This is an open letter to the President, submitted via email. I don't expect that he will read it, but since I consider the "open letter" blog post/newspaper column construction to be weak unless it is submitted to the named recipient, he's getting it anyway.
One among the tens of thousands of communications received by the White House every day.
Anyway, on to the letter...
Dear President Obama,
Later this week you will address a joint session of Congress regarding health care reform. After a summer of town hall hysterics, sinking poll numbers, and unsuccessful tactical shifts designed to appease Republicans and fearful and/or corporate-friendly Democrats in Congress, something is needed.
A big part of your problems this summer, as I see it anyway, has been your Administration's attempts to negotiate with those who have no interest in changing a health insurance system that is less about caring for patients and more about enhancing the profit margins of deep-pocketed campaign contributors. In short, you've been trying to negotiate with schoolyard bullies in three-piece suits.
As any new kid in the schoolyard quickly learns, the best way to deal with a bully isn't by negotiating, pleading, or even running - it's standing.
As in standing up and standing your ground.
In the third season of the television show "The West Wing", an episode aired that told a story about the legendary center of the Boston Celtics, Bill Russell. The story was that Russell was getting eaten alive in the paint as he was playing by the rules but opposing centers were doing whatever they could to beat him. He asked the equally legendary Celtics coach and GM, Red Auerbach, what he could do. Red advised him to throw an elbow in a nationally televised game, and they wouldn't mess with him again.
The story may or may not be apocryphal (I could only find references to it in relation to its inclusion in The West Wing," but either way, the point of the story is perfectly applicable to the current situation.
You are getting pummelled from all sides and are trying to reason with those who have no incentive to be reasonable.
They need to be made aware that the President, as the head of the Executive Branch, holds political power that is at least the equal of their own.
It's time to get the attention of those who assail you, whether those who directly attack you or those who would simply hold you back because they fear change.
It's time stand up and stand your ground.
It's time to show them that you are the President of the United States.
It's time to throw an elbow.
Now, what form that elbow will take isn't known to me - I'm not a Washington insider, knowledgeable in the nuanced application of practical political power inside the Beltway.
I can hazard some guesses, though.
My suggestion would involve some of your senior staffers sitting with some Congressional Republican leaders at a negotiating table during an impasse, and one of the staffers casually mentioning that since health care reform isn't going to go through, the personnel who had been detailed to work on setting up the new health care structure will now be freed up to work in other areas of government, like a Department of Justice project examining campaign finance and lobbyist reports.
OK, so that isn't subtle and you probably can come up with something far more suitable to serve as your "elbow."
Just don't make it so subtle that those on the receiving end of your elbow don't realize that they just took one in the gut.
Something truly a little more circumspect would be called for when dealing with those in your own party who may be honestly afraid that if they support a public option as part of health care reform, they'll lose their seats in next year's elections.
Perhaps you could remind them, if you haven't done so already, that after the Clinton Administration's attempts to reform health care in the United States, the 1994 elections saw a massive Republican wave that carried them to their first majority in the House in generations.
And you could further remind them that any members who are legitimately vulnerable due to voting *for* real health care reform will be just as vulnerable to a Republican wave even if they vote *against* reform. "Waves" aren't particularly discriminating.
In any event, this week could be the "make or break" week for your entire presidency. When you make your plans for your speech and for your approach to health care reform going forward, remember that standing up and losing to the bullies still beats abjectly surrendering to them. A loss on this can be recovered from; a surrender will become the lasting legacy of your presidency.
And standing up could be the best path to victory, both for you and for the millions of Americans who support health care reform.
Regards,
[cpmaz]
P.S. - Jen at Mindless Mumblings of a Martyr Mom has her take on this topic (based off a Bill Moyers op/ed video) here; the full transcript of Moyers' piece is here, courtesy Truthout.org. (hat tip to David Safier at Blog for Arizona). Jon Talton, formerly the best writer at the Arizona Republic and now in Seattle, offers his rather blunt assessment here.
Sunday, September 06, 2009
The coming week...
As usual, except where noted, all info gathered from the websites of the relevent political bodies/agencies, and subject to change without notice.
Well, for the first time in weeks, the U.S. Congress will be in session, and for the first time in months, the Arizona Legislature will *not* be. That sounds significant, but somehow, I'm not sure that it is.
Congress probably won't be doing much this week (in terms of "official business" anyway) and the lege has plenty of unfinished business that they should be dealing with, but won't be.
In short, not much has changed since last week. :)
...In the U.S. House, the action gets underway Tuesday afternoon. It looks to be a relatively quiet week as far as floor action goes. The agenda includes:
H.R. 324 - Santa Cruz Valley National Heritage Area Act, sponsored by Raul Grijalva (D-AZ7) and cosponsored by Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ8).
The posted agenda is light on issues of national interest, and that looks to be the only one of direct interest to Arizonans.
However, both behind the scenes and in front of cameras, there will be a lot of talk about health care reform.
The President is scheduled to address a joint session of Congress on Wednesday evening on the subject. I'd say I'm "waiting with bated breath" for the speech, but he seems more likely to give up on a public option when he should be throwing an elbow (more on that later.)
Congressman Harry Mitchell's (D-AZ5) responses to questions (about health care reform) posed by readers of the Arizona Republic can be found here; Congressman Jeff Flake's (R-AZ6) responses can be found here.
...The U.S. Senate looks to have an equally low-key "official business" week, with a lot of back office focus on health care reform.
...The Arizona Legislature is out of session, with no special sessions officially scheduled at this point, though given that the budget is still out-of-balance, expect one soon. Just probably not this week, as I previously expected would happen.
...The Arizona Corporation Commission has a securities and utilities meeting scheduled for Wednesday. The agenda is here. There are a couple of APS-related items and a couple of securities "cease and desist" related items, including one against JP Morgan Chase & Co. More details here.
The ACC's hearing schedule for the week is available here.
...The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors has a light week - no regular meetings, just a Special/Executive meeting on tap for Wednesday morning. Why don't they drop the "special" moniker, since they seem to have one almost every week?
...The Board of Directors of the Central Arizona Project will be holding a meeting of its Project ADD Water group on Wednesday and Thursday.
...The Tempe City Council has a meeting scheduled for Thursday. The agenda is here. It looks to be mostly mundane, but even that can be interesting on occasion. On *this* occasion, item A-3 includes a name that is familiar to most D17'ers.
It just goes to show that even high-flying legislative stars are subject to the drudgery of normal life in the not-so-big city. :)
...The Scottsdale City Council has a regular meeting scheduled for Tuesday. Items of interest on the agenda include consideration of the process of appointing an interim City Attorney, a new City Treasurer, possibly creating a Scottsdale City Lobbyist ordinance, and enacting some recommendations regarding the operations and oversight of City Cable 11,
They've also scheduled an executive session to "[d]iscuss and consider international or interstate negotiations with representatives of the public body regarding ongoing negotiations with the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community (a domestic sovereign nation) for intergovernmental agreements related to Pima Road and drainage improvements; and discuss and/or consult with the City attorney(s) for legal advice regarding the same."
That meeting is also scheduled for Tuesday. The executive session is scheduled for 4 p.m., the regular meeting is scheduled for 5.
...Not scheduled to meet this week: Arizona Board of Regents, the Governing Board of the Maricopa County Community College District, the Board of Directors of the Maricopa Integrated Health System and the Citizens Clean Elections Commission (though CCEC has scheduled candidate workshops for September 16, October 21, November 18, and December 2. Sign up here.)
Later...
Well, for the first time in weeks, the U.S. Congress will be in session, and for the first time in months, the Arizona Legislature will *not* be. That sounds significant, but somehow, I'm not sure that it is.
Congress probably won't be doing much this week (in terms of "official business" anyway) and the lege has plenty of unfinished business that they should be dealing with, but won't be.
In short, not much has changed since last week. :)
...In the U.S. House, the action gets underway Tuesday afternoon. It looks to be a relatively quiet week as far as floor action goes. The agenda includes:
H.R. 324 - Santa Cruz Valley National Heritage Area Act, sponsored by Raul Grijalva (D-AZ7) and cosponsored by Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ8).
The posted agenda is light on issues of national interest, and that looks to be the only one of direct interest to Arizonans.
However, both behind the scenes and in front of cameras, there will be a lot of talk about health care reform.
The President is scheduled to address a joint session of Congress on Wednesday evening on the subject. I'd say I'm "waiting with bated breath" for the speech, but he seems more likely to give up on a public option when he should be throwing an elbow (more on that later.)
Congressman Harry Mitchell's (D-AZ5) responses to questions (about health care reform) posed by readers of the Arizona Republic can be found here; Congressman Jeff Flake's (R-AZ6) responses can be found here.
...The U.S. Senate looks to have an equally low-key "official business" week, with a lot of back office focus on health care reform.
...The Arizona Legislature is out of session, with no special sessions officially scheduled at this point, though given that the budget is still out-of-balance, expect one soon. Just probably not this week, as I previously expected would happen.
...The Arizona Corporation Commission has a securities and utilities meeting scheduled for Wednesday. The agenda is here. There are a couple of APS-related items and a couple of securities "cease and desist" related items, including one against JP Morgan Chase & Co. More details here.
The ACC's hearing schedule for the week is available here.
...The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors has a light week - no regular meetings, just a Special/Executive meeting on tap for Wednesday morning. Why don't they drop the "special" moniker, since they seem to have one almost every week?
...The Board of Directors of the Central Arizona Project will be holding a meeting of its Project ADD Water group on Wednesday and Thursday.
...The Tempe City Council has a meeting scheduled for Thursday. The agenda is here. It looks to be mostly mundane, but even that can be interesting on occasion. On *this* occasion, item A-3 includes a name that is familiar to most D17'ers.
It just goes to show that even high-flying legislative stars are subject to the drudgery of normal life in the not-so-big city. :)
...The Scottsdale City Council has a regular meeting scheduled for Tuesday. Items of interest on the agenda include consideration of the process of appointing an interim City Attorney, a new City Treasurer, possibly creating a Scottsdale City Lobbyist ordinance, and enacting some recommendations regarding the operations and oversight of City Cable 11,
They've also scheduled an executive session to "[d]iscuss and consider international or interstate negotiations with representatives of the public body regarding ongoing negotiations with the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community (a domestic sovereign nation) for intergovernmental agreements related to Pima Road and drainage improvements; and discuss and/or consult with the City attorney(s) for legal advice regarding the same."
That meeting is also scheduled for Tuesday. The executive session is scheduled for 4 p.m., the regular meeting is scheduled for 5.
...Not scheduled to meet this week: Arizona Board of Regents, the Governing Board of the Maricopa County Community College District, the Board of Directors of the Maricopa Integrated Health System and the Citizens Clean Elections Commission (though CCEC has scheduled candidate workshops for September 16, October 21, November 18, and December 2. Sign up here.)
Later...
Friday, September 04, 2009
If it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, maybe it's a duck
...and the results of the special session of the legislature and the Governor's vetoes/acceptances of same look an *awful* lot like continuing resolutions.
Even though no one is using those specific words.
From the AZRepublic's piece on today's budget action -
Yes folks, all of the posturing has come down to this -
- The lege passed a budget in the wee hours of July 1, only to see the Governor veto most of it. She left just enough intact to keep the state running while she continued to negotiate with the Republican extremists in the lege, which is most of the caucus these days.
- A couple of weeks later, a partial budget was passed in order to fund education, needed since those pesky public schools were scheduled to begin their fall semesters soon thereafter. And if the schools didn't receive the funds they needed to open, that would have meant that hundreds of thousands of students would not have been in school. And *that* would have meant hundreds of thousands of parents calling and emailing their elected officials, and thousands more would have descended in person on the state capitol to give those same elected officials an earful.
Or two. :))
- Now, the Governor has mostly approved her caucus' unbalanced budget, with no concrete plans to balance it any time soon.
Just a reminder - during most of the Bush Administration, the Bushies and their cohorts in Congress didn't operate under a budget, just a series of continuing resolutions. In addition, Bush's wars were funded "off the books" via special appropriations bills that weren't subject to close scrutiny.
Now, the federal budget is totally screwed.
And Brewer wants to lead Arizona down the same path.
All of the Governor's budget actions can be found here.
State Rep. Daniel Patterson offers his take here.
Even though no one is using those specific words.
From the AZRepublic's piece on today's budget action -
Gov. Jan Brewer served up a mixed verdict on the state's budget Friday, restoring spending for education and social services, vetoing a tax repeal and abandoning hopes of getting a sales-tax hike before voters this year.
The Republican governor said her actions leave the state able to operate until early next year without the need to borrow money. But lawmakers will need to work on a mix of spending cuts and tax increases to keep Arizona on track, she said.
{snip}
Brewer said she was hopeful a tax referral could be made to the March 2010 ballot.
{snip}
The budget picture at the state Capitol is expected to remain relatively unchanged for the next few weeks. However, Brewer said a “clean up” special session is needed by Sept. 30 to restore policy moves that, left untouched, could harm a dozen state
agencies, including the Arizona Corporation Commission and the state Lottery.
Yes folks, all of the posturing has come down to this -
- The lege passed a budget in the wee hours of July 1, only to see the Governor veto most of it. She left just enough intact to keep the state running while she continued to negotiate with the Republican extremists in the lege, which is most of the caucus these days.
- A couple of weeks later, a partial budget was passed in order to fund education, needed since those pesky public schools were scheduled to begin their fall semesters soon thereafter. And if the schools didn't receive the funds they needed to open, that would have meant that hundreds of thousands of students would not have been in school. And *that* would have meant hundreds of thousands of parents calling and emailing their elected officials, and thousands more would have descended in person on the state capitol to give those same elected officials an earful.
Or two. :))
- Now, the Governor has mostly approved her caucus' unbalanced budget, with no concrete plans to balance it any time soon.
Just a reminder - during most of the Bush Administration, the Bushies and their cohorts in Congress didn't operate under a budget, just a series of continuing resolutions. In addition, Bush's wars were funded "off the books" via special appropriations bills that weren't subject to close scrutiny.
Now, the federal budget is totally screwed.
And Brewer wants to lead Arizona down the same path.
All of the Governor's budget actions can be found here.
State Rep. Daniel Patterson offers his take here.
Thursday, September 03, 2009
D17 State Rep. Schapira named to prestigious regional education committee
Courtesy a press release from the AZ House Democrats -
Later...
Rep. David Schapira, D-Tempe (District 17), has been named to the Western
Interstate Commission for Higher Education’s (WICHE’s) Legislative Advisory
Committee.
The commission selected Schapira from among Arizona’s lawmakers to serve on the committee for a three-year term to advise the commission on higher education.
"I am grateful for this amazing opportunity to work to strengthen our higher education system in Arizona and the West," Schapira said. "Education is key to building a stronger economy and bringing thousands of high-paying jobs to our state."
Schapira will inform the commission about significant legislative issues on higher education, provide input on initiatives and advise them on education policy workshops. The committee meets annually.
The commission was created to facilitate resource sharing among higher education systems of the West. Member states are Arizona, Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming.
"Arizona's students are seeing increased class sizes, highly valued professors are losing their jobs and our tuition rates continue to rise as the state’s contribution level declines," Schapira said. "All students deserve a quality and affordable education, and I'm looking forward to working with the commission to accomplish that goal."
Schapira will attend the annual committee meeting, "A Crisis is a Terrible Thing to Waste: How to increase Your Return on Investment," in September. For more information on the commission, please visit: www.wiche.edu.
Later...
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Should we start a budget pool?
One with all money raised going to defray the state's deficit?
Depending on your source, budget negotiations have...
...broken down (Capitol Times this morning, subscription required)
...ongoing, but maybe going nowwhere (Arizona Republic's Political Insider)
...ongoing, but whether or not they are making progress, the Governor isn't going anywhere - she has cancelled her planned trip to Mexico in case the talks make actual progress (they all have this one, but since the Rep's website doesn't require a subscription, I'll link to that one; Tedski at R-Cubed has some early details here)
...ongoing, but possibly a sham that involves talking to the Democrats to try to scare the hardcore wingers in the Rep caucus "into thinking that they might do a deal with Dems that conservatives might hate worse than the Republican leadership plan." (latest Farley Report, a weekly update email from State Rep. Steve Farley (D-LD28). No link at this time, but Tedski will post part or all of it at his blog, as will Zelph at AZNetroots.)
My prediction for the pool - Governor signs most of the budget, vetoes enough to give her leverage in a fourth special session to get her sales tax hike referred to the ballot, calls the special session for next week (have to have a referral done by the 9th or so to make a planned election date in December), and gets it with few, if any, Democratic votes.
Pinnacle West Her constituents *really* want the repeal of the state equalization property tax, and the Democrats have been insisting that is left alone as a condition of their support for her sales tax referral.
...According to one source, at least one chamber's Democrats will be holding a caucus meeting tomorrow. No word about the subject of the meeting, but given the events that have taken place/not taken place this week, I feel safe in guessing that item one on the agenda will be the BUDGET.
Yeah, I know that guess was a shock to all regular readers. :))
...More updates as they become available...
Depending on your source, budget negotiations have...
...broken down (Capitol Times this morning, subscription required)
...ongoing, but maybe going nowwhere (Arizona Republic's Political Insider)
...ongoing, but whether or not they are making progress, the Governor isn't going anywhere - she has cancelled her planned trip to Mexico in case the talks make actual progress (they all have this one, but since the Rep's website doesn't require a subscription, I'll link to that one; Tedski at R-Cubed has some early details here)
...ongoing, but possibly a sham that involves talking to the Democrats to try to scare the hardcore wingers in the Rep caucus "into thinking that they might do a deal with Dems that conservatives might hate worse than the Republican leadership plan." (latest Farley Report, a weekly update email from State Rep. Steve Farley (D-LD28). No link at this time, but Tedski will post part or all of it at his blog, as will Zelph at AZNetroots.)
My prediction for the pool - Governor signs most of the budget, vetoes enough to give her leverage in a fourth special session to get her sales tax hike referred to the ballot, calls the special session for next week (have to have a referral done by the 9th or so to make a planned election date in December), and gets it with few, if any, Democratic votes.
...According to one source, at least one chamber's Democrats will be holding a caucus meeting tomorrow. No word about the subject of the meeting, but given the events that have taken place/not taken place this week, I feel safe in guessing that item one on the agenda will be the BUDGET.
Yeah, I know that guess was a shock to all regular readers. :))
...More updates as they become available...
Glass Houses, Senator Pearce, Glass Houses
From AZCentral.com -
The article goes on to note that Russell Pearce's son, Sean, is a member of the board of the Deputies Law Enforcement Association. According to the Association's website, Pearce the son is a vice president. Based on a statement on the front page of their website, DLEA is fronting for Joe Arpaio in one of his many battles with the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors. In this one, he is trying to exempt his office (MCSO) from the budget cuts that loom for all other County operations.
Anyway, just to remind Pearce the father of a couple of things -
1. As the chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, he is one of the primary crafters of the state's budget.
2. That budget has a gaping maw of a deficit.
3. The budget that he helped craft didn't address the state's deficit. In fact, it made it worse. Pearce and his associates focused on giving tax cuts to corporations and the wealthy instead of balancing the budget.
4. And just a quick reminder, in case a reader isn't from Arizona (or *is*, and has been hiding under a cactus for the last 8 months or so), the latest budget is still sitting unsigned on the Governor's desk. And it's basically the same budget that she had to mostly veto two months ago.
Just a thought: Russell Pearce may not be the best choice to be the public face of the "fiscal responsibility" crowd.
Anyway, this kerfluffle is less about "fiscal responsibility" than it is about Arpaio's friends having the time on their hands to join him in his fight to wrest control of the County from the Board of Supervisors.
And so Political Silly Season continues...
The Senate Appropriations Committee chairman wants to hold a public hearing to determine if Maricopa County officials are properly appropriating money.
"We have a fiduciary responsibility to step in," said Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, noting that state government disburses money to the state's 15 counties.
Pearce's concerns were prompted by two groups of public-safety officers - the Maricopa County Association of Detention Officers and the Deputies Law Enforcement Association - who allege that the county is misusing $196 million in surplus funds while simultaneously making service cuts to cover a $76 million revenue shortfall.
The article goes on to note that Russell Pearce's son, Sean, is a member of the board of the Deputies Law Enforcement Association. According to the Association's website, Pearce the son is a vice president. Based on a statement on the front page of their website, DLEA is fronting for Joe Arpaio in one of his many battles with the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors. In this one, he is trying to exempt his office (MCSO) from the budget cuts that loom for all other County operations.
Anyway, just to remind Pearce the father of a couple of things -
1. As the chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, he is one of the primary crafters of the state's budget.
2. That budget has a gaping maw of a deficit.
3. The budget that he helped craft didn't address the state's deficit. In fact, it made it worse. Pearce and his associates focused on giving tax cuts to corporations and the wealthy instead of balancing the budget.
4. And just a quick reminder, in case a reader isn't from Arizona (or *is*, and has been hiding under a cactus for the last 8 months or so), the latest budget is still sitting unsigned on the Governor's desk. And it's basically the same budget that she had to mostly veto two months ago.
Just a thought: Russell Pearce may not be the best choice to be the public face of the "fiscal responsibility" crowd.
Anyway, this kerfluffle is less about "fiscal responsibility" than it is about Arpaio's friends having the time on their hands to join him in his fight to wrest control of the County from the Board of Supervisors.
And so Political Silly Season continues...
Sunday, August 30, 2009
How not to write a headline - press release edition
Early last week, I signed up for the mailing list of the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). I didn't expect much, but since I live in the North Indian Bend Wash Superfund site (NIBW), it's a good idea to gather info from as many sources as possible.
What I didn't expect was a bit of unintentional humor.
One of the first press releases that I received had this for a subject line -
Now, my first reaction upon reading that, wiseass that I am, was to wonder "You'd think that one of the job requirements for the head of a state agency would be the ability to enunciate clearly. I mean, he must have been able to do so at least once, at his job interview, right?"
Turns out that instead of reading the word "Grumbles" as a verb, I should have read it as a proper name.
The Director of ADEQ is named Benjamin Grumbles.
Ooops. :)
For the record, Director Grumbles probably enunciates quite clearly. According to his ADEQ bio page, he has degrees in English, Law, and Environmental Law, and worked as a Congressional committee staffer and a college instructor prior to a stint as a Bush appointee to the EPA.
In my defense, the capitalization pattern of the headline didn't really give any clues to the fact that "Grumbles" is a proper name. Any word longer than two letters was capitalized.
Of course, given Director Grumbles' educational background in English and law, and his professional background, the communications guy/intern/chief cook and bottle washer who wrote the headline has probably been advised to do something with future headlines to minimize the confusion.
Of course2, this blog post, humble though it may be, is probably the most public notice that ADEQ has received in weeks, so we may see more of this.
Note: the original press release publicized a symposium in Tucson sponsored by the Arizona Investment Council. It was held this past Friday.
What I didn't expect was a bit of unintentional humor.
One of the first press releases that I received had this for a subject line -
ADEQ Director Grumbles, Host of Other Water Experts to Speak at Arizona Investment Council Water Symposium
Now, my first reaction upon reading that, wiseass that I am, was to wonder "You'd think that one of the job requirements for the head of a state agency would be the ability to enunciate clearly. I mean, he must have been able to do so at least once, at his job interview, right?"
Turns out that instead of reading the word "Grumbles" as a verb, I should have read it as a proper name.
The Director of ADEQ is named Benjamin Grumbles.
Ooops. :)
For the record, Director Grumbles probably enunciates quite clearly. According to his ADEQ bio page, he has degrees in English, Law, and Environmental Law, and worked as a Congressional committee staffer and a college instructor prior to a stint as a Bush appointee to the EPA.
In my defense, the capitalization pattern of the headline didn't really give any clues to the fact that "Grumbles" is a proper name. Any word longer than two letters was capitalized.
Of course, given Director Grumbles' educational background in English and law, and his professional background, the communications guy/intern/chief cook and bottle washer who wrote the headline has probably been advised to do something with future headlines to minimize the confusion.
Of course2, this blog post, humble though it may be, is probably the most public notice that ADEQ has received in weeks, so we may see more of this.
Note: the original press release publicized a symposium in Tucson sponsored by the Arizona Investment Council. It was held this past Friday.
The coming week...
As usual, all info gathered from the websites of the relevent political bodies/agencies (except where noted) and subject to change without notice.
...Both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate are in recess until next week.
...The Arizona legislature is between special sessions right now. The third special session was adjourned in order to give their Governor more time to "evaluate" the budget bills that they've sent her.
In this context, "evaluate" means work out a deal so that the expected (but not yet officially-called) fourth special session of the lege will approve sending her proposed temporary increase to the state's sales tax to the ballot in a December election.
No timetable has been set for a fourth special session. To make a planned election in December though, it will have to happen soon after Labor Day.
Of course, Brewer could just say "[bleep] them all!", sign the budget bills as is (as out of balance as they are) and resign, giving over the mess to AG Terry Goddard. Besides being a fiscal disaster that it would take the state decades to recover from, it would have some electoral side effects.
Such a move would saddle him with the budget mess while mounting his expected campaign for Governor next year, *and* shortening his potential stay on the 9th floor (term limits kick in, even for partial terms in office).
Stay tuned, because this ride won't be over for a while yet...
...The Arizona Corporation Commission doesn't have any full meetings this week, though there are a number of hearings planned. Full list here.
...The Board of Directors of the Central Arizona Project has meetings scheduled for Thursday - full board at 10:15 a.m.; the Public Policy Committee at 9 a.m.; and the Strategic Plan Task Force at 12:45 p.m.
...The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors has an informal meeting, with an attached executive session, scheduled for Monday. They have a formal meeting scheduled for Wednesday, with an executive session planned immediately following that meeting.
The highlight of Monday's meeting looks to be an update on the new Court Tower project. Wednesday's meeting looks to be pretty run-of-the-mill, though there could be nuggets of controversy hiding among the mundanity of what is essentially a city council agenda (for a *really* spread out city :) ).
...The Board of Directors of the Maricopa Integrated Health System has a special meeting scheduled for Monday afternoon. The agenda is light on details so far, but has subjects like "Performance Evaluation" and "Employment Agreement."
Not scheduled to meet this week: Arizona Board of Regents, Citizens Clean Elections Commission, Governing Board of the Maricopa County Community College District, and the City Councils of Tempe and Scottsdale (though both are expected to participate in the festivities of the 2009 League of Arizona Cities and Towns Annual Conference in Oro Valley. The conference runs from Tuesday through Friday).
Later...
...Both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate are in recess until next week.
...The Arizona legislature is between special sessions right now. The third special session was adjourned in order to give their Governor more time to "evaluate" the budget bills that they've sent her.
In this context, "evaluate" means work out a deal so that the expected (but not yet officially-called) fourth special session of the lege will approve sending her proposed temporary increase to the state's sales tax to the ballot in a December election.
No timetable has been set for a fourth special session. To make a planned election in December though, it will have to happen soon after Labor Day.
Of course, Brewer could just say "[bleep] them all!", sign the budget bills as is (as out of balance as they are) and resign, giving over the mess to AG Terry Goddard. Besides being a fiscal disaster that it would take the state decades to recover from, it would have some electoral side effects.
Such a move would saddle him with the budget mess while mounting his expected campaign for Governor next year, *and* shortening his potential stay on the 9th floor (term limits kick in, even for partial terms in office).
Stay tuned, because this ride won't be over for a while yet...
...The Arizona Corporation Commission doesn't have any full meetings this week, though there are a number of hearings planned. Full list here.
...The Board of Directors of the Central Arizona Project has meetings scheduled for Thursday - full board at 10:15 a.m.; the Public Policy Committee at 9 a.m.; and the Strategic Plan Task Force at 12:45 p.m.
...The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors has an informal meeting, with an attached executive session, scheduled for Monday. They have a formal meeting scheduled for Wednesday, with an executive session planned immediately following that meeting.
The highlight of Monday's meeting looks to be an update on the new Court Tower project. Wednesday's meeting looks to be pretty run-of-the-mill, though there could be nuggets of controversy hiding among the mundanity of what is essentially a city council agenda (for a *really* spread out city :) ).
...The Board of Directors of the Maricopa Integrated Health System has a special meeting scheduled for Monday afternoon. The agenda is light on details so far, but has subjects like "Performance Evaluation" and "Employment Agreement."
Not scheduled to meet this week: Arizona Board of Regents, Citizens Clean Elections Commission, Governing Board of the Maricopa County Community College District, and the City Councils of Tempe and Scottsdale (though both are expected to participate in the festivities of the 2009 League of Arizona Cities and Towns Annual Conference in Oro Valley. The conference runs from Tuesday through Friday).
Later...
Saturday, August 29, 2009
The 2010 field for Governor
Time for a meaningless post, other than as an excuse to vent a little snark and, perhaps, spark a conversation.
With the lege adjourned, political silly season has begun (though some might consider the record of this year's lege to be definitive proof that in politics, "silly season" never ends.)
No "big name" candidates have officially announced yet (that pesky "resign to run" law), but that minor detail won't stop some idle speculation on my part. :)
On the Democratic side...
Terry Goddard - the presumptive Democratic nominee is the current Attorney General and is a former mayor of Phoenix. He is smart, experienced, highly-respected, and has been making large strides in addressing his one major weakness as a candidate - a speaking style that could sedate a room full of caffeine junkies on espresso IVs. His rousing speech at one of this year's Democratic Party State Committee meetings really opened some eyes.
Now, the field has apparently cleared for Goddard, but until the date sigs are due, things are subject to change. As such, a little discussion of some of the other names that have been bandied about on the Dem side is in order.
Jim Pederson - The former ADP chair and 2006 nominee for U.S. Senate mulled a run for guv, but perhaps reading the tea leaves, announced he is *not* going to seek the seat. Would have made it interesting - while he trails Goddard in the level of grassroots support in the party, that is only because Goddard is so respected. Pederson himself still has plenty of respect within the party, plenty of cash, and has learned some lessons from his campaign for Jon Kyl's Senate seat in 2006. Could run for Senate if McCain steps aside.
Neil Giuliano - The former Republican mayor of Tempe is neither a Republican nor mayor any longer. He might have made some noise in a primary with some support from the LGBT community (he's a former president of the gay-rights organization GLAAD), but most Dems would have looked at the newness of histurning away from the Dark Side of the Force enrollment in the Democratic Party and voted for someone else. He was rumored to be running, then rumored to not be running. The rumors of his interest have not completely died, so he is included here.
David Bradley - Current Democratic State Representative from southern AZ. Has pulled back from a run for governor and is rumored to be interested in another statewide office. Would have faced a seriously uphill battle in a primary due to nearly-nonexistent name recognition outside of his legislative district.
Everything stated/guessed here could change in a heartbeat if Republican U.S. Senator John McCain retires next year instead of standing for reelection. If that happens, all bets are off, up and down the ballot.
On the Republican side...
Jan Brewer - the current Governor ascended to the office after a long political career after Democrat Janet Napolitano stepped aside to become U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security. Brewer inherited a large budget deficit, and with the assistance of the Republican majority in the legislature, has turned a deficit into a disaster.
Fiscally, not only has the budget on her desk not closed the deficit, it has made it worse with massive tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy.
Politically, her call for a referendum on a temporary sales tax hike has utterly ticked off the pure anti-taxers in her party, cutting into any chance of her winning the Rep nod. Of course, while she has made some recent noises about running for a full term, she hasn''t done more than "make noises."
Of course, those noises could just be positioning in her budget negotiations with the lege. As a lame duck, she'd have even less influence than she has now; as a potential full-termer, the lege will at least have to listen when she speaks to them.
Still, with her career experience and the power of the incumbency, she has to be considered the favorite to win a primary, though not a prohibitive one.
John Munger - former chair of the state GOP. Apparently still has some name rec and some support within the GOP, but given that he is based in Tucson, would have an uphill fight ahead of him.
Andrew Thomas - current Maricopa County Attorney. Wants to turn his notoriety in anti-immigrant circles into a statewide run. Could do well in a GOP primary, but may find that hitching his star to the nativist wagon driven by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio will hurt him in a statewide general election. May run for State Attorney General.
Tom Horne - The current State Superintendent of Public Instruction is "exploring" a run at AG, but has long held an interest in the 9th Floor, and the Brewer-led budget meltdown could make him think that next year is "the year."
Dean Martin - The current State Treasurer was rumored to have gubernortorial ambitions while he was still in the state senate. Probably has a clear run at the Rep nomination for Treasurer, but the tragic death of his wife and newborn son earlier this your could cause him to speed up the timing of his plans. Will eventually run for Governor. The only question is when.
Ken Bennett - The current Secretary of State was appointed to the office when Jan Brewer moved into the Governor's office. A former President of the State Senate, his comeback from a scandal involving his son's "misuse" of a broomstick with some pre-teen campers won't be complete until he wins an election. Bennett's problem isn't really what his son did (most folks understand that he is not his son and that the son was easily old enough to understand that his actions were improper) but with his son's sentence.
18 victims - 30 days.
When the scion of a politically powerful man receives that kind of jaw-dropping leniency, eyebrows get raised.
Still, he will be running, whether next year or in 2014.
JD Hayworth - Former Congressman (thank you, Harry Mitchell!!) and current radio talk show host. His name was mentioned as a possible 2010 candidate for Governor, even before he lost his congressional seat in 2006, but Governor is a "heavy lifting" kind of office, and Hayworth has never been known as a heavy lifting kind of office holder.
He might make a primary run at John McCain, but probably not for governor.
John Shadegg - Currently the Congressman from AZCD3. He announced his retirement last year, only to renounce that announcement a week later. Rumors persist that he will retire (and go through with it!) this time. He is more likely to take a stab at a Senate run if John McCain retires than to run for governor.
Jeff Flake - Currently the Congressman from AZCD6. Has long been rumored to be interested in the job, though he has indicated that he plans to run for reelection to Congress next year. May have realized that his anti-government ideology is a good fit for a member of the minority in Congress but is not such a good fit for a "govern"-or. In addition, while the Rep caucus in the lege is just as anti-government as he is, they are something he is not.
Completely freakin' NUTS.
Flake might consider them to be his ideological brethren, but they probably wouldn't show him any more respect than they've shown Brewer.
He will probably stay in Congress unless McCain retires.
Vernon Parker - Current Mayor of Paradise Valley. Could be intriguing as a candidate who is an African American Republican. Brings money and business connections, but would have to get through a GOP primary as an African American. More likely to be a king-maker this time around than the king.
Other names worth consideration (this isn't a comprehensive list as every R who has ever held or even run for a significant office is looking at a run at the 9th Floor) -
Kris Mayes - The term-limited Corporation Commissioner could be an interesting choice. She's moderate enough to woo some of the independent voters who are running full speed away from anything that even hints of the AZGOP. However, that moderation pretty much negates any chance of her making it through a statewide GOP primary. Could make gain some traction in a race for Congress, especially if Shadegg or Flake steps aside.
Karen Johnson - The former LD18 state senator has an open exploratory committee. She's a gun-toting, UFO-sighting, 9/11 truther. Running to make sure certain issues are part of the campaign dialogue. Wouldn't even sniff this list in any state not named "Arizona."
Here she has to be considered a serious dark horse.
Len Munsil - The GOP nominee in 2006 has to be listed, but his public profile has been pretty low since his lost to Janet Napolitano.
Hugh Hallman - Current Mayor of Tempe. Wants to go statewide, with a run at Governor sooner or later. May make a run at something next year with Tempe as his base of support, but could lose Tempe in a statewide general election - he's not well-liked there outside of his Rep base, and more Dems will turn out in a midterm than in a municipal election.
As with the Democrats, the key here is John McCain; if he decides to retire, all Rep candidates with at least consider running one level up. If he doesn't, expect something resembling status quo.
Either way, though, there will be a scrum for Governor.
With the lege adjourned, political silly season has begun (though some might consider the record of this year's lege to be definitive proof that in politics, "silly season" never ends.)
No "big name" candidates have officially announced yet (that pesky "resign to run" law), but that minor detail won't stop some idle speculation on my part. :)
On the Democratic side...
Terry Goddard - the presumptive Democratic nominee is the current Attorney General and is a former mayor of Phoenix. He is smart, experienced, highly-respected, and has been making large strides in addressing his one major weakness as a candidate - a speaking style that could sedate a room full of caffeine junkies on espresso IVs. His rousing speech at one of this year's Democratic Party State Committee meetings really opened some eyes.
Now, the field has apparently cleared for Goddard, but until the date sigs are due, things are subject to change. As such, a little discussion of some of the other names that have been bandied about on the Dem side is in order.
Jim Pederson - The former ADP chair and 2006 nominee for U.S. Senate mulled a run for guv, but perhaps reading the tea leaves, announced he is *not* going to seek the seat. Would have made it interesting - while he trails Goddard in the level of grassroots support in the party, that is only because Goddard is so respected. Pederson himself still has plenty of respect within the party, plenty of cash, and has learned some lessons from his campaign for Jon Kyl's Senate seat in 2006. Could run for Senate if McCain steps aside.
Neil Giuliano - The former Republican mayor of Tempe is neither a Republican nor mayor any longer. He might have made some noise in a primary with some support from the LGBT community (he's a former president of the gay-rights organization GLAAD), but most Dems would have looked at the newness of his
David Bradley - Current Democratic State Representative from southern AZ. Has pulled back from a run for governor and is rumored to be interested in another statewide office. Would have faced a seriously uphill battle in a primary due to nearly-nonexistent name recognition outside of his legislative district.
Everything stated/guessed here could change in a heartbeat if Republican U.S. Senator John McCain retires next year instead of standing for reelection. If that happens, all bets are off, up and down the ballot.
On the Republican side...
Jan Brewer - the current Governor ascended to the office after a long political career after Democrat Janet Napolitano stepped aside to become U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security. Brewer inherited a large budget deficit, and with the assistance of the Republican majority in the legislature, has turned a deficit into a disaster.
Fiscally, not only has the budget on her desk not closed the deficit, it has made it worse with massive tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy.
Politically, her call for a referendum on a temporary sales tax hike has utterly ticked off the pure anti-taxers in her party, cutting into any chance of her winning the Rep nod. Of course, while she has made some recent noises about running for a full term, she hasn''t done more than "make noises."
Of course, those noises could just be positioning in her budget negotiations with the lege. As a lame duck, she'd have even less influence than she has now; as a potential full-termer, the lege will at least have to listen when she speaks to them.
Still, with her career experience and the power of the incumbency, she has to be considered the favorite to win a primary, though not a prohibitive one.
John Munger - former chair of the state GOP. Apparently still has some name rec and some support within the GOP, but given that he is based in Tucson, would have an uphill fight ahead of him.
Andrew Thomas - current Maricopa County Attorney. Wants to turn his notoriety in anti-immigrant circles into a statewide run. Could do well in a GOP primary, but may find that hitching his star to the nativist wagon driven by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio will hurt him in a statewide general election. May run for State Attorney General.
Tom Horne - The current State Superintendent of Public Instruction is "exploring" a run at AG, but has long held an interest in the 9th Floor, and the Brewer-led budget meltdown could make him think that next year is "the year."
Dean Martin - The current State Treasurer was rumored to have gubernortorial ambitions while he was still in the state senate. Probably has a clear run at the Rep nomination for Treasurer, but the tragic death of his wife and newborn son earlier this your could cause him to speed up the timing of his plans. Will eventually run for Governor. The only question is when.
Ken Bennett - The current Secretary of State was appointed to the office when Jan Brewer moved into the Governor's office. A former President of the State Senate, his comeback from a scandal involving his son's "misuse" of a broomstick with some pre-teen campers won't be complete until he wins an election. Bennett's problem isn't really what his son did (most folks understand that he is not his son and that the son was easily old enough to understand that his actions were improper) but with his son's sentence.
18 victims - 30 days.
When the scion of a politically powerful man receives that kind of jaw-dropping leniency, eyebrows get raised.
Still, he will be running, whether next year or in 2014.
JD Hayworth - Former Congressman (thank you, Harry Mitchell!!) and current radio talk show host. His name was mentioned as a possible 2010 candidate for Governor, even before he lost his congressional seat in 2006, but Governor is a "heavy lifting" kind of office, and Hayworth has never been known as a heavy lifting kind of office holder.
He might make a primary run at John McCain, but probably not for governor.
John Shadegg - Currently the Congressman from AZCD3. He announced his retirement last year, only to renounce that announcement a week later. Rumors persist that he will retire (and go through with it!) this time. He is more likely to take a stab at a Senate run if John McCain retires than to run for governor.
Jeff Flake - Currently the Congressman from AZCD6. Has long been rumored to be interested in the job, though he has indicated that he plans to run for reelection to Congress next year. May have realized that his anti-government ideology is a good fit for a member of the minority in Congress but is not such a good fit for a "govern"-or. In addition, while the Rep caucus in the lege is just as anti-government as he is, they are something he is not.
Completely freakin' NUTS.
Flake might consider them to be his ideological brethren, but they probably wouldn't show him any more respect than they've shown Brewer.
He will probably stay in Congress unless McCain retires.
Vernon Parker - Current Mayor of Paradise Valley. Could be intriguing as a candidate who is an African American Republican. Brings money and business connections, but would have to get through a GOP primary as an African American. More likely to be a king-maker this time around than the king.
Other names worth consideration (this isn't a comprehensive list as every R who has ever held or even run for a significant office is looking at a run at the 9th Floor) -
Kris Mayes - The term-limited Corporation Commissioner could be an interesting choice. She's moderate enough to woo some of the independent voters who are running full speed away from anything that even hints of the AZGOP. However, that moderation pretty much negates any chance of her making it through a statewide GOP primary. Could make gain some traction in a race for Congress, especially if Shadegg or Flake steps aside.
Karen Johnson - The former LD18 state senator has an open exploratory committee. She's a gun-toting, UFO-sighting, 9/11 truther. Running to make sure certain issues are part of the campaign dialogue. Wouldn't even sniff this list in any state not named "Arizona."
Here she has to be considered a serious dark horse.
Len Munsil - The GOP nominee in 2006 has to be listed, but his public profile has been pretty low since his lost to Janet Napolitano.
Hugh Hallman - Current Mayor of Tempe. Wants to go statewide, with a run at Governor sooner or later. May make a run at something next year with Tempe as his base of support, but could lose Tempe in a statewide general election - he's not well-liked there outside of his Rep base, and more Dems will turn out in a midterm than in a municipal election.
As with the Democrats, the key here is John McCain; if he decides to retire, all Rep candidates with at least consider running one level up. If he doesn't, expect something resembling status quo.
Either way, though, there will be a scrum for Governor.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Next up in Breaking News: Water is wet
On Thursday, Pro Tem Justice of the Peace Daniel Washburn acquitted State Sen. John Huppenthal (R-Anger Management Issues) on misdemeanor theft and political sign tampering charges.
Washburn is a Republican activist and candidate in Pinal County. Huppenthal is a state senator and likely candidate for State Superintendent of Public Instruction next year.
This was not a really shocking verdict (the sign tampering statute's language refers to the signs for a candidate, and the sign in question was not "for" a candidate) but the fact that Washburn took so long to find something to hang an acquittal on the theft charge was a little surprising.
While the ruling cannot be appealed by the prosecution, the grounds for the acquittal on the theft charge seems weak.
The Judge found that the state hadn't proven that the sign in question belonged to the Arizona Democratic Party, and that was enough to acquit.
My understanding of the law (which isn't great; if a real lawyer wants to chime in with some insights, that would be fine) is that theft occurs when someone takes property that doesn't belong to him, not when that someone takes property that belongs to a specific owner.
Another weakness of the verdict is that it was based in part on the property manager giving Huppenthal permission to take the sign down.
Well, while Huppenthal testified that he was given permission, the property manager testified that she said "I don't care."
Only in Arizona could "I don't care" be synonymous with "I give you permission."
I guess we can file all of this under "IOKIYAR" - It's OK If You're A Republican.
Washburn is a Republican activist and candidate in Pinal County. Huppenthal is a state senator and likely candidate for State Superintendent of Public Instruction next year.
This was not a really shocking verdict (the sign tampering statute's language refers to the signs for a candidate, and the sign in question was not "for" a candidate) but the fact that Washburn took so long to find something to hang an acquittal on the theft charge was a little surprising.
While the ruling cannot be appealed by the prosecution, the grounds for the acquittal on the theft charge seems weak.
The Judge found that the state hadn't proven that the sign in question belonged to the Arizona Democratic Party, and that was enough to acquit.
My understanding of the law (which isn't great; if a real lawyer wants to chime in with some insights, that would be fine) is that theft occurs when someone takes property that doesn't belong to him, not when that someone takes property that belongs to a specific owner.
Another weakness of the verdict is that it was based in part on the property manager giving Huppenthal permission to take the sign down.
Well, while Huppenthal testified that he was given permission, the property manager testified that she said "I don't care."
Only in Arizona could "I don't care" be synonymous with "I give you permission."
I guess we can file all of this under "IOKIYAR" - It's OK If You're A Republican.
OK, so maybe putting your name to something doesn't add to your credibility
...not if that something is utter crap.
Note: Tedski was on top of this earlier today, but the topic deserves more attention.
Chuck Coughlin, a Republican consultant, long-time Republican activist, and adviser to Governor Jan Brewer (in short, he's a career political hack) penned a piece for the AZ Republic's opinion page. The piece metes out blame for the mess surrounding the state's budget.
This may be a surprise to some (OK, not really), but he feels that the majority Republicans in the lege are almost totally blameless, and their Governor (his client) is *totally* blameless.
He blames the legislative gridlock surrounding the budget on the Voting Rights Act, term limits, Clean Elections and, of course, Democrats.
Apparently, the state's fiscal issues are the fault of minorities exercising their right to vote, a dearth ofeasily influenced "highly experienced" career pols in the lege, citizen-funded candidates instead of corporate-funded candidates, and, of course, those pesky Dems with their opposition of the Republican "backhoe to paradise".
Change those things, and the state will become a fiscal Nirvana.
It couldn't be the responsibility of the majority Republicans and the Governor and their preference for serving the likes of realtors, developers, and mining interests (perhaps not coincidentally, Couglin's consulting business has clients from all of those industries) over serving the interests of their constituents, could it?
Nah...'course not.
:))
...Coughlin's piece does bring to mind one question. Is this piece, however bad, a product of Coughlin alone, or is it a signal from Brewer to both the Democrats and the Republicans in the lege that she isn't really interested in doing any kind of real negotiating with the Democrats?
Later...
Note: Tedski was on top of this earlier today, but the topic deserves more attention.
Chuck Coughlin, a Republican consultant, long-time Republican activist, and adviser to Governor Jan Brewer (in short, he's a career political hack) penned a piece for the AZ Republic's opinion page. The piece metes out blame for the mess surrounding the state's budget.
This may be a surprise to some (OK, not really), but he feels that the majority Republicans in the lege are almost totally blameless, and their Governor (his client) is *totally* blameless.
He blames the legislative gridlock surrounding the budget on the Voting Rights Act, term limits, Clean Elections and, of course, Democrats.
Apparently, the state's fiscal issues are the fault of minorities exercising their right to vote, a dearth of
Change those things, and the state will become a fiscal Nirvana.
It couldn't be the responsibility of the majority Republicans and the Governor and their preference for serving the likes of realtors, developers, and mining interests (perhaps not coincidentally, Couglin's consulting business has clients from all of those industries) over serving the interests of their constituents, could it?
Nah...'course not.
:))
...Coughlin's piece does bring to mind one question. Is this piece, however bad, a product of Coughlin alone, or is it a signal from Brewer to both the Democrats and the Republicans in the lege that she isn't really interested in doing any kind of real negotiating with the Democrats?
Later...
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Congressman Mitchell's telephone town hall
Earlier this evening, Congressman Harry Mitchell held a Telephone Town Hall on Health Care Reform.
For an hour, approximately 14,000 CD5 residents listened as the Congressman fielded a couple of dozen questions regarding the current health care reform proposals before Congress.
The callers came from all over the district, and their question were all over the place, too.
This being Arizona, a couple of the callers wanted to make sure that undocumented immigrants wouldn't be eligible for benefits under any plan (they won't be). One of the callers even blamed them for the high cost of health care in the U.S. and stated that they should be barred from even using emergency rooms (regardless of the pesky law from 1986 that bars ERs from refusing to take care of anyone who needs their services.)
Some callers supported a single-payer system, some supported a public option, and others totally opposed any government involvement in health care. A couple were obvious insurance industry/Shadegg plants harping on tort reform and letting insurance companies sell their products across state lines without regard to state laws and regulations.
Through it all, Congressman Mitchell emphasized that he does not support a single-payer plan or any proposal that would lead to a complete government takeover of health insurance. He does support proposals to create health insurance pools (the "co-ops" that have been bandied about as an alternative to a public option). He stated that one of his problems with a single-payer plan is that all current proposals for one have them structured to pay healthcare providers based on Medicare reimbursement rates, which are too low.
Mitchell also emphasized that he will only support a plan that supports increased competition among insurers.
Anyway, I've got to go because of work early in morning. I'll cover more tomorrow.
For an hour, approximately 14,000 CD5 residents listened as the Congressman fielded a couple of dozen questions regarding the current health care reform proposals before Congress.
The callers came from all over the district, and their question were all over the place, too.
This being Arizona, a couple of the callers wanted to make sure that undocumented immigrants wouldn't be eligible for benefits under any plan (they won't be). One of the callers even blamed them for the high cost of health care in the U.S. and stated that they should be barred from even using emergency rooms (regardless of the pesky law from 1986 that bars ERs from refusing to take care of anyone who needs their services.)
Some callers supported a single-payer system, some supported a public option, and others totally opposed any government involvement in health care. A couple were obvious insurance industry/Shadegg plants harping on tort reform and letting insurance companies sell their products across state lines without regard to state laws and regulations.
Through it all, Congressman Mitchell emphasized that he does not support a single-payer plan or any proposal that would lead to a complete government takeover of health insurance. He does support proposals to create health insurance pools (the "co-ops" that have been bandied about as an alternative to a public option). He stated that one of his problems with a single-payer plan is that all current proposals for one have them structured to pay healthcare providers based on Medicare reimbursement rates, which are too low.
Mitchell also emphasized that he will only support a plan that supports increased competition among insurers.
Anyway, I've got to go because of work early in morning. I'll cover more tomorrow.
Gotta love that anonymity thing...
...doesn't help with the whole credibility thing, though.
I was perusing the website of the AZ Secretary of State, checking to see which candidates have started committees for next year (LD9's Republicans are going to have cattle call primaries for its legislative seats to deal with next year, and Barry Wong, a 2008 Rep nominee for Corporation Commission, is running for ACC again) when I came across a couple of interesting committees.
They're found under the "all other" category.
Filer ID 201000188, Citizens for Dean Martin for Governor, a $500 threshold committee.
Filer ID 201000186, Citizens Advocating Pragmatism, a $500 threshold committee.
Filer ID 201000193, Recall Garielle [sic] Giffords, a $500 threshold committee.
What does each of those committees have in common?
No listing of Chair or Treasurer.
However, their anonymity isn't complete - the Dean Martin committee lists a contact email of rbutterfield@cox.net and the Pragmatism committee lists gregory.m.wagner@gmail.com.
The Recall Giffords committee, while they are rather poor spellers, do a better job at anonymity - their email addy is recgiffords@hotmail.com.
Let's be clear - no listing of chair and treasurer on the SOS's website isn't necessarily illegal, as some of the other committees are similarly shown on the website.
It is interesting, however, since two of the committees were formed to directly support or oppose specific candidates.
Part of politics is standing up and being heard.
Anonymity *is* legal (even protected, under the First Amendment to the Constitution), but it isn't something that enhances the anonymous one's credibility.
Anyway, time to join Harry Mitchell's telephone town hall...
I was perusing the website of the AZ Secretary of State, checking to see which candidates have started committees for next year (LD9's Republicans are going to have cattle call primaries for its legislative seats to deal with next year, and Barry Wong, a 2008 Rep nominee for Corporation Commission, is running for ACC again) when I came across a couple of interesting committees.
They're found under the "all other" category.
Filer ID 201000188, Citizens for Dean Martin for Governor, a $500 threshold committee.
Filer ID 201000186, Citizens Advocating Pragmatism, a $500 threshold committee.
Filer ID 201000193, Recall Garielle [sic] Giffords, a $500 threshold committee.
What does each of those committees have in common?
No listing of Chair or Treasurer.
However, their anonymity isn't complete - the Dean Martin committee lists a contact email of rbutterfield@cox.net and the Pragmatism committee lists gregory.m.wagner@gmail.com.
The Recall Giffords committee, while they are rather poor spellers, do a better job at anonymity - their email addy is recgiffords@hotmail.com.
Let's be clear - no listing of chair and treasurer on the SOS's website isn't necessarily illegal, as some of the other committees are similarly shown on the website.
It is interesting, however, since two of the committees were formed to directly support or oppose specific candidates.
Part of politics is standing up and being heard.
Anonymity *is* legal (even protected, under the First Amendment to the Constitution), but it isn't something that enhances the anonymous one's credibility.
Anyway, time to join Harry Mitchell's telephone town hall...
Ted Kennedy's speech on the run-up to the war in Iraq
While health care reform will go down as Ted Kennedy's signature issue and perhaps his lasting legacy, health care for all was hardly his only issue.
In 2002, Sen. Kennedy gave a speech to the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.
Courtesy CommonDreams.org -
In 2002, Sen. Kennedy gave a speech to the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.
Courtesy CommonDreams.org -
Thank you, Dr. Fukuyama for that generous introduction.
I'm honored to be here at the School of Advanced International Studies. Many of the most talented individuals in foreign policy have benefited immensely from your outstanding graduate program, and I welcome the opportunity to meet with you today.
I have come here today to express my view that America should not go to war against Iraq unless and until other reasonable alternatives are exhausted. But I begin with the strongest possible affirmation that good and decent people on all sides of this debate, who may in the end stand on opposing sides of this decision, are equally committed to our national security.
The life and death issue of war and peace is too important to be left to politics. And I disagree with those who suggest that this fateful issue cannot or should not be contested vigorously, publicly, and all across America. When it is the people's sons and daughters who will risk and even lose their lives, then the people should hear and be heard, speak and be listened to.
But there is a difference between honest public dialogue and partisan appeals. There is a difference between questioning policy and questioning motives. There are Republicans and Democrats who support the immediate use of force – and Republicans and Democrats who have raised doubts and dissented.
In this serious time for America and many American families, no one should poison the public square by attacking the patriotism of opponents, or by assailing proponents as more interested in the cause of politics than in the merits of their cause. I reject this, as should we all.
Let me say it plainly: I not only concede, but I am convinced that President Bush believes genuinely in the course he urges upon us. And let me say with the same plainness: Those who agree with that course have an equal obligation – to resist any temptation to convert patriotism into politics. It is possible to love America while concluding that is not now wise to go to war. The standard that should guide us is especially clear when lives are on the line: We must ask what is right for country and not party.
That is the true spirit of September 11th — not unthinking unanimity, but a clear-minded unity in our determination to defeat terrorism — to defend our values and the value of life itself.
Just a year ago, the American people and the Congress rallied behind the President and our Armed Forces as we went to war in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda and the Taliban protectors who gave them sanctuary in Afghanistan posed a clear, present and continuing danger. The need to destroy Al Qaeda was urgent and undeniable.
In the months that followed September 11, the Bush Administration marshalled an international coalition. Today, 90 countries are enlisted in the effort, from providing troops to providing law enforcement, intelligence, and other critical support.
But I am concerned that using force against Iraq before other means are tried will sorely test both the integrity and effectiveness of the coalition. Just one year into the campaign against Al Qaeda, the Administration is shifting focus, resources, and energy to Iraq. The change in priority is coming before we have fully eliminated the threat from Al Qaeda, before we know whether Osama Bin Laden is dead or alive, and before we can be assured that the fragile post-Taliban government in Afghanistan will consolidate its authority.
No one disputes that America has lasting and important interests in the Persian Gulf, or that Iraq poses a significant challenge to U.S. interests. There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.
How can we best achieve this objective in a way that minimizes the risks to our country? How can we ignore the danger to our young men and women in uniform, to our ally Israel, to regional stability, the international community, and victory against terrorism?
There is clearly a threat from Iraq, and there is clearly a danger, but the Administration has not made a convincing case that we face such an imminent threat to our national security that a unilateral, pre-emptive American strike and an immediate war are necessary.
Nor has the Administration laid out the cost in blood and treasure of this operation. With all the talk of war, the Administration has not explicitly acknowledged, let alone explained to the American people, the immense post-war commitment that will be required to create a stable Iraq.
The President's challenge to the United Nations requires a renewed effort to enforce the will of the international community to disarm Saddam. Resorting to war is not America's only or best course at this juncture. There are realistic alternatives between doing nothing and declaring unilateral or immediate war. War should be a last resort, not the first response. Let us follow that course, and the world will be with us – even if, in the end, we have to move to the ultimate sanction of armed conflict.
The Bush Administration says America can fight a war in Iraq without undermining our most pressing national security priority -- the war against Al Qaeda. But I believe it is inevitable that a war in Iraq without serious international support will weaken our effort to ensure that Al Qaeda terrorists can never, never, never threaten American lives again.
Unfortunately, the threat from Al Qaeda is still imminent. The nation's armed forces and law enforcement are on constant high alert. America may have broken up the Al Qaeda network in Afghanistan and scattered its operatives across many lands. But we have not broken its will to kill Americans.
As I said earlier, we still don't know the fate, the location, or the operational capacity of Osama bin Laden himself. But we do know that Al Qaeda is still there, and still here in America – and will do all it can to strike at America's heart and heartland again. But we don't know when, where, or how this may happen.
On March 12, CIA Director Tenet testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that Al Qaeda remains "the most immediate and serious threat" to our country, "despite the progress we have made in Afghanistan and in disrupting the network elsewhere."
Even with the Taliban out of power, Afghanistan remains fragile. Security remains tenuous. Warlords still dominate many regions. Our reconstruction effort, which is vital to long-term stability and security, is halting and inadequate. Some Al Qaeda operatives – no one knows how many – have faded into the general population. Terrorist attacks are on the rise. President Karzai, who has already survived one assassination attempt, is still struggling to solidify his hold on power. And although neighboring Pakistan has been our ally, its stability is far from certain.
We know all this – and we also know that it is an open secret in Washington that the nation's uniformed military leadership is skeptical about the wisdom of war with Iraq. They share the concern that it may adversely affect the ongoing war against Al Qaeda and the continuing effort in Afghanistan by draining resources and armed forces already stretched so thin that many Reservists have been called for a second year of duty, and record numbers of service members have been kept on active duty beyond their obligated service.
To succeed in our global war against Al Qaeda and terrorism, the United States depends on military, law enforcement, and intelligence support from many other nations. We depend on Russia and countries in the former Soviet Union that border Afghanistan for military cooperation. We depend on countries from Portugal to Pakistan to the Philippines for information about Al Qaeda's plans and intentions. Because of these relationships, terrorist plots are being foiled and Al Qaeda operatives are being arrested. It is far from clear that these essential relationships will be able to survive the strain of a war with Iraq that comes before the alternatives are tried – or without the support of an international coalition.
A largely unilateral American war that is widely perceived in the Muslim world as untimely or unjust could worsen not lessen the threat of terrorism. War with Iraq before a genuine attempt at inspection and disarmament, or without genuine international support -- could swell the ranks of Al Qaeda sympathizers and trigger an escalation in terrorist acts. As General Clark told the Senate Armed Services Committee, it would "super-charge recruiting for Al Qaeda."
General Hoar advised the Committee on September 23 that America's first and primary effort should be to defeat Al Qaeda. In a September 10th article, General Clark wrote: "Unilateral U.S. action today would disrupt the war against Al Qaeda." We ignore such wisdom and advice from many of the best of our military at our own peril.
We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction. Our intelligence community is also deeply concerned about the acquisition of such weapons by Iran, North Korea, Libya, Syria and other nations. But information from the intelligence community over the past six months does not point to Iraq as an imminent threat to the United States or a major proliferator of weapons of mass destruction.
In public hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee in March, CIA Director George Tenet described Iraq as a threat but not as a proliferator, saying that Saddam Hussein — and I quote — "is determined to thwart U.N. sanctions, press ahead with weapons of mass destruction, and resurrect the military force he had before the Gulf War." That is unacceptable, but it is also possible that it could be stopped short of war.
In recent weeks, in briefings and in hearings in the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have seen no persuasive evidence that Saddam would not be deterred from attacking U.S. interests by America's overwhelming military superiority.
I have heard no persuasive evidence that Saddam is on the threshold of acquiring the nuclear weapons he has sought for more than 20 years.
And the Administration has offered no persuasive evidence that Saddam would transfer chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction to Al Qaeda or any other terrorist organization. As General Joseph Hoar, the former Commander of Central Command told the members of the Armed Services Committee, a case has not been made to connect Al Qaeda and Iraq.
To the contrary, there is no clear and convincing pattern of Iraqi relations with either Al Qaeda or the Taliban.
General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Allied Commander Europe, testified before the Armed Services Committee on September 23 that Iran has had closer ties to terrorism than Iraq. Iran has a nuclear weapons development program, and it already has a missile that can reach Israel.
Moreover, in August, former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft wrote that there is "scant evidence" linking Saddam Hussein to terrorist organizations, and "even less to the September 11 attacks." He concluded that Saddam would not regard it as in his interest to risk his country or his investment in weapons of mass destruction by transferring them to terrorists who would use them and "leave Baghdad as the return address."
At the present time, we do face a pressing risk of proliferation -- from Russia's stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. America spends only $1 billion a year to safeguard those weapons. Yet the Administration is preparing to spend between one and two hundred billion dollars on a war with Iraq.
I do not accept the idea that trying other alternatives is either futile or perilous – that the risks of waiting are greater than the risks of war. Indeed, in launching a war against Iraq now, the United States may precipitate the very threat that we are intent on preventing -- weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists. If Saddam's regime and his very survival are threatened, then his view of his interests may be profoundly altered: He may decide he has nothing to lose by using weapons of mass destruction himself or by sharing them with terrorists.
Some who advocate military action against Iraq, however, assert that air strikes will do the job quickly and decisively, and that the operation will be complete in 72 hours. But there is again no persuasive evidence that air strikes alone over the course of several days will incapacitate Saddam and destroy his weapons of mass destruction. Experts have informed us that we do not have sufficient intelligence about military targets in Iraq. Saddam may well hide his most lethal weapons in mosques, schools and hospitals. If our forces attempt to strike such targets, untold numbers of Iraqi civilians could be killed.
In the Gulf War, many of Saddam's soldiers quickly retreated because they did not believe the invasion of Kuwait was justified. But when Iraq's survival is at stake, it is more likely that they will fight to the end. Saddam and his military may well abandon the desert, retreat to Baghdad, and engage in urban, guerilla warfare.
In our September 23 hearing, General Clark told the Committee that we would need a large military force and a plan for urban warfare. General Hoar said that our military would have to be prepared to fight block by block in Baghdad, and that we could lose a battalion of soldiers a day in casualties. Urban fighting would, he said, look like the last brutal 15 minutes of the movie "Saving Private Ryan."
Before the Gulf War in 1991, Secretary of State James Baker met with the Iraqis and threatened Hussein with "catastrophe" if he employed weapons of mass destruction. In that war, although Saddam launched 39 Scud missiles at Israel, he did not use the chemical or biological weapons he had.
If Saddam's regime and survival are threatened, he will have nothing to lose, and may use everything at his disposal. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has announced that instead of its forbearance in the 1991 Gulf War, this time Israel will respond if attacked. If weapons of mass destruction land on Israeli soil, killing innocent civilians, the experts I have consulted believe Israel will retaliate, and possibly with nuclear weapons.
This escalation, spiraling out of control, could draw the Arab world into a regional war in which our Arab allies side with Iraq, against the United States and against Israel. And that would represent a fundamental threat to Israel, to the region, to the world economy and international order.
Nor can we rule out the possibility that Saddam would assault American forces with chemical or biological weapons. Despite advances in protecting our troops, we do not yet have the capability to safeguard all of them.
Our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are serving their country with great distinction. Just under 70,000 Reservists and National Guardsmen have been mobilized for the war against terrorism. If we embark upon a premature or unilateral military campaign against Iraq, or a campaign only with Britain, our forces will have to serve in even greater numbers, for longer periods, and with graver risks. Our force strength will be stretched even thinner. And war is the last resort. If in the end we have to take that course, the burden should be shared with allies – and that is less likely if war becomes an immediate response.
Even with the major technological gains demonstrated in Afghanistan, the logistics of such a war would be extraordinarily challenging if we could not marshal a real coalition of regional and international allies.
President Bush made the right decision on September 12 when he expressed America's willingness to work with the United Nations to prevent Iraq from using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. The President's address to the General Assembly challenging the United Nations to enforce its long list of Security Council Resolutions on Iraq was powerful -- and for me, it was persuasive.
But to maintain the credibility he built when he went to the U.N., the President must follow the logic of his own argument.
Before we go to war, we should give the international community the chance to meet the President's challenge – to renew its resolve to disarm Saddam Hussein completely and effectively. This makes the resumption of inspections more imperative and perhaps more likely than at any time since they ended in 1998.
So this should be the first aim of our policy – to get U.N. inspectors back into Iraq without conditions. I hope the Security Council will approve a new resolution requiring the Government of Iraq to accept unlimited and unconditional inspections and the destruction of any weapons of mass destruction.
The resolution should set a short timetable for the resumption of inspections. I would hope that inspections could resume, at the latest, by the end of October.
The resolution should also require the head of the UN inspection team to report to the Security Council every two weeks. No delaying tactics should be tolerated – and if they occur, Saddam should know that he will lose his last chance to avoid war.
The Security Council Resolution should authorize the use of force, if the inspection process in unsatisfactory. And there should be no doubt in Baghdad that the United States Congress would then be prepared to authorize force as well.
The return of inspectors with unfettered access and the ability to destroy what they find not only could remove any weapons of mass destruction from Saddam's arsenal. They could also be more effective than an immediate or unilateral war in ensuring that these deadly weapons would not fall into terrorist hands.
The seven years of inspections that took place until 1998 succeeded in virtually eliminating Saddam's ability to develop a nuclear weapon in Iraq during that period. Even with Iraq's obstructions, those inspections resulted in the demolition of large quantities of chemical and biological weapons. By the time the inspectors were forced out of the country in 1998, they had accomplished far more disarmament than the Gulf War itself. And before going to war again, we should seek to resume the inspections now – and set a non-negotiable demand of no obstruction, no delay, no more weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
What can be gained here is success – and in the event of failure, greater credibility for an armed response, greater international support, and the prospect of victory with less loss of American life.
So what is to be lost by pursuing this policy before Congress authorizes sending young Americans into another and in this case perhaps unnecessary war?
Even the case against Saddam is, in important respects, a case against immediate or unilateral war. If Prime Minister Blair is correct in saying that Iraq can launch chemical or biological warheads in 45 minutes, what kind of sense does it make to put our soldiers in the path of that danger without exhausting every reasonable means to disarm Iraq through the United Nations?
Clearly we must halt Saddam Hussein's quest for weapons of mass destruction. Yes, we may reach the point where our only choice is conflict – with like-minded allies at our side, if not in a multilateral action authorized by the Security Council. But we are not there yet.
The evidence does not take us there; events do not compel us there – and both the war against terrorism and our wider interests in the region and the world summon us to a course that is sensible, graduated, and genuinely strong – not because it moves swiftly to battle, but because it moves resolutely to the objective of disarming Iraq – peacefully if possible, and militarily if necessary.
Let me close by recalling the events of an autumn of danger four decades ago. When missiles were discovered in Cuba – missiles more threatening to us than anything Saddam has today – some in the highest councils of government urged an immediate and unilateral strike. Instead the United States took its case to the United Nations, won the endorsement of the Organization of American States, and brought along even our most skeptical allies. We imposed a blockade, demanded inspection, and insisted on the removal of the missiles.
When an earlier President outlined that choice to the American people and the world, he spoke of it in realistic terms – not with a sense that the first step would necessarily be the final step, but with a resolve that it must be tried.
As he said then, "Action is required…and these actions [now] may only be the beginning. We will not prematurely or unnecessarily risk the costs of…war – but neither will we shrink from that risk at any time it must be faced."
In 2002, we too can and must be both resolute and measured. In that way, the United States prevailed without war in the greatest confrontation of the Cold War. Now, on Iraq, let us build international support, try the United Nations, and pursue disarmament before we turn to armed conflict.
Congressman Harry Mitchell's statement on the passing of Senator Ted Kennedy
From Congressman Mitchell's House website -
Note: I'm citing the words of others regarding the loss of Ted Kennedy because while I grew up in Massachusetts and even voted for him, Ted Kennedy was a U.S. Senator even before I was alive.
In many ways, the average person in MA regarded Ted Kennedy the way that the average person in AZ regards sunshine - an indelible part of the firmament.
Something that brightens and sustains all it touches.
Something that is always there.
Something that is only truly appreciated when it isn't there any longer.
U.S. Rep. Harry Mitchell today issued the following statement on the passing of Senator Edward Kennedy:
"I am deeply saddened this morning by the news of Senator Edward Kennedy's passing. Senator Kennedy embodied public service - devoting his entire life not just to his home state of Massachusetts, but to the nation as a whole. In a Senate career spanning four decades, Senator Kennedy became one of the most influential and productive legislators in Congress. He was a staunch advocate, who argued passionately, but also knew how to reach across the aisle to get things done. As a lifelong student of government, I recognize the indelible mark that his work has made on our country. With his passing, America has lost a statesman. I join the rest of the country in mourning this monumental loss. My thoughts today are with the entire Kennedy family."
Note: I'm citing the words of others regarding the loss of Ted Kennedy because while I grew up in Massachusetts and even voted for him, Ted Kennedy was a U.S. Senator even before I was alive.
In many ways, the average person in MA regarded Ted Kennedy the way that the average person in AZ regards sunshine - an indelible part of the firmament.
Something that brightens and sustains all it touches.
Something that is always there.
Something that is only truly appreciated when it isn't there any longer.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)