US political economy: less "capitalism", more "capitalized tragedy of the commons"

This started out as a vent, then started developing into something long-winded, dry, and pretentious (think: intellectually speaking, a very low end master's thesis).  Time to return to its roots as a vent.  My spleen needs some venting. :)


Though if someone wants to draw intellectual inspiration from this, they're free to do so.  Just don't pull a Rand Paul and copy some of this verbatim and without attribution. :)

The "official" definition of "tragedy of the commons", courtesy Princeton University -

The tragedy of the commons is a dilemma arising from the situation in which multiple individuals, acting independently and rationally consulting their own self-interest, will ultimately deplete a shared limited resource even when it is clear that it is not in anyone's long-term interest for this to happen.

Many societies, including ours, have collectively decided that certain costs should be shared by society as a whole because they are "public goods", available to be consumed by all.  A prime example of this is national defense.

As our society has grown ever closer to the limits of its available resources, a certain, politically influential segment of society (for brevity's sake, let's refer to that segment as "the 1%") has worked to alter public policy in ways that serve to turn public goods, which benefit all, into private goods, for the benefit of a select few.  Short-term profits must be maximized, even if their policies bring long-term harm to society,

We see this phenomenon manifesting itself in many ways, but it usually occurs when accompanied by the battle cry of "privatize!", of declaring that "government" is the root of all of America's economic woes and that all would magically get better if only "government" would get out of the way of private entities' quest for ever more profit.

Witness President Ronald Reagan's first inaugural address in 1981, wherein he declared that "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."

Or witness Grover Norquist, conservative icon and head of the lobbying group Americans for Tax Reform, with his stated goal to "to cut government in half in twenty-five years to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."

Or witness the unceasing attacks on public education, public employees, and public service in general.

Whether it is efforts to privatize prisons, public education, national parks, Social Security, roads, and pretty near anything else that somebody (who usually makes campaign contributions to the relevant electeds) thinks that they can make a profit from.

Of course, once they are given the opportunity to profit from what were previously public goods (and services are "goods" for the purpose of this post), they immediately seek to maximize and guarantee those increased privatized profits by increasing the price they charge to the public for the goods (that were previously the public's), decreasing the quantity or quality of the goods provided, or to demand a public subsidy to continue providing that previously public good to the public (i.e. - private prison contracts with guaranteed occupancy rates).

In short, every time someone argues that that some part of society's functions should be "privatized" to enhance "efficiency", the only thing that they want to see become more efficient is the transfer of public resources into private pockets.

Many of the electeds who support these privatization and other related moves cite aiding the creation and maintenance of a "healthy business environment", even if the moves that they support work to degrade the long term economic vitality of our society (i.e. - protecting tax breaks for companies that move jobs and operations overseas).

They ignore the fact that a healthy business environment seems to be a byproduct of a healthy society, not the other way around.

And when they do things like let Wall Street lobbyists write bills to weaken the already weak regulations applied to Wall Street and other financial industry firms, it kind of makes it look like that they are *willfully* ignoring the impact of their moves upon society at large.

I don't pretend to know how to change the ingrained economic predatoriness and arrogance of the 1%'s subculture but we can do something to ameliorate the impact of the attitude, and the behavior that goes along with it.

We can elect public officials who take public service seriously, and un-elect those who sell out their constituents to the highest bidders.


Bob Lord at Blog for Arizona has written a series of posts on economic inequality in America.  While the subject isn't an exact match to this one, it is closely related.  Even more importantly, he's a good writer and his posts are worth of a read.  They can be found here.

Public forum on "stand your ground" laws

Posted by request, and without comment, other than "this could be interesting"...

From a flyer sent by State Rep. John Kavanagh (R-Fountain Hills):

Blocked.

...Almost certainly not intended to be a compliment, but certainly taken as one...

Sometimes while doing this, I wonder if anyone reads this blog, if anyone even notices it.

Sometimes, I find evidence proving that yes, someone notices it.

Oh yeah - Jack Harper is back. 

And he's supporting "Atomic" Al Melvin in the race for the 2014 Republican nomination for governor.

Melvin and Harper working together?

It looks like 2014 is going to be scads of fun to write about. :)

Rick Renzi: From the US House to the Big House

...It was a long and winding road, but the destination is in sight now...

From the Phoenix New Times, written by Ray Stern -

Former Arizona U.S. Congressman Rick Renzi was sentenced today to three years in prison following his June conviction on fraud and corruption charges.

The sentence was a long time coming in this classic case of congressional corruption, but Renzi, a Republican, will finally be doing some hard time. New Times was the first to expose Renzi's disgusting dealings in a 2006 article that preceded his 2008 indictment.

Arizona U.S. District Judge David C. Bury sentenced Renzi in a Tucson courtroom Monday, October 28. Renzi's buddy, real-estate investor James Sandlin, also found out today he'll be serving 18 months in the Big House himself.

While there may be a few political luminaries in Arizona who are as deserving of prison as Renzi, I can't think of any who are *more* deserving.

Anyway, in a just world, he would do his time in the federal correctional institution in Safford, AZ - so far as I can tell, it's the only federal corrections facility located in Renzi's former Congressional district.

In 2008, in preparation for this day, I published a post with the contact information for FCI-Safford; the information still seems to be current.

Now, maybe I'm being a little cynical here, but I don't truly expect him to serve his time in AZ, especially since his current residence is in Fairfax County, VA, just outside of D.C.

However, there's actually a dearth of federal correctional facilities in the D.C. area (Bureau of Prisons map here).

The closest facilities seem to be more than 120 miles away (SW VA, metro Richmond, VA, Cumberland, MD).

So that means the USBOP will probably get a little flexibility on where they house Renzi.

While Renzi has a bit of violence in his history, his history, and the charges he was convicted of, probably don't merit incarceration in places like Leavenworth (KS), Marion (IL), Atlanta (GA) or the Supermax facility in Florence (CO), places that house the most hardened prisoners in the federal prison system.

So what would be the most appropriate place to keep Renzi, someone who is used to being in the middle of luxury, in the middle of "the action", in the middle of *everything*?

Well, while there are some isolated outposts in the federal corrections system, I'd like to nominate FCI-Berlin (NH).

Berlin, NH, is a town located along the Androscoggin River in the White Mountains.

It is a beautiful area.

It is a storied area.

It is an "ass end of nowhere" area.


In other words, a perfect choice for the people looking for a place for Renzi to roost for three years.

State appeals court blocks higher campaign contribution limits

...At least until the inevitable appeal by the Republican political leadership...

In a curiously-worded ruling, the Arizona Court of Appeals blocked the hugely increased campaign contribution limits passed by the legislature in HB2593.

At least, they're blocked for state-level candidates.

Under the provisions of HB2593, limits on individual contributions to a political candidate were raised from $450 (local and county races), $440 (legislative races), and $912 (statewide races) to $5000, and aggregate limits, the total that an individual may give to candidates and political committees that give to candidates went from $6390 to no limit.

The ruling from the Court is more than 30 pages long, but the "money" line (so to speak :) ) is the last one -

For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the superior court’s order denying preliminary injunctive relief in its entirety, remand to the superior court for it to reconsider Petitioners’ request for declaratory and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, and, pending its decision on remand, direct the superior court to maintain the preliminary injunction currently in effect enjoining the Secretary from enforcing or implementing the provisions of House Bill 2593 applicable to non-participating candidates for statewide and legislative office. 

I'm not a lawyer, so obtain the counsel of an actual attorney before accepting or giving campaign contributions, but that phrasing seems to set the campaign finance limits for state-level candidates to the previously-established lower numbers ($440 and $912 for legislative and statewide candidates, respectively) while leaving in place the looser limits, and non-limits, for local- and county-level candidates.

The Arizona Secretary of State's website already reflects this development -

This isn't over - an appeal by AZSOS Ken Bennett, AZ Senate President Andy Biggs, and AZ House Speaker Andy Tobin, the Rs fronting the higher limits, is likely.  Assuming they go for it, the next stop is the Arizona Supreme Court.

Stay tuned...

Mary Jo Pitzl of the Arizona Republic has coverage here.

Candidates and Committees Update...

Not much to report this time out. 

Candidates for most of the "major" offices (statewide, Congressional) have already announced or strongly hinted at their intentions, even if they haven't officially submitted paperwork.  New names may still jump into the various frays, but that becomes less likely with each passing day.

For example, state representative Adam Kwasman just announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination for the CD1 Congressional seat currently held by Ann Kirkpatrick.

However, that's not news; it's been widely known for months that he would be pursuing that office.

As for the "minor" offices (legislative, county, municipal), most serious candidates who haven't already filed for a particular office will probably do so by the end of January.

Note:  "Major" and "minor" are in quotes because the while the higher-profile statewide and federal offices may get the lions' share of media attention, the lower-level offices have far more direct impact on people's lives.  They aren't truly "minor", IMO.

In the little actual news for this post...

...Sandra Kennedy, a former member of the Arizona Corporation Commission, has opened a committee for a run at return to the commission.

...Doug Quelland, a former Republican member of the legislature has opened a committee for a run as an Independent for the LD20 State Senate seat currently held by Republican Kimberly Yee.

...Mario Diaz, a well-known political and public affairs consultant, has opened a committee for a run at an "at-large" seat on the governing board of the Maricopa County Community College District (MCCCD).

...That's it for now, anyway.

Christine Jones: choosing the wrong role models?

Say what you want about Arizona politics (and try not to guffaw...or weep...or both...when speaking about AZ politics), this state doesn't seem to have a problem with electing women.

For example, four out of our last five governors have been women - Rose Mofford, Jane Hull, Janet Napolitano, and Jan Brewer.

Another example - two out of our nine members of Congress (and two out of our five Democratic representatives) are women - Ann Kirkpatrick and Kyrsten Sinema.

Women who are running for office here have some great role models to follow, if they choose to take their inspiration from other women who have been candidates or office holders.

Some of the female officeholders/candidates in this state have been outstanding examples for anyone to follow, regardless of partisan identification or gender -

Before she was the victim of an attempted assassination by a shooter who went on to kill six and wound 12 other people, former congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was highly-respected, well-liked, and expected to move on to bigger and better things.

In addition, word was that whenever she met with the Republican leadership of the Arizona legislature, former governor Janet Napolitano was usually the smartest person in the room.  And when she wasn't, anybody in the room that was smarter than her was there working for her.

Both were and are known for their intelligence, professionalism, work ethic, and desire to actually achieve solutions to problems and not for just grandstanding.

In short, they have been among the best public servants in America, not just Arizona.

Unfortunately, the willingness of the Arizona electorate to elect female candidates has also supplied evidence that there are women who are as unfit for office as some of the men who win elections here -

Governor Jan "Brain Freeze" Brewer ("Headless Bodies" would have worked here, too), former state senator Lori "Quickdraw" Klein (would have gone with "Thinks Bigoted And Ignorant Stereotypes Should Serve As The Foundation Of Public Discourse And Policy", but that is too long to serve as a nickname :) ), and State Representative Brenda "Foot in Mouth" Barton are no better than Maricopa County Sheriff Joe "Federal court ruling? Who cares?!?" Arpaio, former state senate president Russell "Never Met A Brown Person He Didn't Want To Deport" Pearce, and former state senator Frank "Don't Make Me Mad" Antenori.

They all have brought, or are still bringing, great amounts of ridicule upon Arizona.

Now, 2014 Republican gubernatorial candidate Christine Jones has staked out her campaign path, and it appears that she is patterning herself after the crowd that merits ridicule, not respect.

She recently appeared at a fundraiser for the aforementioned Arpaio (video courtesy KTVK) -



Once you get past her pseudo-standup comedy part of her time on stage, she gets into the "ignorant" part.

Starting at the 3:35 point in the video, she starts talking about some of the good things that Arpaio does that no one really knows about.

Like leaving water for immigrants crossing the Rio Grande to come into Arizona.

Like having Hispanic people as half of his MCSO staff.

Umm...

A. The Rio Grande River forms part of the border between *Texas* and Mexico, not Arizona and Mexico*.

B. The MCSO itself states that 23% of its employees are Hispanic.  Not even close to 50%.


* - Courtesy U of A, a map of rivers in AZ (note the lack of a river along the border with Mexico, much less one named "Rio Grande") -

And then, she serenades Arpaio (starting at approximately the 5:10 point in the video, ending at approximately the 8:48 mark).

In terms of quality, it wasn't "bad".  It went on way too long, but otherwise, well, it wasn't Mitt Romney singing "America The Beautiful".  In other words, it wasn't painful to watch.

However, in terms of "image", it doesn't exactly say "serious candidate here" either.

On the other hand, at least she didn't try to do an impression of Marilyn Monroe serenading JFK for his birthday in 1962.

Which was fine for the time period and subtext (the JFK/Monroe relationship) in 1962 (I suppose; it was kind of before my time), but would have brought a whole new level of "creepy" to the Arpaio event.

A few thoughts on the tea party types' shutdown of the federal government...

Now that the shutdown is all but over (as I write this, the US House just passed a clean CR to re-open the government), it's time to put into writing some observations, thoughts, and predictions.

Not in any particular order -

...Prediction: 2014 went from being a year where Democratic candidates, especially federal-level candidates, were expected to face a headwind to one where Republicans will be the ones facing some hard questions.

Traditionally (meaning "more often than not"), the party that controls the White House loses Congressional seats during the mid-term elections of a president's second term.  This mess may have changed the likelihood of that happening in 2014.

Note: this may be a truism, though it's not an absolute truth.  As this chart shows, the midterm elections during a president's first term tend to be rougher on that president's party.

It's a year out from the 2014 elections, so the picture could change dramatically, but that would take a certain faction of the Republican Party pulling their heads out of their asses.  I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen.

Betcha they are, though. :)

...Prediction:  John Boehner's (R-OH) speakership is toast.  He may keep his job for the remainder of the term, but regardless of the outcome of the 2014 elections, he will not be Speaker of the House in the next session of Congress. 

Either the Democrats will retake the House (possible, but not likely, IMO) and choose Nancy Pelosi (or some other D) to be Speaker, or the Rs will hold on to a (probably) smaller majority and choose someone who isn't as weak as Boehner.

Bottom line: sometimes a leader has to give those he leads a little free rein; sometimes a leader has to "lead".  Boehner let the bat-shit crazy tail of his caucus wag the entire caucus and endanger the nation's, and maybe the world's, economy.

That's more than "free rein"; *far* more, and far worse.


...Observation:  One difference between the Democrats and Republicans (OK, one of the many :) ) that was highlighted by this mess is the fact that most Democrats in office want to govern; most Republicans in office want to rule.

Hence the R apoplexy over hearing the word "no" when the Democrats didn't give in to their ransom demands.


...Thought:  The CR funds the government until January 15 and suspends the debt limit until February 7.  That sets up the possibility of going through this mess again in a few months.  However, most of the people involved in this mess will be running for reelection by them.  While many of them will still be looking for a little payback over losing this fight, many others will be more concerned with making their voters happy.  While another big fight could take place after the holidays, my guess is that there won't be another serious blowup until after the midterms.

Note:  This one is more a "wish" than a "thought" or even "prediction".  When Republicans like Rep. Peter King (R-NY) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) seem like voices of reason within their caucuses, the Congress and the country as a whole are in trouble.


...Prediction:  It probably won't happen during this term, but look for earmarks to return.  They were both the carrot and stick of party discipline in Congress.  Without them, the leadership on both sides of the aisle have few tools at their disposal to corral and control votes.


...Observation:  Many less overtly political people are calling for the creation of a third party, as the Republicans and Democrats have been in control for too long.  I understand the sentiment, but believe that it is a lazy and superficial one.

One of the reasons that the Democrats and Republicans have maintained their political prominence for so long is that, historically, they've adapted to society's changes.

The problem today is that one of the major parties is controlled by a small but vocal group that thinks society should adapt to them, not the other way around.


...Prediction:  In a few months, or even weeks, the more thoughtful of the Republicans responsible for this mess will sit up, look in a mirror, and wonder "Whatthehell were we thinking?"

Not because they think the possibility of crashing the world economy and destroying the US' credibility is a bad thing (they obviously don't think that), but because a few short weeks ago, the President was on the defensive over things like an impending war with Syria and the NSA surveillance of Americans and others.

His base was fractured (or at least showing a few cracks) and the tea party types had an effective rhetorical cudgel to swing at the President. 

Now?  The President's base and independents have unified behind him, and even people who heretofore had supported the tea party are now distancing themselves from it.


...More to come...

Fred Duval is "boring"? The AZGOP should consider becoming less "interesting".

The Arizona Capitol Times ran a story today about Democratic gubernatorial candidate Fred Duval's clear path to the nomination in 2014. (subscription required)

The money quote was from Robert Graham, chair of the AZGOP.

"DuVal is a plain vanilla candidate. He has no texture to him and he has a party that’s not working for him at this particular point."

Now, granted, Fred Duval isn't Barack Obama or Bill Clinton on the stump.  But to be fair, no one is, including (especially?) those vying for the Republican nomination next year. 

On the other hand, he hasn't suffered the brain freeze heard 'round the world, either. 

Fred has been a successful businessman and dedicated public servant.  

More to the point, he is smart and accomplished and has a positive vision for Arizona.

Unlike, say, some of the candidates that Graham considers to be "exciting" -

- One was a senior executive of a company that markets its product by objectifying women, and not very subtly, either.

- Another brought ridicule to and wasted taxpayer resources of Arizona in the pursuit of a radical fantasy.

- Yet another was accused of defrauding franchisees and the government.

- One more proposed turning the state into a nuclear waste dump. 

- And the capper?  One was disbarred.


There is an old saw, a curse, about living in interesting times.

Mr. Graham may find that supporting "interesting" candidates is just as much a curse.


People who want to volunteer to help Fred's campaign sign up here;  people who want to make a financial contribution can do so here.

Protest by tea party types in DC: Playing the dog whistle like it's a tuba

From Huffington Post, written by Ashley Alman -

At a veteran-led rally that hit the World War II Memorial, the National Mall and the White House on Sunday, one tea party rallier had choice words for President Barack Obama, blaming him for the government shutdown and calling on him to step down.

Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch, a conservative political advocacy group, said the country is "ruled by a president who bows down to Allah," and "is not a president of 'we the people.'"

The video of Klayman, courtesy HuffPo (I think that they got it from CNN, but I got it from HuffPo) -




In case the name "Klayman" doesn't ring a bell, it should - he was Joe Arpaio's go-to guy when Arpaio faced a recall effort, and the notorious Klayman has been preaching treason for a while now.

Kwasman pulling out the dog whistle out of his campaign quiver

"Dog whistle politics" rearing its ugly head in Arizona.  Yet again.

From RationalWiki -

Dog whistle politics usually refers to the use of certain code words or phrases that are designed to be understood by only a small section of the populace. Generally speaking, these are phrases that have special meaning to that subsection entirely independent of its meaning to others, and represent a particularly insidious use of loaded language.

The term alludes to the sound of a dog whistle, which can only be heard by the intended audience (the dog). In theory at least, dog whistle terms are only noticed and understood by the people they are intended for.

During the era of the civil rights movement, and even today, the anti-civil rights crowd liked to use "dog-whistle" euphemisms to talk about their support for institutionalized bigotry, unfettered hatred, and outright lynchings.

They used words and phrases like "states' rights", "elitism", and "heritage" to put a "civil" mask to cover their hatred of minorities and to impugn their critics in ways that weren't overtly offensive but would rouse their base.

Starting in 2008, when America elected its first African-American president, Barack Obama, there has been a rise in "dog whistle politics" nationally, and in every state, particularly those that were part of or sympathetic to the Confederacy in the Civil War.

One example: Birtherism.

This week's Arizona example was State Rep. Brenda Barton's comparison of President Obama to one of history's biggest monsters, Adolph Hitler.

Now, her statement was probably too overt to be considered "dog whistle", but the response of one of Barton's colleagues in the AZ House is most definitely "dog whistle".

Rep. Adam Kwasman (R-LD11) is a candidate for Congress in CD1, and he is facing a primary battle with AZ House Speaker Andy Tobin and Gary Kiehne, a rancher from rural Arizona.

He tweeted this about Barton on Saturday morning -

"Heritage"?

Really?  Given Kwasman's move to the extreme right for the primary (not that he was ever a "moderate" - see the video of the Kwasman's speech against Medicaid restoration, and his opposition to medical care for poor people), my only question is..

Will Kwasman purchase kerosene from campaign funds, or will he buy it "off book"?

Is "foot in mouth" disease covered by Obamacare? If it is, Brenda Barton may want to sign up. Soon.

By now, pretty near everyone who pays attention to the insanity that is Arizona politics is aware of State Rep. Brenda Barton (R-Not My District {Whew!}) Facebook post that compared President Barack Obama to Adolph Hitler, one of the most reviled figures in world history.

From her FB page

The story exploded in Arizona and nationally (here, here, here, and here, among *many* others).

In response to the furor her post generated, Barton released an "explanation" of her post.

I put "explanation" in quotes because her words were less an "explanation" than a denial that her words meant what they mean, a rationalization of her post, saying that while it didn't mean what everyone thinks it means, that it was merited, and a spewing of unsubstantiated talking points and outright lies.

Some have called on her to apologize and/or resign, but I don't expect either to happen.

Her legislative colleague, Sen. Don Shooter, terrorized a school and he didn't resign in shame, and as repugnant as her words and sentiments are, they are still just words.  If one R isn't ashamed of terrorizing a school...

As for the resignation, one would have to have a sense of shame, of recognizing uncivil behavior, to even consider that.

And Barton?  Let's just say that no one has ever accused her of being overburdened by shame or civility.

From her Facebook feed on August 15, in support of a rodeo clown who wore an Obama mask at an event in Missouri -

Of course, she's not the only Arizona Republican with a fetish about equating Democrats (or maybe just anyone who dares disagree with them) with Nazis.

Now, Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery is likening the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to Nazi Germany because it dared to sue over one of the lege's many anti-abortion bills (at the :50 second mark or so) -




One silver lining to Montgomery's spouting off? 

It blows up the theory that he is a more polished version of his predecessor, the disgraced and disbarred Andrew Thomas.

At least, it gives lie to the "more polished" part of the theory.

AZ AG Tom Horne declares that AZ voters will be subject to a 21st Century version of "Separate But Equal"

One of the darkest parts, if not *the* darkest part, of US history, was the enslavement of Africans here from the inception of the country (during the colonial period) through the end of the Civil war (mid to late 19th Century).

One can argue about choosing the next darkest part (the genocide of Native Americans could go here), but any credible short list must include the post-slavery period that lasted from the end of the Civil War until the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s.

That era was defined by the doctrine of "separate but equal".  That doctrine so institutionalized discrimination against African Americans that, in practical terms, they were "free" without having the freedom to fully participate in, and benefit from, society.

Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne is doing his best "Back to the Future" move, trying to bring the "good ol' boy" days back to Arizona.

From the Arizona Republic, written by Mary Jo Pitzl -

Arizona will have a two-track voting system for the 2014 election, under a new state policy underpinned by an opinion from the state attorney general.

Arizonans who registered to vote using a federal form will only be allowed to vote in federal races next year. People who registered to vote using Arizona’s state form — which requires proof of citizenship — will be able to vote as usual, casting ballots in everything from local races to state contests to congressional races.

Attorney General Tom Horne’s opinion comes in the wake of a June U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down part of state voter-approved law that required proof of U.S. citizenship as a pre-condition to voting.

In his official opinion (available at the link contained in the quoted text), he also declares that voters who register with the federal form aren't allowed to sign petitions, either. 

Countdown to the next lawsuit that Arizona will lose (and Arizona's taxpayers will pay for) in 3...2...1...

Triangulation: The coward's political platform

From Taegan Goddard's Political Dictionary -

triangulation

The act of a political candidate presenting his or her views as being above and between the left and right sides of the political spectrum. It’s sometimes called the “third way.”

In practice, it has come to cover the situation where electeds establish a voting and issue position pattern that is so disorganized that they can present it as meaning whatever they think that a given audience will like best.

And when the audience changes, so does the way that the electeds present their records.

Some observers, being more cynical than me (which is saying something :) ) call it "practical".

I call it "cowardly".


In the last week or so, during the federal government shutdown crisis manufactured the Republicans in the US House of Representatives, we've seen a couple of the Democratic members of AZ's Congressional delegation go down this path in the most brazen way possible.

Reps. Kyrsten Sinema (D-CD9) and Ron Barber (D-CD2) have tried to look "reasonable" by siding with the tea party types in Congress by voting to weaken the Affordable Care Act.  They have also supported a number of bills that are intended to cloak the Rs in an aura of "puppy dogs and fluffy white clouds" (funding PR-friendly agencies and operations like cancer research, etc.).

I'm not psychic, and I'm not exactly the first person they call for advice (shocking, I know :) ), so I can't speak from direct knowledge.  However, most informed speculation on the subject is that Barber and Sinema have been voting the way that they have been in a move to gain Republican votes in their competitive districts.

By doing so, they've aligned themselves with, and given political cover to, the people who have crippled the government because they object to the idea that Americans now have access to affordable health insurance coverage.  People who, during the shutdown, have:

- Said that shutting down government and putting hundreds of thousands of workers out of work was their idea of "fun" (AZ's own David Schweikert)

- Berated an unpaid park ranger at a WWII memorial in DC for shutting down access to the memorial, one of the many closed by the federal government shutdown created by Republicans (TX's Randy Neugebauer)

- Stated that they still deserve their paychecks because, unlike furloughed workers, they are still on the job (too many to list all of them, but here's one)


Neither Barber nor Sinema is the first to follow this game plan, and neither Barber nor Sinema will be the first to fail using it.

It's been used for many years by Arizona Democrats, and it has resulted in there being *no* Democrats holding statewide office and the Democrats holding federal office only coming from "safe" districts (Congressmen Ed Pastor and Raul Grijalva) or being carried into office on the coattails of another candidate* (Congresswomen Ann Kirkpatrick and Sinema, and Congressman Barber).

* - It's no mistake to say this.  In 2012, Barack Obama was on the ballot and Democrats all over the country made headway; in 2010, he was not, and Democrats all over the country had their butts handed to them electorally.

It is a game plan that isn't likely to gain them the Republican votes that they covet - it's been said before that people who lean Republican will vote for the "real" thing when presented with a choice between a real Republican candidate and a Republican-lite one.

And the plan probably won't directly cost them Democratic votes because while many D voters may decide that Sinema and Barber aren't "good" candidates, they are the "less bad" option on the ballot.

Where it will hurt them is in the enthusiasm department.  Candidates, especially those in competitive districts and races, need the support of *believers* who are willing to walk precincts and make calls for their candidate in exchange for, at most, a pat on the back and some snacks.

The ranks of their true believers are being thinned by this mess.


Let me be clear on this:  I can accept disagreeing with an elected official on policy, so long as I believe that the elected's policy position is borne from a genuine concern for his/her constituents' best interests.

Politics is all about disagreement.  People who can't handle that, who throw temper tantrums whenever they don't get their way and resort to threats, bullying, and extortion in an attempt to change the results of an election should do the honorable thing and get out of politics.

And so should those who aid and abet the bullies by throwing their constituents under the bus in an attempt to gain the support of people who are never going to support them anyway.

I don't know Congressman Barber, having never met him, but I did meet Congresswoman Sinema while she was a member of the Arizona legislature.  In addition, I live in CD9 and met her again during the 2012 campaign.

She is smart, hard-working, accomplished, and ambitious.

Generally speaking, each of those qualities, even "ambitious", is a good thing in electeds, especially young ones.

However, "ambitious" can also be a problem for young electeds if rather than ruling their ambitions, their ambitions rule them.

The jury is still out on Sinema in this regard, but there are growing indications that her ambitiousness is compromising her political judgement.  With the debt ceiling fight coming up and quickly, more insight into Sinema (and Barber, as well), will soon be available.


Donna at Democratic Diva offers her take on this situation here.

Bob at Blog for Arizona offers his take here.

Steve at Arizona Eagletarian offers his take here.

Jan Brewer and AZ's Republicans showing their priorities during the federal government shutdown: tourists and photo ops over poor people

Republicans doing a mean two-step during the shutdown...with the emphasis on "mean"...

Step 1:

From the Associated Press, via KVOA (Tucson) -

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer is taking an offer to use state money to keep the Grand Canyon open to the top.

Brewer and state legislative leaders sent a letter to President Barack Obama urging him to approve funding the Arizona park and other national parks.

Step 2:

From the Arizona Republic, written by Mary K. Reinhart - 

Policy experts say Arizona appears to be the only state in the nation so far to have withheld welfare checks because of the federal shutdown, a move key state lawmakers want Gov. Jan Brewer to reverse.

The shutdown halted funding Tuesday for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, which states use to provide cash assistance and other support for low-income children and parents. Arizona officials announced this week that 5,200 eligible families would not receive payments, which average $207 a month.

“It basically means that families who already have very low income, who are approved and expecting their payments, didn’t get them. And with very little warning,” said LaDonna Pavetti, vice president for family income support at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington, D.C.

So is there a special room somewhere, maybe the headquarters of the AZGOP, or in the offices of the local Chamber of Commerce, or even the offices of the Goldwater Institute, where elected GOPers (and wannabes) have to store their souls?

...And I know someone who reads this will want to spout off about how President Obama and the Democrats in Congress are responsible for the shutdown.

To that I say -

You can have and express your opinion, even when it is wrong.  Like now. 

However, what is *fact* is that every statewide elected official in Arizona is Republican, and they are the ones who have decided to use the shutdown to deny aid to the poorest in Arizona.

For that, they should be ashamed.

Of course, if any of them had a sense of shame, we probably wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.