Why don't they just pass a d@mn budget?

Earlier today, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 2560, the Republican posturing bill that sets an arbitrary cap on federal spending and mandates immediate cuts to spending on discretionary spending (mostly social programs and infrastructure spending).  In addition, H.R. 2560 mandates that the House and Senate approve a "balanced budget" amendment to the US Constitution before the debt ceiling can be raised. 

The bill passed by a vote that was almost completely along party lines.  All five AZ Republicans voted for the bill (all five were also cosponsors), while AZ Democrats Raul Grijalva and Ed Pastor opposed it, and Gabrielle Giffords was absent).

The "balanced budget" amendment measures mentioned are H.J. Res. 56, S.J. Res 10, and H.J. Res. 1.  All have a budget IMbalance clause in them - a requirement that measures that raise taxes or otherwise increase revenue need a 2/3 majority to pass each chamber of Congress.

That's the same clause that has destroyed fiscal stability in Arizona, California, and a number of other states.  It has very effectively blocked any moves to increase revenues, whether through tax rate hikes or through simple closure of loopholes, yet allows for the passage of practically permanent tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy.

All of this, including the brinkmanship over increasing the federal debt limit, is geared toward forcing a showdown over federal spending.

Except that the Republicans in the House are already in a position to cut spending any way they want, and have been since January.

Under Article 1, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution, the House controls the purse strings, and the Republicans control the House.

If they want to cut federal spending and decrease taxes, then they can just pass a budget with less spending and more tax cuts.

Of course, that would mean standing up and explaining why tax breaks for owners of corporate jets are more important than education, or why massive tax credits for oil companies are needed more than the infrastructure need to clean up the messes that oil companies leave wherever they go (like all over the Gulf Coast).

They don't want to do that - they've been getting their butts handed to them in special elections since they made it clear that their intent was to leverage their majority status in the US House into a complete dismantling of the country's social safety net.  They want to funnel  the public treasury away from the public and into corporate coffers, but they know if they are up front about that fact, they'll lose their jobs (and probably undercut the chances of a Republican winning the White House in 2012).

Hence, the scheme to distract people into swallowing cuts to Social Security (which has nothing to do with the budget, other than the annual siphoning of money from Social Security's trust fund into the general fund), Medicaid (which is funded by a special payroll tax) and education (which only secures the country's future, which is something that any government of any country is supposed to protect and nurture).

They're hoping to use the threat of economic armageddon brought on by a failure to increase the debt ceiling (something that even Ronald Reagan, the late Republican icon, thought was the responsible thig to do) to keep people focused on that issue instead of the gutting of America's social safety net and physical infrastructure.

I have no idea if the debt ceiling will actually be raised, but if it is, they'll wait until the last possible moment to do so.

And if it isn't, they'll blame President Obama for the Republican-engineered destruction of the economy.

Schweikert to hold foreclosure prevention workshop

Edited on 7/27 to reflect a change in location.  There are rumors that it may change again before the event takes place.  Check the latest entries in this blog before going out to the event...

...which would be fine in a "constituent services" sort of way, except no one is sure if the priority will be helping CD5 residents keep their homes, or helping "Foreclosure Dave" scope out future targets...

Courtesy the Republican site Intellectual Conservative Arizona, the details of the event -

When: Saturday, July 30, 2011
Time: 9:00 – 1:00 p.m.
Where:
Tempe Public Library
3500 S. Rural Rd.
Tempe, Arizona 85282

...While the pace of acquisitions and dispositions of foreclosd properties by Schweikert and his partners (through corporate entities Swartz and Brough, Sheridan Equities, and MasFundAZ) has slowed somewhat since the election, it *has* continued.

As have the neighborhood-blighting code violations at some of the properties they've grabbed up.

If you go, be cautious with how much information you give to the staffers at the event...

Time to support the independence of the "Independent" Redistricting Commission

With the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC) starting its series of public hearings around the state, look for the Republicans in the legislature to redouble their attempts to hijack the Commission, either through intimidation by tea party proxies or by direct legislative action.

There are at least a couple of things that people can do to combat the moves to subvert the independence of the AIRC -

1.  Go to a hearing.  Stand up and speak in support of the AIRC's independence, a fair, honest, and open process, and competitive districts.  And thank the members of the AIRC for their efforts and sacrifices on behalf of the future of the state.

2.  Talk to people.  Let your friends and neighbors know what is going on and why they should keep and eye on the goings-on with redistricting.  Write letters, to the editor of your local newspaper in order to reach out to a wider group of people, and to elected officials, in order to let them know that people are watching and they should just cut the crap*.

* = You probably shouldn't use the phrase "cut the crap."  That may reduce your credibility with the electeds.  Just sayin'... :)

I recently submitted a letter to the editors of the Arizona Republic.  Hopefully, they'll accept it for publication and do so this week.

I also sent a letter to Governor Brewer.  I doubt she'll be publishing it anytime soon, so here it is -

Governor Brewer,

I am writing to you today to urge you to respect in independence of the Independent Redistricting Commission. In addition, I urge you to use your influence to convince the members of the legislature to do the same.


When the voters passed Proposition 106 in November of 2000, they sent an overwhelming message that they want a fair, transparent, and nonpartisan process for Congressional and legislative redistricting, and a process that is NOT under the control of the partisan officeholders whose districts are being designed.


The recent attempts to both physically and politically intimidate the IRC by certain members of the state government clearly run counter to the voters' will.


Beside threatening the viability and effectiveness of the redistricting process (something that obviously doesn't bother certain people), these attempts to subvert the process will have another effect, one that those same people may not like - it will almost certainly contribute to Arizona remaining a "pre-clearance" state.


Some of the members of the Republican caucus in the legislature are pushing for a special session of the legislature be called so that they can remove the independent chair of the IRC, Colleen Mathis. I would remind you (and them) that there are clear and specific grounds for removal listed in the Arizona Constitution, and the chair hasn't even come close to violating any of them. However, I'm not naive. I undertand that considerations of practical politics hold greater sway at the Capitol than the simple ideals of fair play or respect for the will of the voters.


When those certain legislators pressure you to call a special session to serve their partisan interests, remind them that when you called a special session to change a single word in Arizona law that would have allowed thousands of Arizonans who have been most adversely affected by the current recession to collect a few more weeks of federally-funded unemployment benefits, they balked.

And they were rather shameless about it to boot.

Holding a special session now to railroad someone who has done nothing wrong would generate a PR nightmare of a magnitude that most of them have never witnessed, much less been a part of.

Whether it's for idealistic or practical reasons, standing up for the independence of the IRC is the politically wise thing to do.


Thank you for your time and consideration.


Regards,

[cpmaz]

Later...

Update: Campaign Committees

There have been a few developments on the 2012 campaign committee front since the last update.


...In the race for US Senate, Don Bivens, attorney and former chair of the Arizona Democratic Party, has formed a committee.  According to Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post's The Fix, the committee is an exploratory one, and Bivens has said that he will make a final decision on running around Labor Day.

...In legislative developments -

- Former state legislator David Bradley has formed an exploratory committee for a run for the Democratic nomination for LD28 state senate.

- Martin Quezada has formed an exploratory committee for a run for the Democratic nomination for LD13 state representative.

- Lorenzo Sierra Jr. has formed an exploratory committee for a run for the Democratic nomination for LD13 state representative.

- Michael Snitz has formed a committee for a run for the Democratic nomination for LD14 state representative.

Note:  all of the districts listed will change once the Independent Redistricting Commission puts together the new maps.

Active Congressional committee fundraising totals (April thru June) (incumbents italicized):

Raul Grijalva (D) - $88233 raised, $70724 on hand
Chuck Gray (R) - $3359 raised, $16443 on hand
Trent Franks (R) - $59507 raised, $41068 on hand, $372477 in debt
David Schweikert (R) - $2230 raised, $17881 on hand, $501800 in debt
David Schweikert (R) (2nd committee) - $250777 raised, $336262 on hand
Gabrielle Giffords (D) - $281177 raised, $787949 on hand
Travis Grantham (R) - $13300 raised, $13240 on hand
Kirk Adams (R) - $230525 raised, $209225 on hand
Ann Kirkpatrick (D) - $221289 raised, $215723 on hand
Paul Gosar (R) - $166544 raised, $138392 on hand
Ed Pastor (D) - $93158 raised, $1391488 on hand
Ben Quayle (R) - $282964 raised, $370277 on hand, $7487 in debt
Matt Salmon (R) - $162289 raised, $155744 on hand, $16889 in debt
Gabriela Saucedo Mercer (R) - $22397 raised, $21351 on hand, $485 in debt
Wenona Benally Baldenegro (D) - $8446 raised, $4603 on hand

Note: because incumbent US Representative Jeff Flake is now running for US Senate, his fundraising reports are not available online.

Note2: All numbers rounded to the nearest dollar.

Note3: I didn't list the district of the Congressional committees because those are going to change in a few months.

Observation:  Aren't the Republicans the ones who campaign on their opposition to debt?  Just sayin'...

- No changes in municipal campaign committees in Tempe and Scottsdale, though that should change soon - sources report that there is a poll in the field regarding the Tempe mayor's race. Some say it's a push poll, others say it's legit. I'm not a Tempe resident, so I didn't get the calls and cannot evaluate it directly.

Later...

Redistricting Commission outreach meetings/public hearings scheduled for locations around the state

The Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission is commencing its road tour, scheduling hearings in various locations around the state.  The list isn't complete yet, but here's what they have listed so far -

Thursday, July 21, 6 p.m. - South Mountain Community College, 7050 S. 24th St., Phoenix.  Room SU 100A

Friday, July 22, 6 p.m. - Nogales Unified School District Adminstrative Building/District Office, 310 Plum St., Nogales.  Anita Lichter Board Room.

Saturday, July 23, 1 p.m. - City of Yuma, with remote locations in San Luis and Parker (physical locations to be announced)

Monday, July 25, 6 p.m. - Mesa Convention Center, 263 N. Center St., Mesa.  Palo Verde III - Building B

Tuesday, July 26, 6 p.m. - Bullhead City Council Chambers, 1255 Marina Blvd., Bullhead City

Wednesday, July 27, 6 p.m. - Casa Grande City Council Chambers, 510 E. Florence Blvd., Casa Grande; remote location: (City of) Maricopa Unified School District Office Administration Building, 44150 W. Maricopa/Casa Grande Hwy, Maricopa.  Board Room

Thursday, July 28, 6 p.m. - Yavapai County Board of Supervisors Board Hearing Room, 1015 Fair St., Prescott; remote location: Yavapai County Cottonwood Annex, 10 S. 6th St., Cottonwood

Friday, July 29, 1 p.m. - Navajoland Inn & Suites (formerly Days Inn) Conference Room, 392 W. Hwy 264, St. Michaels

Saturday, July 30, 1 p.m. - Hon Dah Resort - Casino, 777 Hwy 260, Pinetop.  Mt. Baldy Room; remote locations: Holbrook City Council Chambers, 465 1st Ave., Holbrook and Winslow City Council Chambers, 115 E. 2nd St., Winslow

Monday, August 1, 6 p.m. - City of Flagstaff, with remote locations in Page and Tuba City (physical locations to be announced)

Tuesday, August 2, 6 p.m. - South Tucson City Council Chambers, 1601 S. 6th Ave., South Tucson

Wednesday, August 3, 6 p.m. - Glendale City Council Chambers, 5850 W. Glendale Ave., Glendale

Thursday, August 4, 6 p.m. - Sierra Vista Public Library, 2600 E. Tacoma St., Sierra Vista; remote location: Cochise County Board of Supervisors Public Hearing Room, Building G, 1415 Melody Lane, Bisbee

Friday, August 5, 6 p.m. - City of Phoenix (physical location to be announced)

Saturday, August 6, 6 p.m. - Abrams Public Health Building, 3950 S. Country Club Rd., Tucson.  Room 1106

Note: the schedule is subject to change.  In addition, this is only the first round of meetings according to the schedule.  Check the AIRC's website for updates before attending any of the meetings listed above.

Pinal County Applicants Sought for Judicial Performance Review

Press release from the Arizona Judicial Branch, aka the Arizona Supreme Court -

Superior Court judges in Arizona are chosen in two ways. Counties with a population of less than 250,000 people elect Superior Court judges. Counties with a population of more than 250,000 people have Superior Court judges who are appointed through the state’s merit selection process.

 The 2010 Census certified that Pinal County now has a population of more than 250,000 people. Pinal County judges will now participate in the merit selection process and stand for “retention elections,” rather than competitive elections. Judges on the ballot will be reviewed by the Judicial Performance Review Commission, so that voters will know whether the judges on the ballot meet judicial performance standards.



The 2012 election will be the first time that information is available to Pinal County voters about the Superior Court judges on their ballot. The judicial reviews are based on surveys of people who come to court and observe the judges’ performance. Information collected at public hearings and judicial discipline records are also considered.

 The Commission on Judicial Performance Review will include members from Pinal County beginning this fall. The Supreme Court will appoint three public members from Pinal County (who cannot be lawyers or judges) to the commission. The Court will also appoint one attorney from Pinal County to the commission.

 Mike Hellon, a public member and chairman of the Commission on Judicial Performance Review, encourages Pinal County citizens to take an active role in judicial review: “A qualified and independent judiciary, untainted by partisan politics, is one of the cornerstones of our free society. Serving on the commission that reviews the performance of Arizona judges is an important and satisfying contribution to the quality and independence of our judicial system.”

 The Commission meets four to six times a year in Phoenix. Members are reimbursed for travel expenses. Service on this commission involves active participation by the member with a commitment to attend most if not all of the meetings.

 Judicial Performance Review also includes a self-improvement component. In addition to the commission appointments, public members and attorneys are needed to serve on teams that will meet with Pinal County judges about their performance. Applicants must be residents of Pinal County. An application form can be downloaded at: www.azcourts.gov/committeescommissions and should be submitted to the address on the form by August 12, 2011. The application can also be requested by sending an email to JPR@courts.az.gov or calling 602-452-3098. More nformation about Judicial Performance Review can be found at www.azjudges.info or by calling 602-452-3098.

Love letters...

I write here to inform, educate, vent, gripe, celebrate, commiserate, and more.  I hope that what I write causes people to think about the things going on in Arizona and engage in civil discussions on the best ways to address the issues facing the state.

Yes, there's more than a bit of ego involved in blogging. :)

However, I'm not naive.  I fully realize that not everyone feels that way, and they usually let me hear about it in a comment here.  On rare occasions however, I receive a direct message from a reader.

From a reader email, unedited and in its entirety-

New Englander, GO HOME

Massachusetts... that tiny blue state where Ted Kennedy, in a drunken stupor abandoned a woman to drown and Mitt Romney brought the state to near bankruptcy with his Pre-Obama Health Care for all. New Englander, why don't you return? Seems the politics in MA are more to your liking. Return to the land from which you came for its obvious you do not wish to become an Arizonian but hope to make our home more to your liking -

V.
--

“Privacy is a major element of freedom, without which people and nations cannot remain free.” – George Orwell, 1984

My response wasn't eloquent, but since eloquence isn't exactly my stock-in-trade, that's not a big deal.  :)

Mr. V,

Just a few points -

1. I *am* home, and have been for nearly 17 years.

2. I *am* an Arizonan. I love my state, in spite of (and occasionally because of) its imperfections. Because of that love, I want the state to be a better place for everybody, and am willing to work toward that goal.

3. I *do* occasionally miss New England. Like on Opening Day at Fenway, and the first weekend in the fall when you can drive into the mountains of New Hampshire to view the absolutely spectacular foliage. Other than those times, my perspective on the subject can be summed up in four words - "Ya don't shovel sunshine."

4. Arizona is a lot closer to bankruptcy than Massachusetts, and one party has been running the show here for a couple of generations now. And it isn't the Democrats.

Thank you for writing.

The writer used a pseudonym, but since that pseudonym is known within the AZ blogosphere and I don't know that the person who wrote the note is also the person who posts and comments on posts under that name, I've decided not to publicize the pseudonym.
BTW - a couple of points that I didn't make in the reply to the note -

1.  One of the reasons that I love Arizona is that it provides would-be political commentators like me *oodles* of material to work with.  While Massachusetts' political scene has some parallels to Arizona's (it's certainly no less corrupt, unfortunately), it offers nowhere near the level of utter insanity that Arizona does.

2.  It doesn't speak well of me, but while I derive great joy (and yes, a little pride, too) when someone learns something new from one of my posts, I also derive great joy (and yes, a little pride, too) when I simply get under someone's skin.

I'm feeling great joy right now.  :))

Good night!

AZ legislators have tender sensibilities. Who knew?

Last week, EJ Montini of the Arizona Republic wrote a column that pointed out the track record of the Arizona legislature in regards to children - pull out all the stops to "protect" them...until they are born.

At that point, the Republicans in the legislature assume a rather laissez-faire attitude towards children (and worse, if the kids are born to poor parents or have brown skin).

Montini's point upset the legislators, and in the person of Rep. Kimberly Yee (R-LD10), they responded with a column published in Monday's edition.

In it, she argued that the legislature's priorities were "[c]racking down on bullying in our schools, protecting the health of women in our state and reining in our spending to lower the debt passed on to the next generation."

That's a rather selective way of looking at what the lege worked on this past session.

The reality is that legislators worked on their own personal priorities, not the priorities of the state's residents.

...Where struggling Arizonans want jobs, Republican legislators (including Yee) passed tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations while increasing the tax burden on middle class homeowners.

...Where Arizonans want accessible health care, Republican legislators (including Yee) passed a budget with massive cuts to AHCCCS, placing thousands of the most vulnerable Arizonans at jeopardy.

...Where Arizonans want a robust and effective education system for the children, Republican legislators (including Yee) have worked to gut education in Arizona.

Just in case someone thinks that I'm being unfair to Rep. Yee, lumping her in with the rest of her caucus based on mere votes, from the list of bills that Yee herself sponsored or cosponsored:

HB2392, a bill to allow guns in school zones

HB2409, a bill to bar the award of attorney's fees to the state or a county or municipality in a civil action relating to the enforcement or challenge of a law, ordinance, or regulation

HB2415, a bill that became law pertaining to addressing bullying incidents in schools (OK, she gets credit for one relatively harmless, perhaps even beneficial, measure)

HB2416, a bill that became law delaying and restricting abortions and women's health care

HB2442, a bill to ban the nonexistent practice of abortions for gender selection; another version became law

HB2534, a bill that became law to attempt to block the Tohono O'odham tribe from building a casino in the West Valley part of Maricopa County by allowing a municipality to summarily "annex" (aka - steal) legally acquired land.  Though this became law, it was block by a federal court.

HB2544, a "birther" bill (another version passed the lege, but was vetoed by the governor)

HB2549, a bill that became law, addressing the pressing issue of making "The Grand Canyon State" the official state nickname

HB2555, a bill to bar local regulation of taxis and other forms of tranportation for hire

HB2581, a bill to greatly expand the corporate tuition tax credit program.  Passed by the lege, vetoed by the governor

SB1282, a bill that became law to allow religious entities to engage in secular political activity without having to register as a political committee, avoiding all sorts of disclosure rules (like having to tell where the money is coming from)

SB1553, a bill that became law, creating school vouchers

SB1610, a bill that became law, perhaps the law from this session {cue up the sarcasm} that is the single most important measure passed this year {end sarcasm} - making the Colt Single Action Army Revolver the official state firearm

The bottom line is that Yee and her colleagues have two options here -

1.  Grow a thicker skin.  Criticism and disagreement is part of an elected official's lot in life.  Somebody who is easily upset by those things should stay away from politics, much less elected office.

2.  Actually work on the state's priorities, not your personal priorities.  Do your job of representing your constituents, regardless of district, well enough so that any criticisms aren't deserved.

My expectation -

They'll do neither.  It's easier to whine, and they think whining plays better with tea party types than does conscientious competence.

Why doesn't the Arizona Republic make it official and put Chuck Coughlin's name on the masthead?

From the Arizona Republic, written by Alia Beard Rau and Matt Dempsey -

The popular perception that corporate giants and powerful lobbyists wield all the monetary influence in politics doesn't necessarily ring true in Arizona.

Here, the largest source of funding for candidates' election campaigns comes from the average grass-roots voter. That was the case during the 2010 election, and it's expected to be the case again as candidates gear up for the 2012 race.

"I think among the general public, there's this misconception about the influence of money in Arizona politics," said Doug Cole, senior vice president of government affairs for HighGround, a consulting group that works with many of the state's most influential Republican candidates.

In case you aren't familiar with Cole and HighGround, Cole and HighGround's president, the titular Chuck Coughlin, were deeply involved in the Fiesta Bowl "gift"/bribery scandal that is threatening the political careers of many elected officials at the Capitol, most notably the embattled president of the state senate, Russell Pearce.

Interestingly, the article didn't mention the Fiesta Bowl.

Nor did it mention the impact of thousands of Clean Elections' qualifying contributions on Rep's data.

Nor did it mention the influence of "independent" expenditure money funnelled from corporations and corporate associations.

In other words, the Rep ran what looks to be nothing more than an above-the-fold propaganda piece.

Otherwise known as business as usual.

Pearce Recall Certified; Election Imminent*

* - Pending the inevitable legal challenge, of course...

From the East Valley Tribune, written by Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services -

State election officials announced Friday there are more than enough signatures to force Senate President Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, to defend his seat.


Elections Director Amy Bjelland formally certified there are10,365 valid signatures on the petitions. Only 7,756 were needed.

Gov. Jan Brewer now has 15 days to call the election, something she cannot legally refuse to do. That means the vote will come on the next available election date, Nov. 8, unless there is a legal challenge.

Later in the article, Fischer writes about how Pearce has no plans to mount a legal challenge to the recall, but Pearce's lawyer is Lisa Hauser, the infamous Republican attorney.  If there is an angle or scheme she can use in defense of Pearce's interests, she will. 

And even if there isn't, she may use the Casey Anthony "spaghetti" defense - throw a lot of spaghetti against the wall, and see if some of it sticks.

BTW - "spaghetti" isn't the real name, but since this is a PG-13 rated blog... :)


Congratulations, and thanks, are due to all of the folks at Citizens for a Better Arizona.  Without their vision, dedication, and thousands of hours of hard work, history would not have been made  - Pearce is the first state-level elected official in Arizona to be faced with a recall.

Baseball and politics: The games inside the games

In honor of MLB's All Star Game coming to Phoenix next week...

Politics, like baseball, has a "game within the game," things that don't show up in vote tallies or box scores but that can impact the parts of the game that do.

One example of that is "working the umpires."

In baseball, the umpires are independent of either team playing a game.  Their job is to be neutral and fair and the game works best when they are just that. 

That fact, however, doesn't stop players, coaches, and managers from wheedling, needling, flattering, criticizing, barking, whimpering, whatevering the umpires, trying to gain an edge on a close call.

It doesn't work (usually), but that doesn't stop them from trying - in a game where one run can mean a win, and one win can mean a championship, the potential payoff is worth the effort.

In politics, much the same activity takes place.

Consider the hubbub surrounding the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC).

Set up with the voters' passage of Prop 106 in 2000, the AIRC is responsible for neutrally and fairly laying out Arizona's legislative and Congressional districts.  The Commission is designed to be as neutral as possible - there are two Republican members, two Democratic members, and one Independent member who acts as the chairperson of the Commission.

The first time around, the Republicans didn't complain about the Commission much - they were ready and the ostensibly neutral Commission was neutral in name only.

The "Independent" chair was less "independent" and more "Republican in everything but registration," while the Republican lawyer for the AIRC, Lisa Hauser, spent more time ordering the other lawyers (and yes, the commissioners, too) around rather than giving them honest advice and letting the commissioners make their decisions.

In short, the Rs were well-prepared in 2001.

Fast forward a decade to 2011, and the Rs weren't so well-prepared.

Where in 2001, they had all of the pieces in place to control the redistricting process; in 2011, they didn't even have candidates for the Commission that they liked, and have been relying on gamesmanship to gain an edge up.

Since the beginning of the process, selecting candidates for the AIRC, the Republicans, particularly the leadership in the legislature, have been trying to obstruct the process or intimidate the participants.

The first gambit was a lawsuit to knock a few candidates out of the running.  That move sort of succeeded - two Republicans were removed from the pool of candidates and were replaced by people who were considered to be more pliable by the legislators.  However, the main target of the lawsuit, Independent candidate Paul Bender, survived the challenge (Bender is considered to have a brilliant legal mind.  He's also an Independent, possibly because he is liberal enough to consider the Democratic Party too conservative.

The second gambit was an attempt by the Republicans to game the process again by hiring the previously-mentioned Hauser as an attorney for the Commission.  It failed, but the Rs weren't (and aren't) done.

The next move was to criticize the selection of Strategic Telemetry (ST) as the mapping consultant.  ST has worked for some Democratic campaigns in the past, so the Republicans argued that they are too partisan.

The Republicans wanted National Demographics (ND), the mapping consultant for the last redistricting cycle.  The one that turned out pretty well for the Rs.

Maybe they were hoping for some of the same "luck" that they had last cycle.  Which was less "luck" than "planning" - the president of ND is a Republican and a "fellow" at the Rose Institute, a think tank dedicated to making sure that redistricting efforts across the country favor Republicans.

Now, they are demanding that the chair of the AIRC, Colleen Mathis, resign from the Commission because her husband Christopher served as the treasurer of a Democratic legislative campaign in 2010.

From Article 4, Section 2 of the Arizona Constitution, relating to the requirements for members/candidates of the AIRC -

Each member shall be a registered Arizona voter who has been continuously registered with the same political party or registered as unaffiliated with a political party for three or more years immediately preceding appointment, who is committed to applying the provisions of this section in an honest, independent and impartial fashion and to upholding public confidence in the integrity of the redistricting process. Within the three years previous to appointment, members shall not have been appointed to, elected to, or a candidate for any other public office, including precinct committeeman or committeewoman but not including school board member or officer, and shall not have served as an officer of a political party, or served as a registered paid lobbyist or as an officer of a candidate's campaign committee.

Nothing is mentioned about spouses in the constitutional requirements, nor are there any questions relating to the involvement of spouses in campaign in the application for the Commission.

However, there *is* a question where the applicants have to certify that they are current on their taxes.

Rick Stertz, the member appointed by Senate President Russell Pearce (and perhaps not coincidentally, one of the replacements for the candidates knocked out of consideration by the lawsuit from Pearce and Kirk Adams, then the speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives) so certified.

Even though it wasn't true.

And Stertz (or his spouse) hasn't worked for a candidate.  One does work for him though.

Hand-in-hand with the attacks on the Commission's independence has been the move to flood the meetings of the Commission with tea party types and other Republicans to make it seem like there is a groundswell of opposition to a fair and independent redistricting process. 

Last week, over 40 people, many self-identified as representing themselves but later identified as active Republicans, showed up to a Commission meeting in Tucson with the intent to disrupt the meeting. 

At this week's meeting on Friday, ~70 people showed up in Phoenix, but unlike the incident in Tucson, they were there to civilly support the work and the independence of the Commission.

Next week's meeting, on Wednesday July 13, is scheduled take place in Chandler at 9:30 a.m., though the specifics are subject to change (and the actual location hasn't been announced yet).

Another strong turnout of people who support and fair, transparent, and independent redistricting process is needed.  Civility in numbers can effectively counter incivility in numbers.

Later...

Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission meeting Friday

The Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC) is scheduled to hold a meeting on Friday.

Info:

Location - Room 312, Executive Tower (Pharmacy Board Meeting Room), 1700 West Washington, Phoenix

Time - 9:30 a.m.

Agenda - here

After the last meeting, where a number of tea party types showed up to disrupt the meeting and attempted to intimidate members of the Commission and members of the public, a strong turnout of people who are actually concerned about the future of Arizona is called for.

The Commission needs to hear both that competitive districts are important to the future of Arizona and that people acknowledge and are grateful for the efforts of the members.

And they need to see that most of the people for whom they toil are civil, rational human beings.

Be there folks, whether you are a Democrat, Independent, Libertarian, Green, or something else (yes, even a Republican). 

Short Attention Span Musing...

...From the "good things happening to good people" department -

It's taken more than six months, but one of the victims of Jared Lougher's shooting rampage in Tucson finally made it back to work.  With the aid of a cane, but under his own power.

From the Arizona Republic, written by Amanda Lee Myers -

A staffer for Rep. Gabrielle Giffords returned to work Tuesday for the first time since being seriously injured in the Tucson mass shooting nearly six months ago.

Ron Barber, 65, was shot in the cheek and thigh during the Jan. 8 attack that killed six people and injured 13, including Barber and Giffords. The shooting killed Barber's colleague, Gabe Zimmerman, and John Roll, Barber's college buddy and a federal judge.

Barber has spent the past six months undergoing extensive physical therapy and coping with the trauma of the shooting and the loss of his friends. He returned to work at Giffords' Tucson office on a part-time basis Tuesday as he continued rehab and his struggles with fatigue and pain.

...From the "they should have just reprinted the phone book" department -

With the announcement from Hugh Hallman that he won't seek reelection, the speculation about who will run for the job is revving up.

From the Arizona Republic, written by Dianna M. Nanez -

The 2012 race for Tempe mayor could prompt a state legislator to resign his seat and pit current and former council members against each other.

But potential candidates and their supporters are hopeful that an early vetting of candidates will narrow the field to include a strong, but collegial bunch committed to improving their city's standing.

Mayor Hugh Hallman's surprise announcement last month not to seek re-election sparked a political buzz.

The story went on to list possible candidates:

Ed Ableser, a current state representive (LD17)
Neil Giuliano, a former mayor
Shana Ellis, current Tempe City Council member
Onnie Shekerjian, current Tempe City Council member
Corey Woods, current Tempe City Council member
Mark Mitchell, current Tempe City Council member
Robin Arredondo-Savage, current Tempe City Council member
Joel Navarro, current Tempe City Council member (he stated he was NOT running.  The others didn't answer the question or left open the possiblity)
Linda Spears, former member of the Tempe City Council and community activist
Laura Knaperek, former LD17 state representative and current lobbyist-for-hire (like Navarro, she stated that she was not running)
Dick Foreman, a lobbyist for Southwest Gas
Michael Monti, a restaurant owner
Cliff Jones, retired Tempe fire chief (also a "no")
Ross Robb, Kyrene school board member and a real estate developer (also a "no")


In fact, about the only person they didn't name was me.  And I don't actually live in Tempe.


...From the "good things happening to bad people" department -

From the Arizona Republic, written by the AP's Kyle Hightower -

Casey Anthony's eyes welled with tears and her lips trembled as the verdict was read once, twice and then a third time: "Not guilty" of killing her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee.

Outside the courthouse, many in the crowd of 500 reacted with anger, chanting, "Justice for Caylee!" One man yelled, "Baby killer!"

Somebody needed to remind the jurors that the standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt," not "beyond ALL doubt."  And that is all I'll write about this topic.

Happy 235th Birthday America!

Ya don't look a day over 180, trust me... :)

Pic above and transcript below courtesy the National Archives -




The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.


The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,




When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.






We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.






He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.


He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.


He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.


He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.


He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.


He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.


He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.


He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.


He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.


He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.


He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.


He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.


He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:


For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:


For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:


For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:


For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:


For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:


For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences


For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:


For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:


For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.


He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.


He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.


He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.


He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.


He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.






In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.






Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.






We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.


Note to Michele Bachmann and her followers:  Read the actual document.  John Adams signed it.  He's a Founding Father.  John Quincy Adams is the son of that particular Founding Father.  He is not a Founding Father himself, no matter what the list of campaign talking points says.

Republicans looking to kill the goose that laid the golden egg

As with many bloggers and other observers of the political scenes both national and state, one of the research tools I use is the "Google Alert".  That is an automatically-generated email notifying me of a new mention of a given subject (one that the user defines) somewhere on the internet.  It isn't quite comprehensive, but Google's 'bots can reach far farther across and deeper into the web than I can.


One of the alerts I have set up is for David Schweikert, the member of Congress from Arizona's 5th District (Tempe, Scottsdale, Fountain Hills, Salt River Pima/Maricopa Indian Community, and bits of other municipalities).


A week ago, there was a Schweikert Google Alert highlighting this bit from The Practising Law Institute, a continuing legal education non-profit from the State University of New York (SUNY) -

...Our friends at Morrison & Foerster sent in a great memo summarizing the various bills pending in Congress and what they might mean for companies like Facebook.
On June 14, 2011, Representative David Schweikert (R-AZ) introduced a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives that would raise the threshold for mandatory registration under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) from 500 persons holding equity securities of record to 1,000 persons for all companies.[1] This bill would also exclude accredited investors and securities held by persons who received such securities pursuant to employee compensation plans from counting against the 1,000-record holder threshold.

The proposal they reference is H.R. 2167, euphemistically titled as the "Private Company Flexibility and Growth Act."


A better title would be the "Increasing Opaqueness For Investors Act."


However, before becoming sidetracked on this particular well-covered subject (Schweikert and his colleagues favoring big-money interests over the interests of average Americans isn't exactly breaking news), I should be clear that this is only a small part of this piece and rates a mention for just two reasons:


1.  It *is* relevant to the topic, and it involves an Arizona Congressman, and I'm an Arizona writer.


2.  It helped bring into focus some thoughts and observations on the topic, though the following piece is more scattershot than I would prefer.


Aesop, the famous Greek writer, is credited with writing down a number of fables*.  One of the most well-known of those was The Goose That Laid The Golden Egg.  In that one, a farmer and his wife owned a goose that laid one golden egg per day.  Because of that golden egg per day, they were able to live their lives very comfortably.  However, that wasn't enough for the farmer and his wife, so they killed the goose in an attempt to acquire vast wealth immediately.  They opened up the carcass of their now-dead goose, and found

Nothing.

Their greed-inspired short-term thinking and decision making led to their complete downfall.

That's basically where the U.S. economy is today. 

The people running it, the corporate influence peddlers and the elected-but-easily-swayed-by-bribes "campaign contributions" people in D.C. and state capitols across the country are now dedicated to siphoning the economic activity and value of the county into the pockets of the well-connected few, ignoring the reality that the US economy grew because of long-term thinking and an understanding that the best investments often take years or decades to pay off.

Republicans have spent decades striving to dismantle Social Security, Medicare and any other social safety net program, decrying the "socialism" inherent in such programs.  They fight any programs or expenditures that don't directly benefit large corporations and the already-wealthy.
They've spent decades fighting against American infrastructure projects, except for things like the infamous bridge to nowhere championed by former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens (to be fair, that one was so obviously egregious that even some of the most shameless Rs found that they couldn't hold their noses and support it), preferring to spend money on unjustified wars that seemed to be more dedicated to funnelling money to big contractors/campaign contributors like Halliburton who were armed with no-bid and cost-plus contracts while American servicemen and women went into combat with defective body armor and vehicles and (my personal favorite) even showers that electrocuted users.

These efforts are continuing today, more brazen and shameless than ever.

Some are high-profile, like Republican Paul Ryan's scheme to turn Medicare in "corpra-Care" by ending Medicare and issuing vouchers that patients could use to partially pay premiums for health insurance policies issued by private companies.

Some are low-profile, such as the current move by the Republicans in the US Senate to block the passage of some free trade deals, not because they oppose the deals because they'll result in the export of yet more American jobs (jobs seem to have been our number one export since the Reagan adminstration), but because they don't want the workers who lose their jobs as a result of the deals to be eligible for Trade Adjustment Assistance (essentially education and retraining opportunities offered through the US Departments of Labor, Commerce and/or Agriculture).

Some, like Schweikert's (and many other Republicans') efforts to stymie the nascent solar power industry on behalf of Big Oil have the effect of protecting a status quo that is profitable for the Republicans (and their campaign contirbutors) at the cost of sacrificing the country's future energy security...and "security" is the right word in a world where wars have been, are, and will be fought over oil.

Others, like Schweikert's bill above, don't directly affect the American middle and working classes, but they absolutely place the short-term interests of deep-pocketed special interests above the long-term  stability and credibility of the American economy.

At all times, the focus of the Republicans (aided and abetted by more than a few corpraDems, I'm ashamed to say) has been to protect and enhance the short-term bottom lines of major "campaign contributors."

They, along with most of what pass for modern "captains of industry," have forgotten or are ignoring the fact that the American economy was built on truly long-term investments, and the public sector played a pivotal part in the economic success.

Do we dare imagine what America would look like today without things like...

...the national highway system that eased the movement of people and goods across the country?

...utility projects like the Tennessee Valley Authority that helped modernize the infrastructure and economy of a huge swath of the country?

...water projects like the Hoover Dam that secured the water supply necessary to allow the Western U.S. to grow as a population and economic center?

...any of the hundreds of other public works projects over the decades that built and buttressed the infrastructure that forms the foundation of the American economy?

And I can't even begin to predict where the current trend of undermining the effectiveness of public education in order to justify redirecting funds away from public schools, and public school students, and toward "private educational enterprises" is going to lead our society.  I'm willing to be it won't be a good place though.

The historical economic "rising tide" that lifted and grew America's middle class, particularly in the period between WW2 and Vietnam, also benefitted America's corporations and super-wealthy (when consumers have good jobs and money to spend, consumer products companies do well).  However, the current economic downturn illustrates that the reverse isn't true - America's corporations and their CEOs are doing very well, thank you, while most of the rest of us are still suffering deeply from the effects of the economy.

Enough.

Arizona and America cannot afford to continue electing people who don't hold the long-term interests of the country paramount.  People may disagree on what is best for the country (or state, or county, or city, or whatever), but "the best interests of my country/state/county/city/whatever" should be the guiding principle for all elected officials.

Every candidate for every office, at every level, must be evaluated on this criteria before any votes are cast.

This may occasionally mean having to choose a well-meaning schmuck over a poised and polished schemer.

So be it.

The schmuck will have to learn from his mistakes, or his successors will.  The schemers never seem to learn the real lessons from their misdeeds, instead just finding ways to not get caught the next time.


*There are some questions as to whether Aesop was an actual individual or an amalgamation created by subsequent generations to simplify the collection of and reference to widely-known fables, but that discussion is too academic for this blog (and I am woefully unqualified for such a discussion) and more importantly, it's utterly irrelevent to the above subject.