I have been humbled by the outpouring of support and votes by friends, family and even people that I've never met but who are regular readers.
I've been saying "WOW" a lot today.
Even if the scholarship doesn't happen (and there are a lot of worthy candidates for just a few scholarships), I've learned that what I've observed and studied and communicated and, on more than one occasion, just simply vented, is appreciated and respected by people who I appreciate and respect.
That's truly the most humbling aspect of this, and regardless of the results of this, I am incredibly grateful to Diane, Lauren, and everyone else who has supported and voted for my application.
Now for the "shameless begging" part -
They and I need your help too. The voting closes at 11:59 p.m. (EDT) and as many votes as possible are needed. Please go to my DFA application page and cast a vote for my candidacy.
While this has been a humbling experience (in a very good way), a trip to Minneapolis will be even more humbling -
A couple of friends live live in MN, and I *may* have, on occasion (not more than one or two..OK...one or two *dozen* times), in totally respectful and harmless jest, have mentioned something about MN being a place that has two seasons - "Winter" and "Road Repair." And about how "Road Repair" season lasts less than a month.
I'm pretty sure I'm going to hear about this whole "working to visit Minnesota" thing. Loudly. :)
Thanks everyone!
Friday, April 29, 2011
Event: Immigration: Myths and Misconceptions
Info courtesy the LD8 Democrats:
Immigration: Myths and Misconceptions. A Community Forum
(45 minutes of panel discussion followed by 45 minutes of Q & A)
When?
Tuesday, May 3rd at 6:30pm (doors open at 6:00)
Where?
Scottsdale Community College: Student Center, Turquoise Room
(Just East of the Loop 101 at Chaparral)
Please park in Lot A
Who? (The Panelists)
Alfredo Gutierrez: Former AZ State Senator, radio host
John Loredo: Former AZ State Representative
Todd Landfried: Spokesman, Arizona Employers for Immigration Reform
Lisa Urias: President/CEO at Urias Communications
Terry Greene Sterling: Journalist and Author
Ezequiel Hernandez Immigration Attorney, VP of Somos America
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Tobin in as AZ House speaker, Adams out and running for Congress
In a bit of a surprise (to me, anyway), Rep. Andy Tobin (R-LD1) was elected Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives.
From the Arizona Republic story written by Mary Jo Pitzl -
However, the election of Rep. Steve Court as Majority Leader does maintain the rural/urban balance.
The election of Tobin does signal one thing:
Arizona will continue to be the country's embarrassment.
From the press release emailed by the Republican House caucus -
We have a Yankees fan in high public office.
...So sayeth the lifelong Red Sox fan... :))
From the Arizona Republic story written by Mary Jo Pitzl -
The Arizona House of Representativesgot a new leadership lineup Thursday when members elected Rep. Andy Tobin, R-Paulden, as speaker and Republicans chose Rep. Steve Court, R-Mesa as their majority leader.The reason that I was a a little surprised by Tobin's elevation to the speaker's post isn't that I think he is less qualified than the other Republicans (hey - I'm a Democrat, so I think *all* of the Rs are unqualified for the job :) ), but he's a rural Republican, and generally, the center of Republican power in AZ is Maricopa County. The House hasn't had a Speaker from a rural district since the late Jake Flake in 2003/2004.
Tobin replaces Kirk Adams, who resigned from the House and promptly announced his bid for an open congressional seat in the southeast Valley. Adams revealed U.S. Sen. Jon Kyl as his honorary campaign chairman.
However, the election of Rep. Steve Court as Majority Leader does maintain the rural/urban balance.
The election of Tobin does signal one thing:
Arizona will continue to be the country's embarrassment.
From the press release emailed by the Republican House caucus -
Last – but certainly not least – Speaker Tobin is a devoted Yankee’s [sic] fan...So, in addition to the anti-immigrant hysteria, the pro-gun fetishism, the "birther" insanity, and more abominations, Arizona has now solidified its position as the America's shame -
We have a Yankees fan in high public office.
...So sayeth the lifelong Red Sox fan... :))
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Schweikert two-stepping all over his constituents
From an op-ed written by Congressman David Schweikert and published in the East Valley Tribune on March 11, 2011 -
At a police station in Tempe.
Just guessing here, but if his rationale behind meeting with the residents of CD5 while surrounded by the police is to intimidate dissenters from attending, perhaps he should reexamine his reasoning - his tea party supporters are the ones who think that "disorderly conduct" and "public discourse" are synonymous.
Trying to hide from legitimate dissent by hiding in a police station will only accomplish two things -
1. His most ardent supporters will have to stay away for fear of picking up a charge or two, which would hurt Schweikert's reelection chances - if you get convicted of a felony in AZ, you lose your voting rights unless they are restored.
2. His strongest dissenters, who tend to know a few things about how to conduct themselves in public and can make their points without getting arrested, will have an easy time locating him.
They're not going to find it difficult to find him and make him aware of their displeasure at the way he has thrown the nation's, and the district's, seniors under the bus.
Still, this whole "first step one way then step the other way" routine is good basic training for his post-Congress gig -
A third-tier celebrity also-ran on "Dancing With The Stars."
"I remain committed, as I have always been, to protecting seniors..."From Section 501 of H. Con. Res. 34 (page 58 of the linked .pdf), aka "the Ryan budget" that Schweikert voted for a little more than a month later, April 15, 2011 -
(2) For future generations, when they reach eligibility, Medicare is reformed to provide a premium support payment and a selection of guaranteed health coverage options from which recipients can choose a plan that best suits their needs.Schweikert is holding a "listening session" today.
At a police station in Tempe.
Just guessing here, but if his rationale behind meeting with the residents of CD5 while surrounded by the police is to intimidate dissenters from attending, perhaps he should reexamine his reasoning - his tea party supporters are the ones who think that "disorderly conduct" and "public discourse" are synonymous.
Trying to hide from legitimate dissent by hiding in a police station will only accomplish two things -
1. His most ardent supporters will have to stay away for fear of picking up a charge or two, which would hurt Schweikert's reelection chances - if you get convicted of a felony in AZ, you lose your voting rights unless they are restored.
2. His strongest dissenters, who tend to know a few things about how to conduct themselves in public and can make their points without getting arrested, will have an easy time locating him.
They're not going to find it difficult to find him and make him aware of their displeasure at the way he has thrown the nation's, and the district's, seniors under the bus.
Still, this whole "first step one way then step the other way" routine is good basic training for his post-Congress gig -
A third-tier celebrity also-ran on "Dancing With The Stars."
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Adams resigning as House Speaker
From the Arizona Republic -
Things *could* get interesting if Adams tries to hang on to his House seat - while Arizona's "resign-to-run" law is all but toothless, it could still impact his ability to raise money between now and the beginning of 2012.
I expect that he will ultimately resign from the House, not just give up his speakership, because regardless of what the district maps look like, he is likely to face significant primary opposition for the open seat.
He's smart enough to know better than to give the other candidates a big head start, and the duties of even a rank-and-file member of the legislature could get in the way of serious campaigning.
Anyway, House Republicans are expected to choose Adams' successor as speaker on Thursday. The Republic article speculated that they will choose either Rep. John Kavanagh (R-LD8), chair of House Appropriations, or Rep. Eddie Farnsworth (R-LD22). Two other names that could possibly percolate in watercooler talk are Reps. Andy Tobin (R-LD1), the current House majority leader or Jim Weiers (R-LD10), a former speaker.
Still, the Republic's speculation is probably in the ballpark - both Kavanagh and Farnsworth are viewed as ambitious, having aspirations to higher office. A speakership entry on the political resume could definitely help either one in that regard.
Later...
State House Speaker Kirk Adams will leave the chamber's top leadership post, his spokesman said Tuesday, and representatives will pick a new speaker to serve out the rest of Adams' two-year term.The move isn't really a surprise, as the worst-kept secret in Arizona politics is that Adams is going to run for Congress next year.
Adams did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but spokesman Daniel Scarpinato confirmed that Adams planned to step down as speaker Thursday.
Scarpinato declined to say whether Adams also plans to resign his state House seat.
Things *could* get interesting if Adams tries to hang on to his House seat - while Arizona's "resign-to-run" law is all but toothless, it could still impact his ability to raise money between now and the beginning of 2012.
I expect that he will ultimately resign from the House, not just give up his speakership, because regardless of what the district maps look like, he is likely to face significant primary opposition for the open seat.
He's smart enough to know better than to give the other candidates a big head start, and the duties of even a rank-and-file member of the legislature could get in the way of serious campaigning.
Anyway, House Republicans are expected to choose Adams' successor as speaker on Thursday. The Republic article speculated that they will choose either Rep. John Kavanagh (R-LD8), chair of House Appropriations, or Rep. Eddie Farnsworth (R-LD22). Two other names that could possibly percolate in watercooler talk are Reps. Andy Tobin (R-LD1), the current House majority leader or Jim Weiers (R-LD10), a former speaker.
Still, the Republic's speculation is probably in the ballpark - both Kavanagh and Farnsworth are viewed as ambitious, having aspirations to higher office. A speakership entry on the political resume could definitely help either one in that regard.
Later...
Monday, April 25, 2011
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Time to update the Arizona constitution: A few modest proposals
This state is in serious trouble, the kind of trouble that won't be cleaned up for generations (if ever) and even then only if we started in on the mess right now.
And, pardon my cynicism, I don't expect that to happen anytime soon.
As much as I would like to lay the blame for the mess we're in at the feet of the Republicans in the legislature (and their ideological and corporate masters), they're just a particularly odious symptom of the greater issue.
Voter apathy.
Too many voters don't pay attention to politics or the actions and votes of elected officials until an election is nigh by which time, the rhetoric is less about a calm and honest discussion of facts and more about people screaming into a TV camera - "MY CANDIDATE WALKS ON WATER!" "NO HE DOESN'T! HE KICKS KITTENS AND DROWNS PUPPIES! - and most casual observers (and many not-so-casual ones, too) are thoroughly turned off and angry.
They look for someone to blame, and end up voting for whichever candidates or party provides them with a bumpersticker-simple slogan that best expresses/stokes their anger, and gives them a convenient target or two to direct their anger toward (i.e. - Russell Pearce, Jan Brewer, John Kavanagh, et. al. and their targeting of immigrants in general and Mexicans in particular).
As such, we end up with a legislature like the one that recently adjourned - corrupt, bigoted, and absolutely opposed to responsible governance. I'd call it the most craven Arizona legislature ever, but something tells me that this was just a warm up for next year.
I freely admit that it will take someone brighter than me to figure out how to crack the voter apathy problem, but I do have a few ideas for reining in the baser urges of Pearce et. al. and their future equivalents
FIrst up, the BIG ONE: Fiscal Responsibility and Stability
This is an iffy one because it relies on the same voters I've just criticized for apathy, but it's necessary.
1. The voters need to temporarily suspend the provision in Article 9, Section 22 of the Arizona Constitution that requires a 2/3 vote of the legislature to raise taxes. When it is re-implemented, it should be with a matching provision that would require a similar 2/3 vote by the legislature to do anything that reduces state revenue, being through repeals, rate reductions, credits, incentives, or whatever.
Simply put, even the "good" members of the legislature are rank amateurs who are heavily influenced by the pressures and vagaries of short-term political need and almost always forego proposals and plans that involve incurring near-term costs while reaping long-term benefits.
It should not be easy to raise taxes (hence the temporary suspension, not a permanent repeal), but that 2/3 provision has been used cripple the state's fiscal stability. For more than a generation, the state's Republicans have lowered taxes, particularly for the wealthy and corporations, via a simple majority vote, but a small cadre of ideologues has used the 2/3 provision to block any attempts to correct the state's fiscal and revenue situation.
Finally, to make this work, the voters will need to elect Democrats for at least the four years of the suspension. Some will say that is just my partisanship speaking, but in this case, my thinking is rooted in simple political reality.
It will take at least 47 members (31 House, 16 Senate) to make up the legislative majority needed to do this, and there aren't 47 Republicans in the state with the juice to make it through a primary and the spine to do what's right for the state, much less 47 who'll stand for office.
In very practical terms, the Democrats are needed.
2. Related to #1, the voters should pass a referendum to require that each and every current legislatively-granted tax credit, reduction, deduction, etc. be referred to the voters over the following three election cycles. If a particular provision isn't approved by the voters, whether through direct disapproval or because it didn't go before the voters, that provision ceases to exist. The recipients of special interest tax breaks would have to stand before hundreds of thousands of voters to justify their special treatment, not just slip a fewbribes campaign contributions and "educational trips" to a few lawmakers.
Other provisions (some could be done in statute, but others would have be be changes to the AZ Constitution) -
- When speaking or writing or otherwise communicating on public matters, all elected officials and all active candidates for office should be considered to be under oath until Election day (if they lose the election) or until the end of their terms (if they win). Too much bad public policy is justified on the basis of propaganda and outright lies.
Violations would result in a perjury charge, and conviction on that charge would result in removal from office (or removal from the ballot, in the case of candidates) and ineligibility for elected office for the next two complete election cycles.
- Any measures passed during "special" sessions need a 2/3 vote of each chamber to pass
- Appropriations and revenue bills cannot be considered or passed during "special" sessions of the lege.
- The budget must be balanced and passed by the end of the first business day in April. If it isn't balanced and passed by then, all consideration of non-budget measures is suspended until it is done.
- If it isn't complete by the end of the first business day in May, all consideration of non-budget measures ceases for the duration of the legislative session.
- If the budget isn't complete - balanced, passed, and signed into law - by the end of the first business day of June, the governor and the 90 members of the legislature shall be incarcerated until a balanced budget is passed and enacted. They will be held in a temporary holding facility constructed on the grounds of the Capitol Mall.
Think Arpaio's tent city, just without the creature comforts, and located at Wesley Bolin Plaza. And with bleachers set up outside the fence so that the public has the opportunity to observe the legislature in its natural environment. :))
I figure they hold out for a maximum of three nights, spent try to get some sleep while learning which of the Weiers brothers snores the loudest and trying to ignore the wonderful aroma from the bank of porta-potties wafting through the tent. :)
- With the exception of ballot referrals specifically required by the voters (such as the affirmation/overturning of special interest tax breaks above), the legislature shall refer no more than five measures to the ballot in any one two-year period, including measures for which a special election is called.
- "Emergency" measures, those that go into effect immediately upon the signature of the governor, currently require a 2/3 vote of each chamber to enact the "emergency" clause. Unfortunately, the word "emergency" has changed in meaning to that of "politically expedient."
Witness HB2191, a bill to bar the award of punitive damages to undocumented immigrants.
It was designed to protect a specific rancher who unlawfully held a number of immigrants at gunpoint and was later ordered to pay damages. This concept deeply offended the nativists in the legislature, and they used their positions to railroad through this bill in time to exempt the rancher from having to actually pay his debt.
Because of the abuse of the "emergency" clause, it's time to move the enactment threshold to a 3/4 vote. If the abuse continues, we'll have to move the threshold to a unanimous vote.
- No "suspension of the rules" regarding time requirements would be allowed during special sessions. Under most circumstances, it takes at least three days to pass a measure. However, by a 2/3 vote, the rules, such as those requiring a certain amount of notice before a bill can be considered, can be suspended. Too many bad bills have been all-but-completely-hidden from public view and input by passing them during one day special sessions.
- In cases where a legislator invokes or is granted immunity from arrest for an act committed during the legislative session, the prosecution "process clock" (the best term this non-attorney can come up with) is suspended for the duration of the legislative session. In most cases, prosecutors have a limited amount of time to bring a case forward and losing 2, 3, or even 4 months to inaction because of "legislative immunity" can potentially impact their ability to seek justice. Prosecutors with a legitimate case should not be penalized because a defendant is an elected official.
Yes, this is squarely pointed at Sen. Scott Bundgaard's domestic abuse incident.
- If the legislature passes and the governor signs or otherwise allows to become law a measure that is later overturned in federal or state court as unconstitutional, the legislators who voted for the measure and the governor shall be personally liable for the costs that the state incurred defending the measure. A "good faith" exception would be made for measures that garnered at least a 3/4 vote in each chamber of the legislature.
- Measures cannot be considered by the legislature between the hours of 9 p.m and 7 a.m...this is one that I believe that most sitting legislators won't have an objection to...Particularly ones who have experienced one or more of the lege's infamous overnight sessions.
- Lastly (for now), ethics and corruption laws would be significantly, even harshly, tightened up. The lobbyist gift limit, currently set at $10, would become zero. Meals, even those offered to every legislator, would be disallowed. Inducements, such as trips and junkets, even "educational" ones, would be completely barred.
Violations would be Class Two felonies for both the givers and the recipients. Convictions would carry a minimum sentence of five years in state prison per violation, and the terms for multiple offenses would have to be served consecutively.
It's one thing to disagree with an elected official on policy matters - it's politics, and politcs is all about disagreement. If someone can't accept that with at least a little aplomb and maturity, they should consider staying away from politics entirely.
However, it's another thing entirely when the elected officials involved have no credibility because people have evidence that the electeds are dirty, crafting public policy based on "inducements" (aka - "bribes") from special interests.
Right now, Arizona government in general, and the state legislature in particular, is viewed as unprofessional, petty, and corrupt.
It's long past time to restore the honor and credibility of state government, even if the participants don't like it...and trust me, they won't.
...Thank you for allowing me to vent. I'm under no illusions here - most of these ideas have no chance of ever becoming law. However, one of my reasons for starting the blog was to serve as an outlet for expressions of frustration with what is wrong with Arizona.
After watching this legislature in action since January, some frustration has built up.
And, pardon my cynicism, I don't expect that to happen anytime soon.
As much as I would like to lay the blame for the mess we're in at the feet of the Republicans in the legislature (and their ideological and corporate masters), they're just a particularly odious symptom of the greater issue.
Voter apathy.
Too many voters don't pay attention to politics or the actions and votes of elected officials until an election is nigh by which time, the rhetoric is less about a calm and honest discussion of facts and more about people screaming into a TV camera - "MY CANDIDATE WALKS ON WATER!" "NO HE DOESN'T! HE KICKS KITTENS AND DROWNS PUPPIES! - and most casual observers (and many not-so-casual ones, too) are thoroughly turned off and angry.
They look for someone to blame, and end up voting for whichever candidates or party provides them with a bumpersticker-simple slogan that best expresses/stokes their anger, and gives them a convenient target or two to direct their anger toward (i.e. - Russell Pearce, Jan Brewer, John Kavanagh, et. al. and their targeting of immigrants in general and Mexicans in particular).
As such, we end up with a legislature like the one that recently adjourned - corrupt, bigoted, and absolutely opposed to responsible governance. I'd call it the most craven Arizona legislature ever, but something tells me that this was just a warm up for next year.
I freely admit that it will take someone brighter than me to figure out how to crack the voter apathy problem, but I do have a few ideas for reining in the baser urges of Pearce et. al. and their future equivalents
FIrst up, the BIG ONE: Fiscal Responsibility and Stability
This is an iffy one because it relies on the same voters I've just criticized for apathy, but it's necessary.
1. The voters need to temporarily suspend the provision in Article 9, Section 22 of the Arizona Constitution that requires a 2/3 vote of the legislature to raise taxes. When it is re-implemented, it should be with a matching provision that would require a similar 2/3 vote by the legislature to do anything that reduces state revenue, being through repeals, rate reductions, credits, incentives, or whatever.
Simply put, even the "good" members of the legislature are rank amateurs who are heavily influenced by the pressures and vagaries of short-term political need and almost always forego proposals and plans that involve incurring near-term costs while reaping long-term benefits.
It should not be easy to raise taxes (hence the temporary suspension, not a permanent repeal), but that 2/3 provision has been used cripple the state's fiscal stability. For more than a generation, the state's Republicans have lowered taxes, particularly for the wealthy and corporations, via a simple majority vote, but a small cadre of ideologues has used the 2/3 provision to block any attempts to correct the state's fiscal and revenue situation.
Finally, to make this work, the voters will need to elect Democrats for at least the four years of the suspension. Some will say that is just my partisanship speaking, but in this case, my thinking is rooted in simple political reality.
It will take at least 47 members (31 House, 16 Senate) to make up the legislative majority needed to do this, and there aren't 47 Republicans in the state with the juice to make it through a primary and the spine to do what's right for the state, much less 47 who'll stand for office.
In very practical terms, the Democrats are needed.
2. Related to #1, the voters should pass a referendum to require that each and every current legislatively-granted tax credit, reduction, deduction, etc. be referred to the voters over the following three election cycles. If a particular provision isn't approved by the voters, whether through direct disapproval or because it didn't go before the voters, that provision ceases to exist. The recipients of special interest tax breaks would have to stand before hundreds of thousands of voters to justify their special treatment, not just slip a few
Other provisions (some could be done in statute, but others would have be be changes to the AZ Constitution) -
- When speaking or writing or otherwise communicating on public matters, all elected officials and all active candidates for office should be considered to be under oath until Election day (if they lose the election) or until the end of their terms (if they win). Too much bad public policy is justified on the basis of propaganda and outright lies.
Violations would result in a perjury charge, and conviction on that charge would result in removal from office (or removal from the ballot, in the case of candidates) and ineligibility for elected office for the next two complete election cycles.
- Any measures passed during "special" sessions need a 2/3 vote of each chamber to pass
- Appropriations and revenue bills cannot be considered or passed during "special" sessions of the lege.
- The budget must be balanced and passed by the end of the first business day in April. If it isn't balanced and passed by then, all consideration of non-budget measures is suspended until it is done.
- If it isn't complete by the end of the first business day in May, all consideration of non-budget measures ceases for the duration of the legislative session.
- If the budget isn't complete - balanced, passed, and signed into law - by the end of the first business day of June, the governor and the 90 members of the legislature shall be incarcerated until a balanced budget is passed and enacted. They will be held in a temporary holding facility constructed on the grounds of the Capitol Mall.
Think Arpaio's tent city, just without the creature comforts, and located at Wesley Bolin Plaza. And with bleachers set up outside the fence so that the public has the opportunity to observe the legislature in its natural environment. :))
I figure they hold out for a maximum of three nights, spent try to get some sleep while learning which of the Weiers brothers snores the loudest and trying to ignore the wonderful aroma from the bank of porta-potties wafting through the tent. :)
- With the exception of ballot referrals specifically required by the voters (such as the affirmation/overturning of special interest tax breaks above), the legislature shall refer no more than five measures to the ballot in any one two-year period, including measures for which a special election is called.
- "Emergency" measures, those that go into effect immediately upon the signature of the governor, currently require a 2/3 vote of each chamber to enact the "emergency" clause. Unfortunately, the word "emergency" has changed in meaning to that of "politically expedient."
Witness HB2191, a bill to bar the award of punitive damages to undocumented immigrants.
It was designed to protect a specific rancher who unlawfully held a number of immigrants at gunpoint and was later ordered to pay damages. This concept deeply offended the nativists in the legislature, and they used their positions to railroad through this bill in time to exempt the rancher from having to actually pay his debt.
Because of the abuse of the "emergency" clause, it's time to move the enactment threshold to a 3/4 vote. If the abuse continues, we'll have to move the threshold to a unanimous vote.
- No "suspension of the rules" regarding time requirements would be allowed during special sessions. Under most circumstances, it takes at least three days to pass a measure. However, by a 2/3 vote, the rules, such as those requiring a certain amount of notice before a bill can be considered, can be suspended. Too many bad bills have been all-but-completely-hidden from public view and input by passing them during one day special sessions.
- In cases where a legislator invokes or is granted immunity from arrest for an act committed during the legislative session, the prosecution "process clock" (the best term this non-attorney can come up with) is suspended for the duration of the legislative session. In most cases, prosecutors have a limited amount of time to bring a case forward and losing 2, 3, or even 4 months to inaction because of "legislative immunity" can potentially impact their ability to seek justice. Prosecutors with a legitimate case should not be penalized because a defendant is an elected official.
Yes, this is squarely pointed at Sen. Scott Bundgaard's domestic abuse incident.
- If the legislature passes and the governor signs or otherwise allows to become law a measure that is later overturned in federal or state court as unconstitutional, the legislators who voted for the measure and the governor shall be personally liable for the costs that the state incurred defending the measure. A "good faith" exception would be made for measures that garnered at least a 3/4 vote in each chamber of the legislature.
- Measures cannot be considered by the legislature between the hours of 9 p.m and 7 a.m...this is one that I believe that most sitting legislators won't have an objection to...Particularly ones who have experienced one or more of the lege's infamous overnight sessions.
- Lastly (for now), ethics and corruption laws would be significantly, even harshly, tightened up. The lobbyist gift limit, currently set at $10, would become zero. Meals, even those offered to every legislator, would be disallowed. Inducements, such as trips and junkets, even "educational" ones, would be completely barred.
Violations would be Class Two felonies for both the givers and the recipients. Convictions would carry a minimum sentence of five years in state prison per violation, and the terms for multiple offenses would have to be served consecutively.
It's one thing to disagree with an elected official on policy matters - it's politics, and politcs is all about disagreement. If someone can't accept that with at least a little aplomb and maturity, they should consider staying away from politics entirely.
However, it's another thing entirely when the elected officials involved have no credibility because people have evidence that the electeds are dirty, crafting public policy based on "inducements" (aka - "bribes") from special interests.
Right now, Arizona government in general, and the state legislature in particular, is viewed as unprofessional, petty, and corrupt.
It's long past time to restore the honor and credibility of state government, even if the participants don't like it...and trust me, they won't.
...Thank you for allowing me to vent. I'm under no illusions here - most of these ideas have no chance of ever becoming law. However, one of my reasons for starting the blog was to serve as an outlet for expressions of frustration with what is wrong with Arizona.
After watching this legislature in action since January, some frustration has built up.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Coming Attractions: A "special" session of the legislature to turn every state job into a political patronage job
On Friday's edition of Horizon on PBS, three Capitol beat journalists - Howie Fischer (Capitol Media Services), Ginger Rough (Arizona Republic), and Dennis Welch (Arizona Guardian) - discussed the final hours of the legislative session and made one prediction:
Later this year, perhaps in the fall, there will be a special session of the legislature to pass Jan Brewer's scheme to remove the few civil service protections accorded to Arizona state employees.
Brewer was hot to get her proposal passed during the waning moments of the legislative session, to take some of the GOTP thunder from Wisconsin's Scott Walker, who has been on his own anti-worker jihad.
The video archive for the show isn't available as yet, but when it is, it should be here. The Arizona Capitol Times has a full story here. That story is behind a subscription paywall, and is chock full o'blather from the likes of Jan Brewer, Russell Pearce and Kirk Adams about how the proposal is really isn't about attacking workers and making them political slaves to Brewer et, al., but is all about helping the economy and weeding out bad employees, but not about undermining the effectiveness of government agencies or simple base patronage. Here is the money quote:
Well, I probably shouldn't do this, but for them, and you, here's a sneak preview of the main rhetorical thrust of the posts that will go up when they pass this scheme (and it surely will pass):
The have removed the due process protection of right to a trial by jury for those accused of misdemeanor DUI, and now they wish to remove the due process protections for those accused of nothing more than doing their jobs while not being cozy enough with elected officials, lobbyists, or other political hacks.
They should be careful what they wish for.
This is the same group of legislators who take bribes from the Fiesta Bowl, proclaim themselves above the laws that the rest of us live by when they carry guns while parading around public buildings and are simply beyond the law even after assaulting their girlfriends by the side of the freeway.
Weakening due process might not be the brightest idea for this bunch.
Later this year, perhaps in the fall, there will be a special session of the legislature to pass Jan Brewer's scheme to remove the few civil service protections accorded to Arizona state employees.
Brewer was hot to get her proposal passed during the waning moments of the legislative session, to take some of the GOTP thunder from Wisconsin's Scott Walker, who has been on his own anti-worker jihad.
The video archive for the show isn't available as yet, but when it is, it should be here. The Arizona Capitol Times has a full story here. That story is behind a subscription paywall, and is chock full o'blather from the likes of Jan Brewer, Russell Pearce and Kirk Adams about how the proposal is really isn't about attacking workers and making them political slaves to Brewer et, al., but is all about helping the economy and weeding out bad employees, but not about undermining the effectiveness of government agencies or simple base patronage. Here is the money quote:
Pearce said the plan would allow the state to hire good employees and get rid of bad ones more quickly.That from the same Russell Pearce who was fired, by a REPUBLICAN governor, as head of the Motor Vehicles Divsion (MVD), after, among other things, hiring one of his sons to work there. A son who was later caught issuing false IDs for his friends.
“It’s a great thing to hire at-will,” he said. “All it is, is efficiency in government."
Well, I probably shouldn't do this, but for them, and you, here's a sneak preview of the main rhetorical thrust of the posts that will go up when they pass this scheme (and it surely will pass):
The have removed the due process protection of right to a trial by jury for those accused of misdemeanor DUI, and now they wish to remove the due process protections for those accused of nothing more than doing their jobs while not being cozy enough with elected officials, lobbyists, or other political hacks.
They should be careful what they wish for.
This is the same group of legislators who take bribes from the Fiesta Bowl, proclaim themselves above the laws that the rest of us live by when they carry guns while parading around public buildings and are simply beyond the law even after assaulting their girlfriends by the side of the freeway.
Weakening due process might not be the brightest idea for this bunch.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Russell Pearce: A flexible man...with the truth anyway.
After the Fiesta Bowl released the report of its internal investigation into illegal campaign contributions and gifts of trips to football games to elected officials, one of the biggest names in the report, State Sen. Russell "The Law Is The Law" Pearce loudly and repeatedly proclaimed his innocence and purity in the matter, sticking to the story that he actually paid for his own tickets and that he had receipts to prove it.
Of course, he never actually produced those receipts.
As such, today's news in the Arizona Capitol Times didn't come as a surprise to most observers.
From the story by Jeremy Duda (subscription required) -
Of course, he never actually produced those receipts.
As such, today's news in the Arizona Capitol Times didn't come as a surprise to most observers.
From the story by Jeremy Duda (subscription required) -
Senate President Russell Pearce amended several years’ worth of financial disclosure reports to include Fiesta Bowl-sponsored trips, and repaid the bowl for several tickets. In a written statement, Pearce said today he repaid the Fiesta Bowl $272 for football game tickets.A complete AP story, written by Paul Davenport, is here.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
#SchweikertFail: Some things aren't dilemmas for true public servants
In baseball, some players are "batting practice heroes," and some are "gamers."
The same is true in politics - there are wannabes, who put on a spectacular show when it doesn't count, and there are actual public servants who do the work in the trenches of public policy, taking positions and casting votes that certain of their supporters won't like (and that they themselves may not particularly like), but that are in the best interests of their constituents.
Congressman David Schweikert is shaping up as a wannabe, not a real, public servant.
From the Washington Post -
He didn't necessarily like all of the votes, but he cast the votes he thought were necessary.
David Schweikert?
If he played baseball, he'd lead the league in batting practice homers.
The same is true in politics - there are wannabes, who put on a spectacular show when it doesn't count, and there are actual public servants who do the work in the trenches of public policy, taking positions and casting votes that certain of their supporters won't like (and that they themselves may not particularly like), but that are in the best interests of their constituents.
Congressman David Schweikert is shaping up as a wannabe, not a real, public servant.
From the Washington Post -
On his 104th day in office, Rep. David Schweikert stepped before about 60 of his constituents here and, like an economics professor, flipped through one scary chart after another to hammer home his point: America faces a tidal wave of debt.When Harry Mitchell was in Congress, there were a number of times when I disagreed with his votes on certain measures, but I never disagreed with his motivation for those votes - trying to find the best way to serve the interests of the people of the 5th Congressional District. He was willing to set aside his personal ideology to do what he thought was right by his constituents.
Then he asked for a show of hands: If you were a freshman congressman like him, would you vote to raise the government’s debt limit?
{snip}
This is his dilemma: He knows Congress has little choice but to raise the amount of money the government can borrow to prevent the economic havoc sure to follow if the United States defaults on its loans. He also knows doing so is deeply unpopular — not only among his conservative base, but among some moderates and liberals, too.
“I desperately want to vote ‘no,’ ” Schweikert said at the town hall. “I also desperately don’t want [the economy] to crash.”
If Schweikert finds himself in a difficult political spot, it’s partly of his own making. He and the scores of other Republicans who were elected last fall ran on an unyielding pledge to cut spending, reduce the nation’s debt and generally get the country’s finances in order, a mission that has been fully embraced by party leaders in Washington.
He didn't necessarily like all of the votes, but he cast the votes he thought were necessary.
David Schweikert?
If he played baseball, he'd lead the league in batting practice homers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)