Response and correction, with an observation

This week's "Coming Week" post on legislative committee activity brought forth a response, one that merits its own post.

The response to the original post -

Regarding your comments on the House Appropriations Committee agenda, nobody is being sued and most of SB1070 has been upheld. Factually, you are 0 for 2.

State Rep. John Kavanagh (Approps Chair)

The line relating to the SB1070 lawsuit that I used in the post -

- Appropriations, Wednesday 2 p.m., HHR1.  One item on the agenda: HB2366, appropriating funds for nativist legislators and former legislators who have been sued over their involvement in the infamous (and mostly overturned by court decisions) SB1070.

Well, both Rep. Kavanagh and I were in error here.

From KGUN9, written by Ina Ronquillo -

Republican leaders in the Arizona Legislature want taxpayers to pay for a legal fight against subpoenas seeking emails from nearly two dozen current and former lawmakers in a case stemming from a challenge to Arizona's anti-immigration law, SB1070.

That lawsuit, by the ACLU, doesn't actually name the current and former legislators.

Instead, their records are being subpoenaed as part of the lawsuit over a law that they were heavily involved in enacting.

My phrasing was unclear at best, and plainly incorrect at worst, and will be updated.  I apologize for any misconceptions caused by my poor choice of words.

However, there was nothing unclear about Kavanagh's statement in his comment - "...nobody is being sued..."

There is also nothing correct about it.

As for the other part, about me stating that SB1070 has been "mostly overturned" and Kavanagh stating that "most of SB1070 has been upheld".

The US Supreme Court has struck down three significant provisions of the law while upholding a fourth major one.

We can quibble about the meaning of "most" in this context, so while I won't call out Kavanagh on this part of his statement, I'm still going to stand by the original text of mine.

Now, I'm not one given to quoting the Bible, but there is one passage that fits perfectly here.

From Matthew 7:3-5 (New International Version) -

³ “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? ⁴ How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? ⁵ You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

GOP solution to CPS scandal: Help abused children in AZ by undermining the education and health of all children in AZ

In the classic novel 1984, George Orwell coined a term, "doublethink", meaning the acceptance of two contradictory ideas at the same time.

It seems that the GOPer caucus of the lege has made doublethink a linchpin of their ideological platform tactical planning.

From Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services, via the Arizona Daily Star -

A veteran state lawmaker wants voters to siphon cash away from a program for early-childhood development and redirect it to help fund services for foster children and the families that care for them.

Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, said it’s clear that additional money is needed to ensure laws against child abuse and neglect are being enforced.

Child Protective Services has been running a backlog of 10,000 cases listed as inactive, meaning there has been no action on them in at least two months. And that is on top of the more than 6,500 complaints that were recently discovered to have been entirely ignored and now are finally being investigated.

All that, Kavanagh said, will have to come from general tax revenues.

But he said there is other money potentially available for foster-care families: revenues from an 80-cent-a-pack tax on cigarettes that voters approved in 2006. He said some of the funds from First Things First, which now finance everything from pre-kindergarten programs to subsidized child care, might be better spent on families with more immediate needs.

First Things First is an early childhood health and education project implemented by the voters in 2006 when it became obvious that the Arizona Legislature, as a group, is more intent on sacrificing Arizona's children on the altar of GOP ideology/corporate greed than it doing its job - working for the benefit of all of Arizona.

First Things First, being created by a ballot question approved by the state's voters, is subject to the Voter Protection clause of the Arizona Constitution and can only be changed or ended by another ballot question.

The Republicans in the legislature have been attacking First Things First since its inception.  In 2010, they put a question on the ballot to end it and grab the money for its own purposes.

That question failed miserably, even in what turned out to be a massive R wave year.

Apparently, this year they're going to try the "We're going to help the children by hurting the children.  It's for the kids.  Trust us.  Really, just trust us" gambit.


Truly, if the majority in the lege has its way, those children in Arizona who are fortunate enough to reach adulthood (or, at least, old enough to be tried as adults), will make fine fodder for the ever-well -funded private prison industry.

I wonder what motivate$ their anti-children and pro-pri$on policie$?  Hmmm...

Wednesday's House Approps meeting: more than just protecting bigots on the agenda

As if his Bigot Protection Act hadn't set up tomorrow's meeting of House Appropriations to be very contentious, Rep. John Kavanagh (R-Fountain Hills) scheduled two other "interesting" items for consideration:

SB1325, turning small (< 600 students), rural (> 30 minutes and 20 miles away from the nearest "law enforcement facility) schools into armed encampments (regular agenda)

How about we call this bill the "Creating More Dead Students Act".

SB1363, expanding Arizona's school voucher program "empowerment scholarship accounts" (special agenda)

Let's call this one the "Yarbrough Revenue Enhancement Act".


Hmmm...how about a pop-culture inspired prediction?

My Buzzword Bracket for tomorrow has for its Final Four (predicting the words used most often by the Rs in the room) -

Liberty

Bible

Protect

Business

And no matter which one emerges as the champion (I'm betting on "Business"), the people of Arizona will go down to defeat, submarined by their own elected legislators.

Kavanagh changes his bathroom bill; scraps jail for transgender people in favor of protection for bigots

Wow.  It seems that Rep. John Kavanagh is mellowing with age.

Last week, he wanted transgendered people to go to jail for daring to go to the bathroom.  This week, he just wants to protect people who discriminate against the transgendered.

He has amended the agenda for this week's meeting of the House Appropriations Committee to include a proposed striker to SB1045 -

Strike everything after the enacting clause and insert:

"Section 1.  Title 41, chapter 9, article 3, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding section 41-1444, to read:

START_STATUTE41-1444.  Privacy; public place; public accommodation; state preemption; definitions

A.  The regulation of access to privacy areas in places of public accommodation based on gender identity or expression is of statewide concern and is not subject to further regulation by a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state.

B.  A county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state shall not enact or enforce an ordinance or policy that requires a person or business to regulate access to privacy areas based on gender identity or expression.

C.  No person or business shall be civilly or criminally liable for denying access to privacy areas based on gender identity or expression.

D.  This section does not prohibit a person or business from allowing access to privacy areas based on gender identity or expression.

E.  Any ordinance or policy that relates to access to privacy areas based on gender identity or expression that is inconsistent with this section is void and of no force or effect.

F.  For the purposes of this section:

1.  "gender identity or expression" means either:

(a)  An individual's self‑identification as male, female or something in between and includes an individual's appearance, mannerisms or other characteristics only insofar as they relate to gender with or without regard to the individual's designated sex at birth.

(b)  Any other substantially similar self‑identification of gender.

2.  "Privacy areas" means areas in places of public accommodation where access is restricted based on sex, including a public restroom, bathroom, shower, bath, dressing room or locker room.

Sec. 2.  Emergency

This act is an emergency measure that is necessary to preserve the public peace, health or safety and is operative immediately as provided by law."

Oh yeah - in a particularly nasty touch, Kavanagh apparently thinks that bigots are in such dire need of protection from the transgendered (and from Phoenix' anti-discrimination ordinance, which is really what this is all about) that it is an emergency situation.

For the emergency clause to go into effect, however, it will take a 2/3 vote of each chamber of the legislature. 

Since I'm pretty sure that every D in each chamber will vote against this, that won't happen.  On the other hand, I'm also pretty sure that every R at the lege will support the legalization of hatred, so the bill will pass, and Governor Jan Brewer will probably sign it.

It just won't go into force until 90 days after the end of the legislative session.  The lag time is meant to allow time for legal challenges, and that may be Kavanagh's rationale - he's fully aware that if enacted, his proposal will face many legal challenges.

The "emergency" situation that the clause may be intended to address is a concern that the bill could be stayed or overturned before it goes into effect, and that could put a crimp in the amount of adulation (and campaign contributions) he receives from the supporters of the Center for Arizona Theocracy Policy.

Note:  In case you didn't already figure it out, the "mellowing with age" crack at the beginning of the post was sarcasm.


Dennis Welch of KTVK (channel 3) has less opinionated coverage here.

Mary Jo Pitzl of the Arizona Republic has a story here on how Kavanagh's attempt to regulate bathroom use has apparently inspired a recall effort against him.

Republican legislative agendas: It's like deja vu all over again

In case anyone thought that the Republicans learned some lessons from their trouncing in November, think again.

In the US House, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-somewhere past the orbit of Pluto...ok, she's from Minnesota.  But this time of year, Pluto and MN are roughly the same temperature.  :) ) introduced, on the very first day of the 113th Congress, introduced HR45, a measure to repeal healthcare reform, also known as "ObamaCare" and HR46, a measure to repeal Dodd-Frank, the minimal increase in oversight of Wall Street and the financial services industry after the financial speculation bubble burst late in the last decade. (no text available for either measure as yet)

The Rs have been wailing against both measures basically since both were enacted; for example, in just the last Congress, the House Republicans voted to repeal health care reform 33 times.

None of their efforts made it through the Senate, and there's no reason to think that these will, if one or both even passes the House.  Of course, both HR45 and HR46 were assigned to *9* committees each, which may be the House Republican leadership's way of saying "quit wasting our time, Michele."

Of course, Republicans in Arizona are no better; in fact, they may actually be worse - they know they may actually get their way.

In Washington, the House Republicans will posture endlessly, but even they know what they're doing it just for show, to appease their base at klavern meetings and country club cocktail parties, but little more.

In Arizona, the Republicans may be looking to appease the same people, but do so with the knowledge that their efforts may actually become the law of the land.

To whit:

State Rep. John Kavanagh (R-Fountain Hills, which isn't as far out there as Pluto, but it's close - Fountain Hills is also the home of Joe Arpaio) has filed his first bill for the upcoming session of the Arizona legislature - HCR2003.

If passed by the legislature, it would refer to the ballot a repeal of Arizona's medical marijuana law, a law that was enacted by the voters in 2010.

Since it was enacted, Arizona's elected Republicans have been fighting it in every court that will accept their legal filings. 

They've been going the "court" route because they can't overturn the will of the voters on their own. 

In 1998, the voters of Arizona passed an amendment to the state constitution known as Prop 105, or the Voter Protection Act.  It bars the legislature from overturning a measure approved by the voters.  They *can* amend such a measure, if the amendment both furthers the purpose of the measure and is approved by a 3/4 vote of the lege.

The 1998 measure was necessary because the lege had overturned a 1996 measure relating to...wait for it...

Medical marijuana.


Of course, even in court, they usually lose, and lose badly.  Which leaves Kavanagh's plan as the only one with real viability - get the voters to override themselves.

Which *could* happen, except that the Rs haven't presented any independently verifiable evidence that the voters were wrong to approve the medical marijuana law.  All they've done is present evidence that the Rs don't agree with the voters.

Now, I'm a pretty cynical, "glass half full" kind of guy, but even I think that's not going to be enough to convince the voters of Arizona.

Oh, and given the Republicans' penchant for doing the "same old, same old", I have a nominee for the office of chair of the GOP (national or state, works either way) -

Punxsutawny Phil.


If you don't understand the reference, watch the movie "Groundhog Day", starring Bill Murray.

AIRC hearing in Scottsdale

Thursday evening, well over 200 people gathered at the Granite Reef Senior Citizen Center in Scottsdale for one of the hearings held by the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC).

The room was so crowded that building staff had to put out dozens of extra chairs and there were still people stand around the sides of the room and outside where they still listen to the goings-on.

A couple of us made jokes that the Rs in the legislature weren't going to have time to completely shut down the meeting because the fire department would beat them to it. 

However, the mayor of Scottsdale, Jim Lane, was in the audience, so the Scottsdale Fire Department was nowhere around.

Lane testifying











Steve at Arizona Eagletarian has a full write-up here, but I have a few observations about the meeting, the R talking points (and the early part of the hearing was an R propaganda-fest) -

- Commissioner Rick Stertz, the commissioner present at the hearing (and Russell Pearce's appointee), gave preference to elected officials, letting them speak first.  Apparently, that has been the practice all along, even before the lege moved to usurp the "independence" in the independent redistricting process.

However, the average citizen had only two minutes to speak, where the electeds spoke for as long as they wanted to. 

Apparently in Arizona, not only do alleged public servants not understand the concept of *public" service, they don't even acknowledge (or maybe simply don't understand) the concepts of basic courtesy, as in "hit the high points, submit the rest in writing, and get out of the way - a lot of other people have the right to be heard too".

- Republican State Rep. John Kavanagh was one of the electeds who testified at the hearing.  In the interests of brevity, I won't rehash all of it (it was itself a rehash of the report generated by the GOPers kangaroo court...errr..."Joint Committee On Redistricting"), but suffice to say if Kavanagh or any of his associates choose to stand up and repeat that BS in court, they should bring a good defense attorney with them (hint: not Lisa Hauser; her involvement with this mess may cause her to need a defense attorney, but it doesn't make her one).

And they should bring a good toothbrush with them, in case the good defense attorney just isn't good enough and the judge is one that takes a dim view of perjury.  Ya just don't know where that prison-issued toothbrush has been...

- Other than the generic R talking points excoriating the AIRC for failing to kiss R butt, there was a pattern to specific suggestions that the Rs made to the AIRC.

They want Fountain Hills to be placed in the same district(s) as Scottsdale.  They consider Scottsdale and Fountain Hills to be an unbreakable "community of interest".  One woman testified that placing the two areas in separate districts was unacceptable because while she lives in Fountain Hills, she likes to shop in Scottsdale.

I only *wish* I was making that part up, but alas, my imagination just isn't that creative.

Anyway, the mentality exhibited seemed to be less that district boundaries are lines on a map and more that they walls across streets.

Not the truth, but the truth and intellectual honesty was in short supply during the early part of the meeting.

One thing I'd say to the woman who conflated shopping and district lines if I could - the merchants of north Scottsdale don't care about what district (or state, or country) their customers are from, so long as they leave a lot of money here when they visit.

The other consistent map-specific talking point was that the AIRC should change the lines to include south Scottsdale in the same districts as north Scottsdale.

I haven't heard such professions of solidarity with south Scottsdale from the denizens of north Scottsdale since...

...the last round of redistricting.

The rest of the time, north Scottsdale has as much regard for south Scottsdale as it does for Tempe, Mesa, or a pile of dog poop on the sidewalk.

And after the maps are finalized, and regardless of how the lines turn out, their attitude will return to the normal not-so-benign contempt (gee, can ya tell I live in south Scottsdale?  :) ).

Note: Scottsdale City Councilman Bob Littlefield was there and while he is from north Scottsdale, he is an exception to that observation.  Actually, among Scottsdale's "power elite", he is *the* exception.

- As mentioned earlier, most of the early part of the meeting was Republicans tag-teaming to shovel the same pile of BS.

However, later in the evening, the speakers tended toward being Independents or Democrats, all of whom supported the independence of the AIRC and competitive districts.

Many of them spoke eloquently and passionately, many spoke bluntly and passionately.

However, the best line of the night went to Doris Freeman -

"You think you are living in a Republican state?  You don't.  You live in a banana republic."

Freeman testifying












While the video of the meeting isn't up yet, when it is it will be available here, and it's worth a view...if you need to elevate your blood pressure.

Some pics from the meeting -

The crowd

Kavanagh lying "testifying"

Steve Muratore of the Arizona Eagletarian (seated) and Kavanagh.  Check out the skeptical look from Muratore.

Commission Rick Stertz (seated center), AIRC Republican counsel Joe Kanefield (right) and a representative from Strategic Telemetry whose name I can't spell (left)

Independent Eric Kurland testifying

Kavanagh amendment targeting universities

...at first glance, it appears he may be serving as the hatchet man for the Goldwater Institute, but to give Rep. John Kavanagh his due, he's a smart man and could have thought of this all on his own.

On Wednesday, the House Appropriations Committee, chaired by Rep. John Kavanagh (R-Fountain Hills), will consider a strike-everything amendment (aka - "striker") to SB1116.

That proposed amendment reads, in part -

...universities under the jurisdiction of the Arizona board of regents may not:

1. Provide taxpayer funded programs, scholarships or courses if the purpose of the program, scholarship or course is to advocate public policy.

2. Allow taxpayer funded organizations, institutes or centers to operate on the campus of the university or on behalf of or in association with the university if the purpose of the organization, institute or center is to advocate public policy.

Based on a cursory examination of the websites of ASU and U of A, at least two possible targets of the measure seem obvious -

U of A's Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy

ASU's Morrison Institute for Public Policy


The Udall Center focuses on immigration and indigenous peoples, while Morrison tends to focus on economic and governance issues.

The institutes serve as a reasoned counterweight to both the Goldwater Institute and the nativists in the lege (of which group Kavanagh is a leading light).

And neither of those groups like the competition.


Other institutes that could also be targeted, or at least caught up as collateral damage include:

The National Institute for Civil Discourse at U of A

The Global Institute for Sustainability at ASU


I'm guessing neither one of those is the main target here, but none of the Rs in the lege will complain if they go away.

Anyway, the meeting will be Wednesday (tomorrow as of this writing) at 2 p.m. in HHR1 at the state capitol.

Senate Judiciary Holds Anti-14th Amendment Bills

...but this isn't over yet.

Before a packed meeting room, the Judiciary Committee of the Arizona Senate listened to well over two hours of testimony regarding SB1308 and SB1309, the anti-14th Amendment/birthright citizenship bills proposed by Sen. Ron Gould, the committee's chair.

Anybody who watched the proceedings, in person or over the internet, was treated to a mindnumbing showcase of constitutional law knowledge and ignorance.

The lead actor in that part of Monday's political theater was one John Eastman, a law schoo dean from California.  Dr. Eastman's biography boasts of his clerkship for US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.  He also regularly weighs in on things like torture, school vouchers, expansive Presidential power, and more, always supporting the "conservative" position.  In short, he was an out-of-town ringer brought in by Gould and Pearce for just this event.

Eastman droned on for well over 90 minutes, basically arguing that everyone of the "interpretations" of the 14th Amendment over the last 140+ years was wrong and that his "interpretation" was the correct one.

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema served as the main counterpoint to Eastman's misinformation, drawing on her own intelligence and legal knowledge to successfully refute Eastman's arguments.  Republican Senator Adam Driggs, a lawyer too, also pushed back against Eastman.

I'm not recounting the discussion in it entirety because it was too long and technical for me to follow closely, but friend of mine who works in the justice system was watching, described Eastman's arguments as erroneous (OK, a different word was used, but in the interests of keeping this post family-friendly... :) ).

The video of the meeting will eventually be posted on the legislature's website here (look for Senate Judiciary on 2/7/2011).

While I can't completely summarize the legal arguments between Sinema and Driggs on one side and Eastman on the other, I can list some of the better quotes of the meeting -

"The bills would have no effect unless the federal government takes steps" - Gould (then why waste the taxpayers' time and resources with this crap)

"I'm the 'Clarence Thomas' of this committee - I don't ask many questions" -Sen. John McComish

The bills "could shame our state" - Jennifer Allen of the Border Action Network

The proposals would "create multiple generations of children without a nation, a community" - Dana Naimark of Childrens Action Alliance

Three children, ages 11 and 12, spoke on behalf of other children and future children in opposition to the bills.  Also opposed were representatives of the Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce and the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

In fact, every person who testified Monday *except* for the ringer brought in by Gould and Pearce was opposed to the bills.

Just about the only tactic that Gould et. al. used today that worked was letting Eastman go on and on while keeping dissenters on a strict time limit.  By the time many of the opposing witnesses were called to the podium, they had left the meeting due to the late hour.

However, that didn't change the basic math for Gould - out of eight members of the committee, three were clearly going to vote against his measures (Democrats Sinema and Steve Gallardo, and Republican Driggs) and one was wavering (Republican McComish) leaving both dead on a 4 - 4 ties.  His "hold" of the bills allows him to both save face and allow him, Pearce, et. al. to twist some arms behind the scenes to wrangle the votes into line or even to pull the bills from that committee and assign it to one with a more pliable membership.

The quote of the day, and possibly highlighting the reason that Gould and company are so scared of immigrants, came from 12-year-old Kathleen Figueroa -

"We are the future."

Some pics -

Ron Gould, and *yes* that is a tea party sticker on his state computer...

Kyrsten Sinema during the discussion

Just a few of the many media representatives watching the hearing

One of Gould's fellow nativists, Rep. John Kavanagh, made a personal appearance to check in on the proceedings

The protest outside the Senate building

Steve Gallardo

Odds and ends...

..."Welcome to the worst state of the union" was the headline (but not the quote)



You are now reading the blog of an internationally-known "Democratic commentator."  Take a moment to appreciate your good fortune.  Ahhhhhhh....

Seriously, reporter Andrew Purcell, writing for the Sunday Herald (Scotland), contacted me earlier this week for a piece he was putting together on the fiscal crises facing the various states and the federal government here in the U.S.  One of the states featured in his article was Arizona, and he spoke to both Rep. John Kavanagh and me.  In the published piece, I was quoted as "Democratic commentator Craig McDermott."

It's a solid piece of journalism, and before any R readers jump to conclusions, it's fair and even-handed.  Arizona is only a small part of the piece.  The focus is mostly divided between the federal goverment, New Jersey, with mentions of some other states.  Arizona seems to have received the most attention of the "other states."

I recommend the piece (and not just because I'm quoted in it :) ).  Being so close to our own fiscal problems, it can be easy to lose sight of the fact that Arizona isn't the only state in a deep fiscal crisis.

Purcell has posted the article as he wrote it and with a headline more of his choosing (the editors at the Herald chose one that is a little more eye-catching, as editors are wont to do :) ) on his own website, here.

I'm grateful to Purcell for two things.

1. Reaching out and interviewing folks here (yes, even for interviewing Kavanagh).

2. Not making me sound like the babbling idiot that I felt like during the interview. :)

...Apparently, Sen. Linda Gray believes that she and the other people who run the state do so with a divine mandate.

At the beginning of the Special Session Senate floor session on Wednesday, she gave the prayer.  Her prayer was a recitation of one listed in George Washington's Prayer Journal, one with the line (emphasis mine) "...bless O Lord, all the people of this land, from the highest to the lowest, particularly those whom thou has appointed to rule over us in church & state..."

The video archive of the session can be found on this page.  The line is uttered at approximately the 1:03 mark of the video for "01/19/2011 - Senate Floor - Special Session" (approximately halfway down the page right now).

...On the other hand, that may fit in with the Republican theme of the week - their biennial reorganization meeting was held in a mega-church in north Phoenix.

...This week marked the 50th anniversary of John F. Kennedy's 1960 Inaugural address, the one with the immortal line "ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."

Today, a President uttering such a line would be decried as a "raving socialist" or something else equally false or worse.  However, it's a line that anyone who truly considers him- or herself a patriot should take to heart.



...Of course, this week marked another anniversary, one that the screamers probably celebrated far more enthusiastically than they honored JFK's inauguration.

The decision in Citizens United vs. FEC was handed down one year ago, ushering in an age of corporate domination of American elections.

Later...

If the Arizona legislature has its way, the safest college campus in Arizona won't be in Arizona...

...not legally, anyway.

The ever-reliable (for providing blog subject material, anyway) Jack Harper is getting an early start on his term in the House.  The soon-to-be-former state senator is the lead sponsor of the first House bill of the next session of the legislature, HB2001.

If enacted into law, the measure would allow faculty members of the state's community colleges, provisional community colleges, and state universities to carry concealed weapons on campus.

This bill, in one form or another, has been proposed in the last few sessions of the legislature.  It's usually opposed by the police departments and staff of the various colleges and campuses.

It's an indicator of how certain (OK, "most") Rs place a premium on ideology over reality.

Nearly everybody who has worked, taught, learned, or just visited on one of Arizona's college campuses doesn't see the need for this bill, yet the ideologues in the legislature continue to push this measure to turn our colleges and universities into armed encampments.

Of course, this being the legislature, when one comes across a measure that seems to be inherently dumb, one should also look for legislator who'd personally benefit from it.

State Rep. John Kavanagh (R-Russell Pearce with a 'Noo Yawk' accent) is the Director of Scottsdale Community College's Administration of Justice Studies program.

This bill, if passed, would seem to benefit him, presuming that as an FOR (Friend of Russell's) he's as much in the pocket of the NRA as his friend and cannot function in society without immediate access to his gun.

Except...

The campus of the community college that employs him is situated entirely within the boundaries of the Salt River Pima/Maricopa Indian Community (SRP/MIC).

While the college is "within the jurisdiction" of a community college district (Maricopa County Community College District), the laws that apply to the persons on it are those of the SRP/MIC.

People are barred from possessing weapons on the campus (and the rest of the Community) under *tribal* law, not state law.

HB2001, if enacted, wouldn't actually go into effect there.

Ooopsie.

I'm not sure if the prospects for this bill are any better this time around than they were in the past, but given the lege's rightward lurch and its utter disregard for the opinions of people who have anything to do with education, anything is possible.

Stay tuned.  The coming session of the lege is going to provide fodder for writers all over the state.

Unfortunately.

Response to John Kavanagh's comment

Earlier today I wrote a post about the recently-released 2009 crime statistics and how they serve to undermine Jan Brewer's campaign plank of "Fear The Dastardly Brown-Skinned People."

That post elicited a comment from LD8 State Representative John Kavanagh (R-Fountain Hills), a comment that deserves a post of its own in response.

First, his comment -

It is all but impossible to use statewide crime statistics to measure the impact of a "shadow group," such as illegal immigrants, on crime. Of course if you were so inclined, the decrease in crime between 2008 and 2009 is consistent with illegals causing more crime because that is when the jobs and illegal immigrants both began to leave Arizona. But again, it is stretching the data to arrive at any conclusion.

A better indicator, although once again not a complete one, is to compare the number of known criminal illegal aliens with their portion of the population. Using the often cited Pew estimate of 500,000 illegal immigrants in Arizona, we can conclude that they comprise about 7.7% of the population. However, they make up about 14% of persons “booked” into Maricopa County jails and constitute about 14.7% of Arizona’s prison population. Thus, known data supports the view that illegal immigrants commit more crime, beyond being here illegally, than legal residents.

State Rep. John Kavanagh

My response:

Let the spin begin.

OK, that's too snarky.

First, I want to thank Rep. Kavanagh for his comment. 

I may disagree with him on pretty much everything that Ds and Rs can disagree on, but his comment was a serious one and deserves the courtesy of a serious response.

His first paragraph was actually correct, as far as it goes - the data gathered and published by the FBI doesn't specify the demographic origin of the people who committed the criminal acts that make up the statistics.  The criminals behind the acts could be undocumented immigrants, legal immigrants, citizens (native born or naturalized), or little green men from Mars*. 

Nor does the data explain the reduction in criminal activity, only that there *was* a reduction.

However, he should have left it at that.  While Kavanagh feels, perhaps with some justification, that the crime data released by the FBI is incomplete, he tried to buttress his anti-immigrant rhetoric with statistics of questionable provenance.

He cited statistics generated by the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (MCSO) to prove his point that undocumented immigrants commit crimes at a rate out of proportion with their numbers in society as a whole.

Specifically, he trots out the percentage of undocumented immigrants booked into county jail as proof of his position.

The problem with that?  MCSO targets undocumented immigrants (and documented immigrants, and citizens who happen look like they have ancestors with some familiarity with the Spanish language) for harassment and arrest out of proportion to their numbers in Maricopa County as a whole, to the point that MCSO has sacrificed service of felony and misdemeanor warrants, a prime function of sheriff's offices all over the country, in order to divert resources and personnel to headline- and camera-grabbing anti-immigrant sweeps.

The stats coming out of the MCSO may be accurate in terms of what the MCSO does, but that doesn't mean that those stats accurately reflect Arizona or even Maricopa County as a whole.

In other words, while undocumented immigrants may make up 14% (or more) of those arrested by MCSO, they aren't necessarily responsible for 14% (or more) of the crimes committed in Maricopa County.


* - If little green men from Mars are involved, the Men In Black want to know. :)

Rep. John Kavanagh thinks that ethnic profiling is something to joke about

More than three years ago, I wrote about how LD8 State Rep. John Kavanagh (R-Fountain Hills) was little more than a polished version of Russell Pearce, only with a "New Yawk" accent.  During a 2007 community meeting, he dropped a gem of a bigoted stereotype -

After citing a (unverified) statistic that 1/5 of the residents of Arizona are illegal immigrants, he looked around the room and said "everybody in this room looks OK."

Apparently, he hasn't changed.

From the blog of journalist Terry Greene Sterling -

On June 25, in Phoenix, I was honored to participate in a panel sponsored by the Arizona Latino Media Association. The other panelists included Nancy-Jo Merritt, a longtime Phoenix immigration attorney; Antonio Bustamante, an activist and attorney who grew up on the border, and John Kavanaugh, the legislator who sponsored the House version of SB 1070, Arizona’s controversial immigration law. The panel was moderated by New Times journalist Monica Alonzo.

{snip}

At one point, Nancy-Jo Merritt noted that many of her undocumented clients are Canadians.
A spirited discussion ensued.
Rep. Kavanaugh announced that “illegals” who were Canadians could “stay” in Arizona because they have money and buy real estate.
Then he said, several times, that he was just kidding.

 Umm, yeah. 

To Rep. Kavanagh -

Either keep your day job or take some comedy classes.

Actually, just take the comedy classes.  The rest of us will work to make sure that John Kriekard unseats you in November.

Thanks to a friend for pointing this out.  It was a great catch.

The Arizona Legislature: 2010 preview

The next session of the Arizona Legislature is shaping up to be a lot like the last session, only more so.

...One of the harbingers of the discord took form last December, even before the session started. In a major surprise, the House Republican caucus deposed Jim Weiers as Speaker, installing Mesa Republican Kirk Adams in his place. According to the R blog Sonoran Alliance, there's a possibility that Weiers is going to try to return the favor, but don't hold your breath. It will probably be a year, and by then, the Democrats will be in charge. (Hey, I freely admit I put the "partisan" in "partisan hack." :) )

...Adams pledged to have a "transparent" process. Yet by the end of his first few weeks in his new position, the pattern had already been set - GOP leadership (Adams, Senate President Burns, Governor Brewer) would nestle themselves behind closed doors and negotiate budget packages that catered to the whims of their own caucus' membership while ignoring the input and ideas of Democratic legislators and even average constituents. Then they would present those packages for a public vote, passing them with only Republican votes and no real public hearings (Approps committee hearings with minimal notice don't qualify a "real." No matter how loudly the Rs claim that they do.)

By the time the Fifth Special Session of the lege rolled around in December of this year, they weren't even bothering with the pretense.

And still not getting the job done.

Anyway, to sum up the 2009 legislative session: Things started off badly, and went straight downhill from there.

First, some summaries of the 2009 session of the lege that are more neutral and dispassionate than mine -

Arizona School Boards Association



Arizona Capitol Times



Arizona Catholic Conference (OK, these folks are less "dispassionate" and more "really, really, really conservative)

Arizona Municipal Water Users Association

(State of) Arizona Land Management Department

A tax law firm's summary for CPAs

Arizona Game and Fish Department

Arizona Department of Health Services



Arizona Department of Revenue



Arizona Department of Insurance



Arizona Department of Transportation



Grand Canyon Chapter of the Sierra Club





Now that the "neutral" part of the post is over, on to the more partisan part - the 2010 predictions...


2009 Legislator of the Year, Arizona Capitol Times version: Rep. Ray Barnes (R-LD7)

2009 Legislator of the Year, County Supervisors Association of Arizona version: Sen. Sylvia Allen (R-LD5)

2010 Legislators of the Year, Random Musings version, or "Legislators who should stay away from cameras if they want a chance at being repeat winners of more mainstream awards" - Ray "Bisexual Principals" Barnes and Sylvia "5000 Years" Allen.

Not to be confused with the Legislative Loon Award, which is based on bill filings, this one is based on crazy utterances. While other contenders are certain to step up (Russell Pearce, John Kavanagh, Jack Harper, et al,) those two seem to have a lock on the award.


Most likely area of contention: What else? The budget. They haven't finished the current year's budget, which will take up the first few weeks of the new session, and hopefully no more than that. After that, they will start work on the FY2011 budget, which looks to have a deficit that's even larger than this year's. And most of the one-time fixes will have been used up already.


Bad bill most likely to make a comeback, non-revenue category: Guns in schools. A version directed at universities and community colleges has already been filed for next year's session, so a K-12 version can't be far behind.

Bad bill most likely to make a comeback, revenue category: Repeal of the equalization tax. The Rs have made it clear that they want to destroy public education in Arizona; getting rid of a dedicated revenue source for public education is a step in that direction.

Good bill most likely to pass: None. There may be a few "harmless" bills ("technical corrections" and the like), but nothing good is expected to come out of next year's legislative session...making it a lot like this year's session.


Institutional memory, elected/insider category: Rep. Jack Brown (D-LD5). First entered the lege in 1963, before many of his colleagues were potty-trained (and in more than a few cases, before they were born) and has served continuously since 1987. Has more knowledge and wisdom than most of the rest of the lege combined. Norman Moore, Chief Clerk of the House, was in contention for this one, but after three decades of service, he has retired to go into the private sector as a lobbyist.

Institutional memory, "outsider" category: Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services. He *is* Capitol Media Services, working as its sole employee. Every media outlet in the state uses his stories. Has been covering the Capitol for more than a quarter century. "Outsider" is in quotes because with his longevity, he isn't really an outsider, but he doesn't work for the lege, so he falls into this category.


Legislator most likely to piss off his own caucus: Who else could it be, but Sen. Ron Gould? With his stomping out of his own party's Governor's speech and spending the spring, summer, and fall working to scuttle any balanced budget deals, he's had this one sewn up for months. The runner up, and the House's "winner": Rep. Sam Crump. A second-termer, he was briefly stripped of a committee chairmanship early in the 2009 session for trying to out-harsh his own Speaker, Kirk Adams. He had been "exploring" a run for AG, challenging State Superintendent of Public of Instruction Tom Horne and (rumored) Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas. He has announced that he is seeking reelection to the House, however. Democrat Jack Brown could gain some traction in this category because he is easily the most conservative Democrat in the legislature, but there is so much respect and affection for him that no one really objects when his votes don't always gibe with his caucus-mates'.

Legislator most likely to piss on the other caucus: One could make a case for most (though not all) of the Rs in this category, but the hands-down winner in this category is our old friend, Sen. Jack Harper. A complete list of his credentials for this award would take up the rest of the post, but the highlight of his year was when he equated legislative Democrats with a pre-Iraq War Saddam Hussein and the ruling Sunnis in Iraq.

Legislator most likely to claim at one point to only follow the "will of the voters" while at another point to claim that the "will of the voters" is meaningless: Russell Pearce. Basically, it all matters if he agrees with the "will of the voters." If the matters under discussion are nativist measures approved via referendum, he believes that the voters are brilliant; if the matters under discussion are voter-mandated social spending, he thinks they are misguided, or worse, and seeks to overturn the Voter Protection Act so that he can kill all social spending in AZ.

Special session tea leaf reading

Not much to update as yet, but here goes...

The latest rumors are A) that they will try to pull off a one day special session on Thursday, and B) that they'll try for next week before Thanksgiving.

There are obstacles to those potential plans.

As for possibility A, the Governor's public schedule for this week has been posted, and she plans to be in Austin, Texas for the Republican Governors Association annual conference on Wednesday and Thursday.

As for B, there are a number of legislators from both sides of the aisle who will be out of state, and a couple will be out of the country, after this week. Gaining a quorum next week will be difficult; gaining the 31 and 16 votes needed to pass anything will be nearly impossible.

Especially since the Republican Governor, Speaker, and President of the state senate are still adamant in their refusal to work with Democratic members of the lege.

BTW - none of this precludes a special session. The Governor could yet cancel her trip to Austin, or members of the lege could yet cancel their long-planned holiday plans.

Just don't hold your breath waiting for the Capitol leadership to get off of the butts any time soon.

Other lege-related notes:

- Sources report that the Reps had a caucus meeting today. The Governor attended, and when she showed up, the caucus meeting was then closed to the public.

The AZGOP, the party of transparency. Or not.

- Credit Russell Pearce, the State Senator from LD18, with the first bill proposal for the 2nd regular session of the 49th Arizona Legislature. His SB1001 is another attempt to limit the ability of elected officials to put their faces on/publicize themselves in general communications paid for out of public monies.

The only surprise here is that the first bill wasn't one of Pearce's patented anti-Mexican screeds masquerading as a public policy proposal.

On the other hand, it is still early.

- Officially clarifying what had long been expected, LD8 State Rep. John Kavanagh has formed a re-election committee with the AZ Secretary of State's office (filer ID 201000319). Kavanagh, the chair of the House Appropriations Committee, had been rumored (reported here and elsewhere) to be interested in the LD8 Senate seat, currently held by the termed-out-after-next-year Carolyn Allen. However, fellow LD8 Rep. Michelle Reagan is also interested, and she may have a stronger base of support in LD8. Kavanagh couldn't be sure he would prevail in a primary battle with her. On the other hand, he is a near-certain lock to retain his House seat, even in LD8's Republican cattle call in the state representative primary (six candidates and counting).

More 2010 campaign committees forming...

At this point, I won't bother trying to cover all candidate committees, just the ones affecting statewide races and those local to me (LD17, and LDs 8 and 18).

Oh, and any others that are interesting to me in some way. Call it "blogger's privilege" or something.

For those who are interested in races other than the ones mentioned here, the AZ Secretary of State's committee search page is here.

On to the substance of the post...


...In the big news, Felecia Rotellini, formerly Arizona Superintendent of Financial Institutions, formed a committee for her candidacy for the Democratic nomination for Attorney General (filer ID 201000232). Phoenix New Times coverage here. As the linked article points out, she a former prosecutor with some serious cred in that sphere.

And if that wasn't enough to get the attention of State Rep. David Lujan, heretofore the only Democratic candidate in the race, her campaign's chair is Sam Coppersmith, former Congressman and long-time player in Democratic circles. He's also an intermittent blogger.

...In LD8 (north Scottsdale/Fountain Hills), one Dennis Robbins has formed a committee to run for the Republican nomination for State Representative. He also has an interesting name (in Scottsdale, anyway) as chair - Paul Messinger. "Messinger Mortuaries" ring a bell anyone? Messinger was also chair of Jim Lane's mayoral committee last year.

As near as I can tell, this Dennis Robbins is a lawyer, though it is such a common name that a Google search generates a LOT of results.

His committee is the fourth formed for the Rep nomination in LD8 thus far, and neither of the incumbents (Michelle Reagan and John Kavanagh) has yet formed a committee. Reagan has an exploratory committee open that doesn't list an office sought, but it is widely expected that she will announce for the LD8 State Senate seat currently held by Carolyn Allen. Allen is termed out after this session of the lege (I think.)

Another strong rumor is that Kavanagh is also eyeing that Senate seat, possibly setting up a donnybrook primary for the Republicans.

Reagan has money, family influence among LD8 Republicans (her mom is a former chair and her dad is an elected JP), and the right last name, by Republican standards anyway. She is an ardent conservative and member of the Chamber of Commerce wing of the AZGOP. She will occasionally work for the best interests of her district and the state.

Kavanagh has the nativists in the district and the support of the Arpaio/Pearce wing of the AZGOP. 'Nuff said there.

Even if they don't face off next year, they will within the next few cycles, either for LD8 State Senate or for the Congressional seat, whatever district they're in after redistricting.

Right now, give the edge to Reagan in a head-to-head matchup. North Scottsdale is bigger than Fountain Hills.

...In LD17 (home!) one Augustus Shaw IV has formed a $500 threshold committee for a run at State Representative. No party is listed, but Shaw is the 1st Vice Chair of the Arizona Republican Party. He's probably not running as an independent. By profession, he's an attorney for HOAs when they sue their homeowners. He's also somewhat colorful.

He is also a "founding member" of the Coalition of Arizona African American Republicans. The address the Coalition lists with the AZSOS is that of Shaw's law office.

Before I looked into his background, I saw the "$500 Threshold" and no party affiliation, and didn't take the candidacy seriously.

That has changed.

Republican leadership going after D17 Rep. Schapira

Apparently, the Republican leadership in the House objects to the work that Rep. David Schapira (D-LD17) has been doing while the lege isn't in session.

Or maybe they just object to looking lazy by comparison.

First, Republican Speaker Kirk Adams announced the formation of his own committee to look into the state's tuition tax credit program and school tuition organizations. The program is rife with abuses, as highlighted by the East Valley Tribune's award-winning "Rigged Privilege" investigative series.

Then later in the day, House Appropriations chair John Kavanagh (R-Fountain Hills) went on JD Hayworth's talk show on KFYI and spent an entire hour bashing Rep. Schapira for talking to an international group of educators yesterday. (No link yet, will provide if one becomes available.)

An entire hour.

Yep, they're officially worried about David. Welcome to the big leagues, Representative Schapira.

Well, on the first item, Adams' committee, as one Capitol observer put it, "it's about time that Adams showed some leadership on this."

As I put it, "it isn't leadership if you're following, not leading."

Schapira and the Democrats were on the burgeoning scandal of STO abuse weeks ago (and David Safier at Blog for Arizona and Jen at Mindless Mumblings of a Martyr Mom were on this months ago); Adams is just trying to steal some thunder and maybe get in the way of any real work.

That's not leadership.

Oh yeah, and neither is stacking the committee membership in such a way as to ensure that they won't find much, if anything, wrong with the tuition tax credit program.

From the EV Trib piece on today's announcement -

Adams has assigned Rep. Rick Murphy, R-Glendale, as chairman of the committee. Other members include: Andy Biggs, R-Gilbert; Debbie Lesko, R-Glendale; Jack Brown, D-St. Johns; and Tom Chabin, D-Flagstaff.

What's wrong with that list?

Let's see -

All of them are members of the House Ways and Means Committee. Not a single one is a member of the Education Committee. An interesting omission for a panel looking at an education-related matter.

There are two Democrats on Adams' panel. However, Rep. Jack Brown, the longest-serving member of the lege and highly respected for his knowledge and wisdom, is also the most conservative Democrat in the House. He won't have any interest in making waves on this panel.

Of course, that is presuming that Brown can even attend to the committee's work. The three Republicans on the panel are all Maricopa County residents and are mere minutes away from the Capitol; the two Democrats live 150 miles (Chabin) and 170 miles (Brown) away. Guess which members will be able to be more involved in the committee?

As for the second item, the relentless bashing by Kavanagh and Hayworth?

Ummm...well, to be rather blunt, these aren't two guys noted for their profound insights on education systems, American or international.

On the other hand, they are known for having insights into who might become a future electoral opponent. And for signalling that insight by issuing a pre-emptive attack.

Later...

The John Sydney McCain Memorial Crappie Award

This one was easy...

Early in Tuesday's meeting of the House Appropriations Committee, Republican chairman Rep. John Kavanagh opined (courtesy AZ Capitol Times) (emphasis mine)-

"I guess it's great to be a Democrat in a situation like this," he said. "Democrats, unfortunately, are myopic. They don't see beyond the current year. They don't see 2011."

While he was quick to criticize what her perceived at shortsighted thinking on the part of Democratic members of the lege, he ignored, proudly, his own.

From the Video archive of the meeting (available on this page if the previous link doesn't work - 5/5, House Approps I) at approximately the 2:59 mark, during a discussion of the Reps' scheme to get their paws on municipal development fees illustrate this (emphasis mine) - after a municipality had given a certain amount of their available development fees to the state, "a city or town would be free to use any and all impact fees for their immediate needs."

Umm...yeah, John, whatever.

For decreeing that Democrats should look to the future with their ideas but almost immediately flip-flopping and demonstrating that Republicans are incapable of doing the same, John Kavanagh earns...easily...this edition of the John Sydney McCain Crappie Award.

Later...

The House Appropriations Meeting - the epitome of the interminable train ride

Today's meeting of House Appropriations was like a slow train ride across West Texas - hours of staring out the window looking at the same old scenery. Just when you think that change is just around the bend, you get around that bend and see...

Miles more of that same old scenery, stretching of to the horizon.

However, I jumped off the train at 2. Four hours on on this mind- and butt-numbing train was enough hell on my bladder.

Yeah, I know that's a TMI moment, but the legislators could get up and leave whenever they wanted to...something Rep. Vic "Walking Man" Williams did. Often. It seemed that *his* bladder got weak whenever there was a roll call vote.

Rep. Daniel Patterson (D - LD29) was there "tweeting" the meeting. That feed is here. He can confirm Williams' behavior, and pretty much everything else in this post.

Oh yeah - eventually the video of the meeting will be posted here, though it may be a couple of days.


Anyway, back to the meeting...


As with the passengers on most trains, confined to previously-laid tracks, everyone in attendance knew this one's destination. Nothing unexpected happened; still, the ride was eye-opening in stretches.

...It started late. The scheduled start time was 10 a.m., but in 'legislative time' 10 a.m. means "sometime after 10 and before lunch." Chairman John Kavanagh (R-Russell Pearce with a Noo Yawk accent) gavelled it into session at around 10:15.

...Early on during consideration of HB2533, the General Appropriations or "feeder" bill, LD17 State Rep. David Schapira proposed an amendment to change language in the bill so that the Democratic Attorney General's office was treated with the same amount of budgetary respect as the other, Republican-occupied, executive branch offices.

Kavanagh, Biggs, and the other R's haughtily took offense at the implication that there might have been partisan motivation behind the attack on the AG's office.

I admit - during this section of the meeting, I just wanted to stand up and say to the Rs "Go for it. Attract the attention of a group of people whose job it is to prosecute those who prey on Arizonans. What are you going to do for a second act, kick over a hornet's nest?"

I didn't though. :))

...The meeting was marked by a resounding contempt for Democrats, not just for their ideas, but for them personally.

The Democratic members of the committee were constantly interrupted when they spoke if they dared to utter something that the Republicans disagreed with. However, on those occasions when the Dems took issue with something an R said, the Dem objections were shouted down by Kavanagh and Andy Biggs, the vice-chair of the committee.

...At one point, Rich Crandall (R-Wants to be Superintendant of Public Ed) mocked Democratic Rep. Kyrsten Sinema by fluttering his arms after she objected to the chair's call for a vote on an amendment that she offered before it had even been discussed.

...Another bit of partisanship that Kavanagh and the Republicans engaged in was the convenient and repeated "misplacing" of the paperwork associated with the amendments offered by Democratic members in order to avoid having to consider and discuss them on the record.

...Of the 41 members of the public who utilized the lege's comments system to weigh in on the first measure (most didn't sign in to actually speak), 40 opposed the Republican budget.

The member of the public who did sign in as supporting the Rep budget (in the form of the General Appropriations bill)??

Royce Flora, former chair of the LD8 Republicans. As in "LD8, home of John Kavanagh."

...During the vote on the bill, Rep. David Schapira took the opportunity to point out that the Reps' budget would cut the already-lean Arizona Department of Financial Institutions so much that they would have to lay off the one employee that currently covers regulating pay day loan operations (Should we call that one the "Jim Weiers' provision").

The vote on the underlying bill broke, as expected, along party lines - Republicans voting for cuts, deep cuts, and only cuts, and Democrats voting for some fiscal responsibility (responsible as in "you get what you pay for" and "better to pay for students now than prisoners later").

That pattern held true through the rest of the hearing - the committee defeated a Schapira amendment to strike language repealing state equalization property tax and its $250 million in funding for education.

Yes, the Reps spent the whole meeting (in fact they've spent the whole session) proclaiming loudly and proudly that cuts to education and services are needed because of shrinking state revenues while seeking to further cut those revenues.

The meeting droned on for hours after I left, but based on Rep. Patterson's tweets, nothing varied from the theme that was exhibited while I was there -

The Republicans wanted to gut education and human services, and the Democrats, while understanding that cuts are unavoidable given the state's dismal fiscal situation after years under the "guidance" of the Republicans in the lege, wanted to minimize the harm to both.

Because of the 2008 elections, the Reps had the votes to get their way.

If enough people who care about the future of Arizona are paying attention to what's happening on West Washington, the 2010 elections will change that fact.


BTW - If some readers think that my characterizations of the Republicans on the committee are too harshly partisan, I'd like to remind them of two things -

1. I am openly and unabashedly partisan in my blogging. Always have been. Always will be.

2. Having said that, I can and do understand that people who honestly care about the future of the state and the needs of its residents can have honest differences of opinions on how to best meet those needs. I also understand that there are people who would sacrifice the future of the state and the needs of its residents on the altar of craven ideology.

I have nothing but respect for those elected officials of any partisan affiliation who take seriously their responsibilities and duties toward those that they were elected to serve.

None of the Reps in the room were that kind of public servant. Even would-be statewide candidate Rich Crandall occasionally mouthed some platitudes of concern, but when it came time to vote, he marched in lockstep with the rest of his caucus.

On the other hand, he was better than the Walking Man, Vic Williams.

At least Crandall cast his votes on the record.

BTW2 – If I wanted to be really harsh, I would have characterized Rep. Williams as “Overactive Bladder Man.”

Legislative Republicans - "Ooopsie."

From AZCentral.com -

A new element of Republican legislative leaders' developing proposal to help balance the state budget appeared in limbo Tuesday, with the House's budget-writer saying the idea needs more study because it's not clear it would work.

The $2.7 billion budget-balancing proposal released late Monday would get $210 million of its savings and other changes by indirectly tapping money that cities collect from impact fees paid on development, including construction of new homes.

"We don't know if this is viable at all," said Appropriations Chairman John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills. "We're not going to present this as an option in the budget at this point."

Let me translate for everybody - "We're not sure it's legal, we are sure that we don't have the votes to pass the budget with the municipal fund swipe, and we're *really* sure that we just pissed off every municipal official in the state. Many of whom whose help we'll need to get re-elected next year."

David Safier at Blog for Arizona offers his take here.

Later!

Kavanagh and the AZGOP serve one up

Today, the Arizona Guardian has an article by Dennis Welch and Patti Epler on the GOP's plan to balance the budget, a plan that includes a scheme to dramatically raise the out-of-pocket costs that the state's poorest students have to pay to attend a state university.

Because, of course, fairness is a basic tenet of Republican ideology. and during a budget crisis, it's only "fair" to increase the burden on the poor while giving tax breaks to large corporations.

State Rep. John Kavanagh (R-Scottsdale), from the article -

"It's the principal [sic] of it," he said. "It's unfair. Why should these students get to go to school for free just because their families are poor?"

Further down in the article Kavanagh provides examples of who he considers to be worthy of the state's largess -

Under the GOP proposal, students with merit-based or athletic scholarships would not be asked to pay a minimum tuition. Veterans also would not be asked to meet a minimum tuition level.

Kavanagh said lawmakers recognize the value of athletics to the universities and their ability to raise money from alumni.

"Do you really want to see the ASU basketball team go to the bottom and lose all that revenue?" Kavanagh said.

As an aside, I know of a couple of UA alums who would answer his question with a resounding "YES!!" but let's get back to politics. We can save that discussion for another day.

As to his first point (a free education), let us now peruse Article 11, Section 6 of the Arizona Constitution (emphasis mine) -

"The university and all other state educational institutions shall be open to students of both sexes, and the instruction furnished shall be as nearly free as possible."

The question shouldn't be "why should poor students get a scholarship?"

It should be "why don't more students? After all, the requirement *is* part of the state's constitution."

And to point out a "minor" bit of hypocrisy on Kavanagh's part -

His legislative bio lists his education as coming from New York University (BA), St. John's University (MA), and Rutgers University (PhD).

Yes, those are all fine academic institutions.

Yes, Kavanagh should be commended for earning degrees from those fine academic institutions.

Oh, and yes, those fine academic institutions all offer need-based financial aid to students. and to more than just those who are jocks and veterans.

Tedski at R-Cubed has his take here. He succinctly keyed on the same passages that I found so "special".

Donna at Democratic Diva has her take here. She's even more succinct than Tedski. Snarkier, too. Tedski must be slipping. :))

Later!