The 2012 session of the Arizona Legislature hasn't started yet, but it's easy to see it's going to be a long one

In approximately a month and a half, the 2012 session of the Arizona Legislature will start, and while there will be some major differences from the 2011 session (new Speaker of the House, new President of the Senate, no Russell Pearce!!), some things don't change.

Usually, sitting legislators start "pre-filing" bills starting around two months before the start of a session, and this year is no different.

Sometimes, as with Sen. David Schapira's SB1001 last year (restoring transplant coverage to AHCCCS), the early measures are meant to make a statement about where the priorities of the lege should be, knowing full well that the bill(s) won't pass (and Schapira's SB1001 was never even heard in committee, much less given a floor vote).

Other times, the bills are introduced to give the sponsors an early start on lobbying their colleagues for passage.

The first couple of bills introduced this year, including a proposed amendment to the Arizona Constitution, have to do with creating a mechanism for exchanging state trust lands for the purpose of protecting military reservations from encroachment by developments (this summary may be a little oversimplified, but these bills aren't the focus of the post.  If you're interested, the bill is here, the proposed amendment is here).

The amendment is necessary because under the Arizona Constitution, those trust lands can only be sold or transferred for the benefit of the state's education system.

The lege has been trying to crack that restriction for years.  They tried a similar scheme in 2010, only to see the measure go down to defeat, at least in part because a majority of Arizona's voters don't trust the legislature or its intentions.

In addition to those, at around the same time, Rep. Jack Harper (R-Surprise!) filed a different amendment proposal, this one to overturn the prohibitions in the AZ Constitution on damage awards in lawsuits.  They've tried this one before, but limiting or eliminating punitive damage awards is a pet project of corporate lobbyists and their "friends"/tools in Congress and state legislatures across the country.

After that, there were a few innocuous "technical corrections" bills introduced by Rep. Judy "Birther" Burges.  Officially, technical corrections bills are supposed to contain minor, non-controversial fixes to things like typos, misspellings, and bad grammar/legalese to laws, and generally speaking, the bills do just that.  However, they rarely pass the lege as technical corrections bills.  Mostly, they exist to serve as "vehicle" bills that can be changed late in the legislative session by "strike everything" amendments, aka "strikers.". 

Strikers frequently turn previously innocuous bills (like technical corrections bills) into utter bile.  Of course some bills, like 2010's infamous SB1070, are amended only in specific language, not actual intent.  For example, SB1070 started off life as an ugly anti-immigrant bill and was amended into an ugly anti-immigrant bill.

All this background brings us to Rep. John Fillmore (R-Apache Junction).  While until now he has been an almost-unknown backbencher, it looks like he wants to make a splash during this coming election year.

Among others, he has proposed bills that...

...would halve the maximurm income level to qualify for coverage under the Arizona Long Term Care System (ALTCS).  ALTCS provides coverage to low-income senior citizens or disabled  who need long-term medical care (i.e. - nursing home, assisted living, or ongoing home health aides)

...would arbitrarily impose a limit on the amount of "respite care" that someone covered by ALTCS could receive in a calendar year at 360 hours.  Respite care is perhaps best characterized as a relief pitcher for long-term caregivers. 

...would grant a teacher the right to kick any student out of class for any reason, and that action would not be reviewable by or appealable to anybody.  Fillmore's proposal is written so broadly that a teacher (say, a follower of Russell Pearce's) could order a student out of class because the student's skin is, shall we say, too tan, and there would be no recourse (though a federal court would probably step in eventually).

...would give school principals the authority to fire any teacher in their schools for any reason, subject to the review and approval of the district's school superintendent.  The measure also includes a clause that bars school district governing boards from entering into collective bargaining agreements that inhibit the ability to exercise that authority, including the establishment of a "due process" process for the teachers.  No AZ Republican wants to appear to be "pro-teacher"...  The measure also takes control of textbook selection from the hands of the governing boards of individual school district and bestows it on the school superintendent of the county in which the school district is located.

...would bar courts from paying for, under any circumstances, court-ordered anger management and domestic violence counseling for defendants.

...would establish a minimum cost to the beneficiaries of state employee health insurance plans of 18 percent of the overall cost.  Currently, there is no minimum or maximum limit in statute.  While this measure would establish a minimum limit, it would not establish a maximum cost to the beneficiaries.

...and in his piece de resistance, Fillmore has proposed an amendment to the AZ Constitution regarding punitive damage awards, like Harper's proposal above.  However, this one has an "Isn't that crazy, quirky, loony Arizona just so precious?" sort of way -

His proposal doesn't eliminate punitive damage awards,  Instead, it would mandate the confiscation of such awards by the state and puts the monies into a fund that would be dedicated to funding K-12 education in Arizona.

If passed, not only would this measure effectively reduce the number of lawsuits with punitive damage awards (if the victims of injuries cannot benefit from such lawsuits, why would they file them?), it would also serve as a smokescreen to cover moves to reduce education funding in AZ (eventually, the lege would base the budget for education on projections of the amount of money available in the fund established in this proposal, and when those funds decreased, they would use it as an excuse to further cut education).

This measure, as with Harper's, could very well be a welcoming gift for next week's conference of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), an organization crafted to facilitate corporate influence over state level legislation.  The conference will be held in a Scottsdale resort.

ALEC has long pushed for corporation-protecting limits on lawsuits in general and punitive damage awards in particular (examples here, here and here, courtesy ALECExposed.org).

Fillmore and Harper are among the many members of the R caucus in the AZ lege who are also members of ALEC. but in Arizona, that association isn't limited to the legislature.  Check out this notice from the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) -

Notice of a Joint Appearance of a Quorum of Commissioners


(Not an Official Meeting of the Arizona Corporation Commission)

November 30 - December 2, 2011

Location:
The Westin Kierland Resort & Spa
6902 East Greenway Parkway
Scottsdale, Arizona 85254

This notice is provided as a courtesy to the public that three or more Commissioners may be present at the above location to attend the American Legislative Exchange Council, States and Nation Policy Summit.  The Commissioners attending this meeting will not vote on any issue.

Please note:  The ACC is supposed to *regulate* corporations, not *party* with them.  Of course, current ACC member Brenda Burns is a former president of ALEC, so she (and the other Rs on the ACC) may not make that distinction.

I'd love to be able to tell you that the above measures are likely to be the worst offered up by Republican AZ legislators during the coming session, but it seems likely that they are going to for the "full nutty" this session.  They realize that one of two possibilities exist.

Either a majority of voters will NOT hold them responsible for their shameless disregard for the will of the voter (attacks on the independence of the voter-established independent redistricting process, their brazen contempt for the rule of law (assaulting a woman by the side of a Phoenix freeway, pointing a gun at a reporter in the Senate building), or their sacrifice of the interests of their "official" constituents (no jobs, gutting education) on the altar of corporate profits (corporate tax cuts paid for by gutting education and rest of the social infrastructure in AZ), or this year will be their last best chance to wreak unchecked havoc upon the state, for at least a couple of election cycles.

Brewer's latest move to seize control of the redistricting process rebuffed by AZ Supreme Court

...aka - the Hail Mary pass fell harmlessly to the ground...

Late this afternoon, the Arizona Supreme Court issued an order regarding the "motion to reconsider" its decision to reinstate Independent Colleen Mathis to the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC).

To sum up - motion to stay the reinstatement of Mathis is denied, motion to reconsider the entire previous order is denied, and the Court clarified that in her letter removing Mathis from the AIRC, Governor Jan Brewer didn't document any acts or behavior that rises to the level of being constitutionally sufficient to justify Mathis' removal.

In other words, they said "What part of "NO!" did you not understand?"only they did it in a judge-y way.  Very proper, very dignified, and lots of big words.  :))

The order:

IT IS ORDERED granting Respondents’ Joint Motion for Expedited Consideration.


IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Respondents’ Joint Motion to Stay Order Reinstating Petitioner-Intervenor Mathis Pending Reconsideration.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Motion to Intervene of Andrew M. Tobin, Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives and Joinder in the Governor and Senate’s Motion for Reconsideration. The Court will treat the Motion as an amicus brief.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Respondents’ Joint Motion to Reconsider Order of November 17, 2011, except insofar as the motion seeks clarification of the Order. As the Order notes, the Court accepted jurisdiction of the petition for special action, having concluded that it has jurisdiction under Article 6, Section 5(1) of the Arizona Constitution. The Court further concluded that the issues presented are not political questions committed by the Constitution to the unreviewable discretion of the other branches of government.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED clarifying the Court’s November 17, 2011 Order as it concerns the letter of November 1, 2011, from the Acting Governor to Colleen Mathis. The Order states that the November 1, 2011 letter does not demonstrate “substantial neglect of duty, gross misconduct in office, or inability to discharge the duties of office” as required under Article 4, Part 2, Section 1(10) of the Arizona Constitution. Respondents seek clarification whether the Court’s conclusion was based on the format of the November 1, 2011 letter, which stated that the Governor had determined that Mathis had “failed to conduct the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission’s business in meetings open to the public, and failed to adjust the grid map as necessary to accommodate all of the goals set forth in Arizona Constitution Art. 4, Pt. 2, § 1(14).”

The Governor’s November 1, 2011 letter constitutes her findings of grounds for the removal of Mathis. The Court’s conclusion that the letter does not demonstrate “substantial neglect of duty, gross misconduct in office, or inability to discharge the duties of office” is based on the letter’s substance, not its format. The letter does not, as a matter of law, identify conduct that provides a constitutional basis for removal.


One ground identified in the Governor’s letter is a failure to conduct the commission’s business in meetings open to the public.

The Constitution directs that “[w]here a quorum is present, the independent redistricting commission shall conduct business in meetings open to the public, with 48 or more hours public notice provided.” Ariz. Const., Art. IV, Pt. 2, § 1(12). The statutory Open Meeting Law defines “meeting” in terms of a gathering of a quorum, A.R.S. § 38-431(4), and it directs that all meetings of public bodies shall be public meetings and that legal action of Supreme Court Case No. CV-11-0313-SA public bodies shall occur in public meetings. Id. § 38-431.01(A). A failure to conduct the business of the commission in meetings open to the public must at least involve violations of these laws for it to constitute “substantial neglect of duty” or “gross misconduct.” (We do not decide whether the constitutional provision preempts any statutory Open Meeting Law requirements, an issue that is being litigated in another forum.) There is, however, no allegation of any non-public meeting of a quorum of the commission in the Governor’s October 26, 2011 letter or in the responses thereto. Nor does the Governor’s November 1, 2011 letter find that a non-public meeting of a quorum of the commission occurred.

With regard to preparing maps, the commissioners perform legislative tasks in which they must “balance competing concerns” and “exercise discretion in choosing among potential adjustments to the grid map,” Ariz. Minority Coalition for Fair Redistricting v. Arizona Indep. Redistricting Comm’n, 220 Ariz. 587, 597 ¶ 28, 208 P.3d 676, 686 (2009), and the commission’s adoption of final maps is subject to judicial review for compliance with the Constitution’s procedural and substantive requirements. Id. at 596 ¶ 24, 208 P.3d at 685. The Governor’s disagreement with commissioners over whether they have properly considered constitutional criteria for adjusting the grid map before they have completed final maps is not, as a matter of law, a constitutional basis for removal.

 Even before I received the order in my inbox, the reaction from House Speaker Andy Tobin was there.  Needless to say (but I'm going to say it anyway :) ), he's ratcheting up the rhetoric -

“With the Supreme Court having clearly overstepped its bounds, I continue to believe that the reinstatement of Colleen Mathis as chairwoman of the Independent Redistricting Commission represents a dangerous threat to the independent process Arizona voters want and deserve. I fully support any and all efforts by the Governor to immediately remove Chairwoman Mathis and call the Legislature into special session to refer a measure to the ballot allowing voters the opportunity to repeal this commission, which has shown total disregard for the Arizona Constitution. We must act immediately to ensure that this broken and biased process does not continue to unfold.”

Look for an attempt to put a repeal of Prop 106 (the ballot question in 2000 that created the independent redistricting process) before the voters of the Republican primary in February.

After that, look for federal intervention by the US Department of Justice.

And after that, or even if federal intervention doesn't happen, look for AZ's Republicans to have their asses handed to them next November. 

Willfully and maliciously overriding the will of the voters for reasons that range from purely partisan to purely personal tends to tick off voters, even those who normally don't pay much attention between elections.


On a related note:  the AIRC has scheduled three business meetings next week in Tempe, at the Fiesta Inn at the SW corner of Priest and Broadway.

On Tuesday, they will meet at 1:30 p.m. (agenda); Wednesday at 4 p.m. (agenda); Thursday at 1 p.m. (agenda).

"Motion to reconsider": Brewer-speak for "Hail Mary"

During football games, often at the end of a half or the end of a game, one team that is desperate to score lines up its receivers on one side of the field and sends them down the field to the end zone while the quarterback heaves a pass into the crowd of players

While occasionally it works, the vast majority of the time the ball is tipped once or twice and falls to the ground incomplete. 

However, teams still use the tactic because they have nothing to lose by it.

Which brings us to Arizona's Governor Jan Brewer and her paid attack dog/mouthpiece, attorney Lisa Hauser.

Steve at Arizona Eagletarian has posted links to various new filings in the case, including a motion to reconsider from Brewer and Hauser.  In it they petition the Arizona Supreme Court to "reconsider" (aka - change its mind about) its order last week reinstating Colleen Mathis to the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC).

Their motion is basically a re-presentation of their original argument, that Brewer can remove Mathis or any member from the AIRC for any reason she wants, including a bad haircut.  All Brewer has to do is call it "gross misconduct."

The argument didn't work last week and it almost certainly won't work this week.  Maybe it could, if instead of just disagreeing with the court's decision, they pointed out some procedural error or presented some heretofore unknown facts, but they didn't.

I don't expect the motion to work - Brewer isn't Doug Flutie, Hauser isn't Gerard Phelan and the AZ Supes aren't the University of Miami football team of the mid-1980s (not enough felony convictions) - but like every other Hail Mary pass ever thrown, the rationale behind it is "hey, if it doesn't work, we're no worse off than we were before."

They have nothing to lose if it doesn't work and a lot to gain if it does.  In addition, as Steve points out in his post, it may actually just be a PR move to help rationalize a special session of the lege to refer a ballot question in an attempt to overturn the proposition that originally set up the independent redistricting process.

I don't think that'll work either, but they've got a better chance that way than in court, especially if they go with the scheme proposed by many Republican legislators - put the issue to a vote during the Republican presidential primary.

Note to readers:  I almost named this post " " "Motion to reconsider":  Brewer-speak for "Ave Maria" " but decided the BC football reference was enough.  Didn't need to go the full Catholic on everybody. :)

Guest post: Wall Street, part 2

From Jerry Gettinger of Scottsdale...

What's Broken on The Street
My previous essay proffered the idea that Wall Street was broken and needed a major overhaul in order to "fix" it. First, it is important to identify what is broken and then we can suggest how to fix it.

30 years ago, The Street was the center of the world when it came to Capitalism. Socialists saw it as the root of all evil relating to our society. Graduates saw the Street as a most desirable career choice.

Companies such as MCI received capital to innovate and challenge competitors with new ideas and inventions. Money flowed from investor to company.  Employment thrived with every new business. Brokers made money, investors made money and business made money. An example of capitalism working the way it was meant to.

What happened?

No one change can be attributed to the malfunction. Several changes in the mobile seem to be responsible.  Competition for listings among exchanges, making memberships (to exchanges) more available, globalization and, probably the most important factor that caused changes... computers.  As competition between exchanges grew, rules concerning what type of trading was acceptable changed in order to attract speculators. This type of business served no purpose but to generate profits. It did not take long for "program trading" to dominate transactions on various exchanges.

Computer generated trades and anomalies between and within exchanges generated substantial profits with little or no risk. It is worthwhile noting that not one of these transactions sent monies to corporations for expansion or modernization. In every instance, the only reason for the transaction is to make money! A financial dead end!

Let me explain how this type of trading works: suppose there is a stock that trades on both the NYSE and the German Stock Exchange. At a particular time, there is 5-cent difference in the price with the stock on the NYSE selling at $23.10, and on the German Exchange at $23.05. Computers that are programed to monitor for this situation will simultaneously buy on the German Exchange and Sell on the NYSE for a 5 cent profit. Not much, you think? Multiply a nickel times 200 million shares! Then, take that figure and multiply by six, (that number is an example of how many trades of this sort is done daily by one broker.  It may be more or less.). The transaction delivers riskless profits that serve no function in the economy. No job creation, no business expansion. Just more money.

In addition, the "Bush tax cuts" have encouraged this type of business by taxing the income from this type of transaction and all related transactions at a more favorable rate.

That is the problem.

The game, which use to have rules to protect the individual now have none. Wall Street has gone from a level playing field to a 90-degree hill for the single investor. The market place is completely distorted. The individual is at the mercy of the big traders (spelled computers). An estimated 85% of the trades on the NYSE are computer generated.

Short Attention Span Musing - housekeeping edition

Just a quick hit...

Spent some time on Saturday talking to Ted McLaughlin, a blogger and friend from Texas.  I was doing some research into a possible piece.  It didn't work out for that piece, but it was great to talk to someone whose blog I've read for years.

Oh, and he's from a state where the politics and politicians are as crazy as they are in Arizona (though I think we've got Texas beat on a "crazy per capita" basis :) ),  It's kind of hard to explain the politics here (and in TX) to someone who hasn't experienced them directly.  People in other parts of the country hear about the "high points" (SB1070, Russell Pearce, Rick Perry) but have no clue what life out here is like on a day-to-day basis.

Anyway, while the conversation was easy - even though we had never actually spoken directly before, we didn't have to explain a lot to each other - the story I was going for just wasn't there.  Hey, it happens.

However, the conversation was far from a total loss.  I learned a couple of things.

1.  Ted is as big a fan of the writing of the late Molly Ivins as I am.  (Good taste, Ted!)  Ivins blended humor, facts, and bluntness into a mix that tickled her readers' funny bones while stoking their outrage at injustice.  Her voice is missed.

2.  Per his recommendation, I checked out the Texas blog Juanita Jean's | The World's Most Dangerous Beauty Salon, Inc.  It's Texas-centered, but not exclusively so, and most importantly, when he said that Juanita Jean's was the closest thing to Molly that could be found, he was right.  The site has been added to the blogroll at the right, and I recommend checking it out.

Later...

A study in contrasts: Reaction to this week's court ruling reinstating Colleen Mathis to the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

This week's order handed down by the Arizona Supreme Court has elicited reactions from various quarters, that while not entirely unexpected, are stark in their differences.

The AIRC itself greeted the decision with professionalism, as evidenced by their promise to get back to work (press release posted by Steve at Arizona Eagletarian).

The Arizona Democratic Party greeted the decision with cautious satisfaction.

Governor Jan Brewer took a somewhat different tack (as expected), condemning the decision while ascribing to the court and its decision the contempt for the people of Arizona that she and her cronies in the legislature showed in their attempt to hijack the independent redistricting process.

Prime bits of hypocrisy -

"Let’s not forget why we’re here: The IRC followed an unconstitutional redistricting process, conducting too much of its business behind closed doors and disregarding mapping criteria seemingly at will. They did all of this without explanation."

{snip} 

"With its reinstatement of the IRC Chairwoman, the Supreme Court has averted its eyes from the Commission’s misdeeds. The Chairwoman’s actions to meet in secret, arrange critical votes in advance of meetings and twist the words and spirit of the Constitution have been forgiven – if not endorsed outright."

Ummm...when was the last time that the state budget was actually created in public and not cobbled together behind closed doors, and rammed through the legislature on a day's notice?  Of course, if anyone knows what it means to "twist the words and spirit of the Constitution", it's Jan and her clan.

Brewer, however, was actually understated compared to Rep. Andy Tobin, the Speaker of the Arizona House.  He called Mathis the "czar" of the AIRC, accused the the AIRC of "ignoring voter mandates", and called the AIRC's work examples of "gerrymandering."

I'd make a crack about Tobin and his caucus being experts on "ignoring voter mandates", but I used that line in the last paragraph.  So how about the definition of "gerrymander," from Merriam-Webster?

1: to divide (a territorial unit) into election districts to give one political party an electoral majority in a large number of districts while concentrating the voting strength of the opposition in as few districts as possible


2: to divide (an area) into political units to give special advantages to one group

"Competitive" districts, something that Democrats and Independent voters in Arizona want (a desire expressed and enacted in 2000, when voters created the independent redistricting process), are exactly the opposite of "gerrymandered."
 
Of course, as bad as Tobin was, *he* is understated compared to some of his "base", rank and file members of the Republican caucus of the lege.
 
Rep. Terri Proud (from after the court handed down its order) -
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Sen. Al Melvin (from a day before the court handed down its order) -

 
 
 
 
 
 
I'm not sure who is more scarily ignorant -
 
Proud for arguing that the constitution is unconstitutional (I think that she means that she believes the state constitution violates the US Constitution; since Arizona was already a "preclearance" state when Prop 106 passed, we'd have already heard from the DOJ if there was a problem with it) and that the "Founding Fathers" didn't intend for the people of the country to direct how their elected representatives are elected, or Melvin for openly advocating that an election to amend the AZ Constitution should be held when only Republican voters will be voting.
 
And given that his proposed subject matter is one which would affect all elections in Arizona, the US Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division would probably take a rather dim view of the whole affair.
 
In spite of her ignorance, Proud may have inadvertently told the bald truth about independent redistricting and the motivation for the power grab by Jan and her clan -

"It hasn't worked and it won't work for the Republicans.  Not ONE state has stayed Republic with an alternative.  Not ONE."

 Hope she is being prophetic...
 
Howard Fischer of the governor's PR staff Capitol Media Services has coverage of a possible special session of the legislature this coming week to re-fire Mathis and other redistricting-related matters here (via the East Valley Tribune). 
 
I'm not sure they'll be able to pull off a short-notice special session during a holiday-shortened week, but they are pulling out all the stops in their increasingly desperate efforts to override the will of the voters and seize control of the redistricting process.  At this point, anything is possible.
 

Guest post - Education

Part 2 in a series of guest posts from contributor Jerry Gettinger...

Education budgets are easiest to reduce. It is only the courageous and forward-looking governments that will use schooling to turn around this situation and offer their constituents a new path to success. If this is not done soon, there will develop a permanent unemployable class that will foster social upheaval. There is not much time left to induce positive change. It still can be done, but only with a government that sees education as a desirous utility, much like a $300 million football stadium.

Unfortunately, in some communities, education is a burdensome necessity or a social institution useful as an ideological tool that inculcates our children in religiously acceptable behavior. What is needed and needed immediately is a national goal that remakes the U.S. into a High Tech country with communities teaching the most sophisticated protocols to give students the intellectual means of, not just competing, but surpassing the rest of the world in innovation and production.

If there is one then there are hundreds, if not thousands of Stephen Jobs in our country. Those students will only evolve into highly productive individuals in a school system that encourages individual thought and critical thinking. Ours does not, and in fact, discourages such thought.

Teachers and parents feel threatened and intimidated by schools that allow students to consider all perspectives and question each one. This effort can become a part of the need to become energy independent. That coupled with changing the U.S. into a "green" nation can justify the metamorphosis. However, do not make the mistake of approaching the problem as needing justification. Educating our young to achieve the same goals in our country that were achieved during the last century is a necessity.

The love-hate relationship we have with our public schools must be turned into an attitude that values an education. Schools must receive whatever is needed to become an institution that encourages independent thinking. I suggest that the reader study the case of Intel and what saved the company from becoming a 2nd rate manufacturer of computer chips The Company had developed the computer chip to the point where when it ran faster it would over-heat and literally catch fire. The research facility in Israel came up with the idea of using a dual system instead trying to add speed with one.

It solved the problem. The suggestion came from a research assistant. The fact that the assistant promoted the idea and his supervisor was receptive resulted from their service in the Israeli army. As such, a private might be a high up officer at Intel and vice-versa. As a result, everyone had the freedom to try ideas and do critical thinking. An employee would be encouraged to present his idea to his supervisor.

We need that freedom in our schools and companies. The freedom to fail as well as succeed.

Guest post: Wall Street

This is part 1 of a three part piece from occasional guest writer (and good friend) Jerry Gettinger.  The next two parts of the series will go up this weekend...

I recently attended a rally a group named "Occupy Wall Street" sponsored.  For the most part, the gathering was calm and peaceful. It was an experience totally unlike the scene I remember in the late 60's and 70's when it was a pitched battle between the participants and the police. Every speaker spoke of Wall Street as uncaring and corrupt.  Speaker after speaker forcefully called for executives and hedge fund managers to give up their earnings in higher taxes. There were also accusations that our elected officials were bought with "Wall Street Money."

The subject of the gathering raised questions about why attitudes have changed from young people seeing Wall Street as a career goal to it being a source of anger and frustration. Having worked on Wall Street, I can view both periods in such a way as to render what I consider a unique perspective.

There is no doubt that Wall Street is not the same as when I worked there.

As a matter of fact, if one goes back to the late 1800's, one will discover that the product of Wall Street firms today bears no resemblance to the past. Like many of our institutions, Wall Street is broken. When I was in sales, I went home in the evenings with some pride and a sense of accomplishment. Those feelings came from knowing that my efforts served a purpose. That was that I sold bonds (or stock) for a company so the company had money to expand, which led to hiring additional workers who bought goods that resulted in profits used by owners to buy bonds etc. The product of Wall Street was not money; Wall Street functioned as a conduit that funneled value into production of goods and services. Not so in this age. The only thing Wall Street produces is money... to make money. That is where Wall Street is broken. Money in itself does not serve any purpose. In a capitalistic economy, money must be used to help business, not generate more money. Even the Robber Barons of the 1800's recognized the fact that unless their money was put to good use, it served no purpose. Even though the J.P. Morgans, Carnegie and Rockefeller amassed great wealth (even compared to today's wealthy), they invested their wealth in areas that benefited their country. Railroads, Oil and Steel Mills provided the products that fed growth and allowed a middle class to enjoy a lifestyle second to none.

Sadly, today's economic atmosphere is chasing the middle class into oblivion. The major source of wealth, their house, has become a burden rather that a unique investment. The ability to succeed through one's job and/or education has become unattainable to all but the very wealthy or talented. Pensions and self-contributed saving accounts are structured in favor of the rich. The worst part is that there is nothing in the foreseeable future that provides hope. While it is true that manufacturing jobs have all but disapered, careers in the IT industry offer both advancement and premium incomes. However, the mood and myopic view of governments in distressed areas add to the despondent feeling of futility.

Schapira announcement on 2012 plans coming Monday

From a press release -

Schapira to Make Monday Announcement on Website

TEMPE, ARIZ. - Arizona State Senate Democratic Leader David Schapira will make an announcement regarding his ongoing work to build a strong future for Arizona and his plans for the 2012 election.

Sen. Schapira will make his announcement in a video that will be available to view beginning at 9 a.m., Monday, November 21, at http://www.davidforaz.com/.

The Arizona Capitol Times is speculating that Schapira will announce that he is forming an exploratory committee to look at a run for Congress next year (subscription required).

I can't say for certain what his plans are, but if Schapira does go for a seat in Congress, he will have my support...unless Harry Mitchell changes his mind about a run next year.  :)

However, I don't think Harry is going to run again.

The Mathis ruling...

Essentially, the court said that no matter how much the governor, her handlers, and their mouthpieces insist otherwise, the removal of Colleen Mathis is something that is subject to judicial review.  Like almost every act committed by legislative and executive branches of every level of government since Marbury v. Madison.

It also said that no matter how much those same folks insist otherwise,  Mathis has done nothing to meet the threshold set in the Arizona Constitution to justify her removal from office.

My way of putting it:  Actually being the independent on the *independent* redistricting commission and conducting yourself in an independent manner is NOT grounds for kicking being kicked out of office.

No matter how much Jan and her clan click their heels together while say "we wish we still controlled district lines, we wish we still controlled district lines."

Because the order is short, here it is in its entirety -

Having considered the filings in this matter by the petitioner, the intervenor, the respondents, and the amici curiae, and the arguments of counsel,

1. The Court accepts jurisdiction of the petition for special action, having concluded that it has jurisdiction under Article 6, Section 5(1) of the Arizona Constitution;

2. The Court concludes that the issues presented in this matter are not political questions and are therefore justiciable. See Brewer v. Burns, 222 Ariz. 234, 238-39 ¶¶ 16-22, 213 P.3d671, 675-76 (2009);

3. The Court concludes that the letter of November 1, 2011, from the Acting Governor to the intervenor Colleen Mathis does not demonstrate “substantial neglect of duty, gross misconduct in office, or inability to discharge the duties of office” by the intervenor Mathis, as required under Article 4, Part 2, Section 1(10) of the Arizona Constitution;

Therefore, the Court grants the relief requested by the intervenor Mathis and orders that she be reinstated as chair of the Independent Redistricting Commission.

The Court in due course will issue an opinion more fully detailing its reasoning in this matter. 

Might I suggest a title for the sequel to Jan Brewer's book?

Crow For Breakfast

From a Facebook posting from the AIRC -

The Arizona Supreme Court has reinstated Colleen Coyle Mathis as chairwoman of Arizona's Independent Redistricting Commission.


The justices issued their ruling late this afternoon, a couple hours after hearing oral arguments on the issue.

Once the executive director has contacted the five commissioners and determined how they want to move forward, the staff will make the appropriate arrangements.

Arizona Capitol Times coverage here (subscription required)

Arizona Republic coverage here

Court rules; Mathis back on the AIRC...

The story is still breaking, but the AZ Supreme Court has ruled against Governor Jan Brewer and the Republicans in the state senate and has restored Colleen Mathis to the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. 

Details as they become available...

Nineteen Arizonans apply for chair of the Independent Redistricting Commission*

* - Pending the decision of the Arizona Supreme Court in the lawsuit over the removal of the original chair, Independent Colleen Mathis, by the governor and her Republican colleagues in the Arizona Senate.

If the court does the right thing, the applications will be moot.  However, this is Arizona.  Be hopeful (the AZ judiciary actually has a pretty good reputation), but don't hold your breath.

Nineteen people have applied for the Independent position on the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC).  It became (sort of, depending on the AZ Supreme Court's decision this week) vacant when Jan Brewer and the 21 Republicans in the State Senate railroaded Colleen Mathis off of the AIRC in an effort to usurp the authority of the Independent Redistricting Commission.

Pending the court's decision, the Arizona Commission on Appellate Court Appointments, which screens applicants, will meet  on November 22 (next Tuesday as of this writing) to discuss the applications and decide which applicants should be interviewed at a meeting on November 28.  At that meeting, they will decide upon a list of three names to forward to the other four members of the AIRC for their consideration.

The nineteen applicants are:

Alton Briggs of Scottsdale, retired

James Buesing of Peoria, lawyer

Linda Buscemi of Phoenix, psychologist/counselor

James DiRienzo of Prescott, adjunct professor at Embry-Riddle

Michael Doyle of Cave Creek, retired, and a former member of the Sheriff's Posse

John M. Fife III of Tucson, teacher

Paige Heavey of Phoenix, real estate, former member of WISH List, the Republican counterpart to Emily's List

Daniela Larson of Tucson, graduate research assistant

Eden Lewkowitz of Phoenix, instructional assistant

Anthony Merrill of Chandler, lawyer

Dale Mukavetz of Chandler, retired

Milford Rimmer of Scottsdale, self-employed technical sales

David Roberts of Scottsdale (legal address), editor at White Mountain Publishing

Margarita Silva of Laveen, lawyer (note: Ms. Silva was a candidate for this position during the initial start up phase of this year's AIRC)

Don Snider of Phoenix, an executive with a non-profit foundation

Stanley Usinowitz of Lake Havasu City, self employed

Stephen Weston Sr. of Waddell, training consultant

Marshall Whitmire of Camp Verde, self-employed

Gregory Zamora of Tempe, legal assistant


Public comment on the applicants will be accepted, so feel free to examine the applications.  I know I will be.

Guns in homes: A triumph of ideology over science

An article on the website of the Arizona Republic today struck a deep note inside of me, not because it was a "once in a lifetime" story or because it was an "only in Arizona" story, but because variations of it are written almost every day all over the country.

From the Arizona Republic -

Surprise child injured by gun; possible accident

A 4-year-old boy in Surprise suffered facial injuries while apparently playing with a handgun Saturday morning, police said.

Police responded to a report of an injured child around 11 a.m., said Surprise police spokesman Sgt. Bert Anzini. When officers arrived, they found a 4-year-old boy with injuries to the face.

My initial response to the article was to glance at the headline, think to myself "ho hum" and start to move on to the next article.


In mid-click, I realized that was a disgustingly blase attitude towards something that brought harm to a child.

The thing is, it's not just me. Most of us are just as blase when it comes to gun "accidents." We are so used to reading and hearing about them, we just tune them out.

Unfortunately, that "tuning out" is an opening exploited by certain people and groups to enact policies that actually make the situation worse, leading to more incidents to be blase about.

Over the years, there have literally been scores of scientific studies documenting the fact that guns in homes tend to decrease, not increase, the safety of the occupants of such homes.  This has led to the practice of many physicians adding firearms safety questions and information to their discussions of risky behavior with their patients and their patients' families.

One such study was released earlier this year.  In it, the author, David Hemenway PhD of the Harvard School of Public Health, found that the presence of firearms in the home increased the likelihood of violent death or injury, especially to women, children, and seniors.

Most of the studies have found that, in spite of the claims of the NRA et. al., most firearms in homes are not used for self-defense when they are used.

Pro-gun lobbying organizations like the NRA have spent thousands of hours and millions of dollars attempting to refute the studies or at least undermine the credibility of the scientists involved.

When that has failed (as it usually does), they've resorted to simply trying to silence their critics and advocates for gun safety and knowledge.

In Florida, shortly after the release of the above study (a coincidence, I think), the legislature passed and the governor signed into law HB155, the rather innocuously titled Privacy of Firearms Owners bill (legislative analysis here).

The title of the bill was innocuous, but the text of the bill wasn't - it barred health care providers from asking about or talking to patients and their families about guns.

It was shepherded through the legislative process by the NRA and its proxies, who sent the "big gun" among its lobbyists, Marion Hammer, to personally and directly exercise her influence.

The measure has since been overturned by a federal judge who found, among other things, that the provisions of the measure violated doctors' free speech rights.

Note: After the court's ruling, HB4015 was filed in the Florida House of Representatives.  If passed into law, it would repeal the offending language of the earlier measure (bill summary page here).  It has been assigned to committee and awaits the start of the 2012 session of the Florida legislature for any action on it (in the news article linked to the word "filed", the sponsor of HB4015 indicates that he does not expect his bill to see any consideration, much less passage).

Expect more moves like this in more legislatures - when the facts (aka - the science) don't support their desired policies, the NRA et. al. pushes for policies that ignore the facts.

Still, it's not a total tragedy - the four year old child in the article cited at the beginning of this post apparently suffered only "non-life-threatening" injuries.

Unlike the victim here, from New Mexico...

Unlike the victim here, from Pennsylvania...

Unlike the victim here, from Virginia...

Unlike the victim here, from Georgia...

Unlike the victim here, from Indiana...

Unlike the victim here, from North Carolina...

Unlike the victim here, from Washington (state)...

Unlike the victim here, from Tennessee...

Unlike the victim here, from Alabama...

Unlike the victim here, from Michigan...

The list is long and will continue to grow longer so long as there are places that base public safety and public health policies on ideology rather than reality.

This post is written as part of the Media Matters Gun Facts fellowship. The purpose of the fellowship is to further Media Matters' mission to comprehensively monitor, analyze, and correct conservative misinformation in the U.S. media. Some of the worst misinformation occurs around the issue of guns, gun violence, and extremism, the fellowship program is designed to fight this misinformation with facts.

Campaign committees update...

With the end of the 2011 election season, culminating in Tuesday's historic recall of Russell Pearce, the 2012 election cycle is in full swing.  While some changes will be made if/when Congressional and legislative district lines are finalized, more folks are jumping into races.

...Spencer Morgan of Gilbert has filed paperwork to run for Congress as a Democrat in CD5 (not sure if that is the current CD5 or the one on the draft maps produced by the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.)  However, given that his listed website, MorganforCongress.org doesn't exist yet so all he has is his Facebook public figure page, he may not be much of a factor next year.

Note: MorganforCongress.org should not be confused with Morgan4Congress.com.  That's the website of Vincent Morgan, a Democratic candidate in New York City.

Oh, I should note now that all district designations are presumed to be the current ones, unless other indicated.

...Paul Babeu, the Republican sheriff in Pinal County, is "exploring" a run for Congress.  Something that has been reported before, and has been long expected.  Of note to some readers is the listed treasurer for the Babeu committee:  Chris Derose.  He's been in and around the edges of Arizona politics for a while now, including running for a House seat from LD17 in 2006.  If he later moves over to an official Babeu campaign, he won't be there as the voice of moderation (not that anybody expects a Babeu campaign to have any).

...Clair Van Steenwyck of Buckeye has formed a committee to run for the Republican nomination for US Senate.  He appears to be a tea party type.  And I can't say that he is an unserious candidate, but at least Spencer Morgan (above) typed out his paperwork.  Van Steenwyck's is hand-written.

...It's rumored that other candidates (some of the rumors are surprising) will be stepping forward in the next few weeks, while other rumored candidates will choose to pass on a run in 2012.  More when those rumors solidify into confirmable interest/disinterest...

Legislative news -

...Mary Hamway, a town council member in Paradise Valley, is "exploring" a run for the Republican nomination for an LD11 House seat.  However, the "exploratory" designation on her committee appears to be pro-forma only.  She announced in May that she was going to make the run.

...Victoria Steele of Tucson has formed a committee to for a run at the Democratic nomination for an AZ House seat in LD26.

...In Maricopa County news -

- Kyle Jones, formerly a member of the Mesa City Council, has filed paperwork for a run at the Republican nomination for North Mesa Justice of the Peace.  That office is currently held Lester Pearce, the brother of recently recalled (and now former) state senator Russell Pearce.

Not having followed Mesa politics until the last few months, all I know about Jones is what I read in the linked article, but between Jerry Lewis' victory over Russell this week and the appearance of an apparently well-respected Republican challenger to Lester, it's possible that the Pearce machine in Mesa has seen its best days..

...In Scottsdale news...

- Debra Komarnicki of north Scottsdalei, a sales person/manager of some kind for AT&T, is running for a seat on the city council.  She moved here in June. 

Of this year. 

I don't know her.  She may be well-meaning and highly qualified (or not, I really don't know), but Scottsdale is not known for voting for newbies here.  Hell, most cities and towns in the country don't do that.  Anything could happen, but my guess right now is that she doesn't stand a real chance this time around.

- Joe Meli, also of north Scottsdale, has formed a committee to run for City Council.  Know even less about him than Komarnicki, but he looks to have been in Scottsdale longer than a few months.


...In Tempe news -

- GC Saarup has formed a committee for a run at a seat on the City Council.  Know even less about him than about Meli, above.


Expect these posts to come with a more regular frequency as the calendar approaches and turns to 2012..

Frank Antenori: Putting the "bully" in "bully pulpit"

State Sen. Frank Antenori (R-Hates Tucson, even though he lives there and represents part of it) has never been known as "one of the good guys" or even as particularly civil, especially toward Democrats and anybody else who dares to disagree with him, has sunk to a new low.  He's added himself to the list of people who didn't get the message that LD18 voters sent Tuesday about how fed up the voters are with the arrogance, pettiness and personal agendas that dominate Arizona's politics.

From an editorial in the Sierra Vista Herald (emphasis added) -

Among the first lessons taught to our youngest students is the importance of getting along with others.

We learn at an early age to “play nice,” and to “treat others with respect.”

Apparently District 30 State Senator Frank Antenori skipped that lesson, or flunked kindergarten.


Shortly after Tuesday’s recall election that saw Senate President Russell Pearce lose his seat to challenger Jerry Lewis, Antenori ripped into the newly-elected fellow GOP member in an Arizona Capital Times interview.

“Cold shoulder? I want him out on the freaking lawn. I don’t even want him to have a desk in the building. He can caucus with the Democrats for all I care,” Antenori is quoted telling the newspaper.

This is the man who bullied the Pima County Supervisors into appointing him to the state senate in 2010 by publicly threatening that he wouldn't do anything to help Pima County if they didn't.  At the time, he was already in the state house of representatives, not representing Pima County, even though he was elected to do just that.

With Antenori, like Pearce before him, elected office is all about his own personal agenda, not the needs of his constitutuents.

And the other Republicans in the AZ Senate must agree with that  premise - the just elected him to a leadership position.

For the record: Jerry Lewis, the man who soundly defeated Russell Pearce, is as conservative as any other R at the lege. He is just civil about it. And that may be why Antenori and many of his caucus-mates already despise Lewis.


They're afraid he'll make them look bad by comparison.

David Safier at Blog for Arizona offers his take here.