John Shadegg, the CBO, and selective credibility

Note: for those readers unfamiliar with the abbreviation "CBO," it stands for Congressional Budget Office. The CBO provides non-partisan analyses to help Congress make decisions in budget and economic issues.

Congressman John Shadegg (R-AZ3) seems to have a creative definition of what constitutes a credible source of information.

When that source says something that he can use to support his ideological/industry lobbyist-funded positions, that source is credible.

When the same source says something the undermines his preferred position, he doesn't consider re-evaluating his position, he just attacks the source.

To whit, the CBO and the fiscal impact of health care reform.

From Shadegg in July, when he found the CBO to be credible -

Now, with only a single week to go before the August break, the CBO is estimating that despite the cost-cutting rhetoric, the House Democrats’ health care proposal will increase America’s deficit by $239 billion over the next ten years.

From Shadegg in October (warning: the link is to RedState.com; prolonged exposure could result in brain damage :) ), where the CBO's analysis doesn't support his position any longer -

CBO Stands for Cooked Books Office

With this sort of sloppiness coming forth from Shadegg, indicating that he is getting tired (somewhat reminiscent of JD Hayworth circa 2006, and we know how that turned out for Hayworth), it's time for him to consider sticking with it the next time he announces his retirement.

There are a number of Republicans - State Sens. Jim Waring and Pam Gorman, former Shadegg chief of staff Sean Noble, and others - rumored to be eyeing the seat, all waiting for the seat to open up (somebody who was going to run last year when Shadegg "retired," Steve May, probably won't be running in CD3 next time around. It looks like he may be running for a JP slot in the East Valley instead).

There are also a number of Democrats waiting for Shadegg to make his decision, any of whom could make it an interesting race (some even if Shadegg tries for one more term). Bob Lord probably has another run in him, and with the lessons he learned in last year's run against Shadegg, last year's "formidable challenge" could turn into "next year's victory."

So either way (Shadegg in, Shadegg out) CD3 is going to be interesting.

If Shadegg stays in the race, expect more from him like this (which means lots of blogging material).

If he retires, that means that there will be a scrum in north Phoenix next year, which also means lots of blogging material.

Stay tuned.

Another one for Democratic Diva's "Conservative Misogyny" category

...this one's for you, Donna...

From the Sun-Sentinel (FL) -

Armed with handguns and AK-47 and AR-15 assault rifles, the members of the Southeast Broward Republican Club abandoned the usual community center for their club meeting this week, and gathered at a gun range where they fired bullets instead of political bombshells.

{snip}

One of the shooters at the Tuesday evening event was Robert Lowry, a Republican candidate hoping to unseat U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Weston. Lowry's target had the letters "DWS" next to the silhouette head.

Lowry said he didn't know who wrote Wasserman Schultz' initials on his target, but said he knew they were there before he started shooting. He initially described it as a "joke," but after answering several questions he said it "was a mistake" to use a target labeled "DWS."

Ummm..yeah.

To all GOPers reading this:

I'm pretty tone deaf on a lot of this stuff (unless it's blatant, I tend to miss the misogyny. What can I say? I'm a guy. :) ), but even I can see the pattern in things like Jon Kyl's anti-maternity care tirade, the NRCC's call to put Nancy Pelosi, the first woman serving as speaker of the U.S. House "in her place", and this troubling incident (shooting a woman in effigy for having the audacity to oppose a male candidate).

Given that more than half the population of the United States is female, you are isolating your party from mainstream America.

Keep up the good work.

President Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize

First let me say this: Congratulations Mr. President, and "thank you" to the Nobel committee for recognizing and honoring our President.

Now let me say this: "Premature" doesn't even begin to describe this.

His efforts at moving U.S. foreign policy back toward real diplomacy and away from the Bushies' policy of "Kill 'em all and let God sort out the bodies...after we've stolen all of their stuff" is laudable and something that I'm proud of as an American, even before today's announcement.

However, we are a little more than nine months into the Obama administration. It's *way* too soon to evaluate the success of those efforts.


Having said all that, it's been great fun to watch the right wing seize up with fits of outraged angst [can't use that phrase - Tedski used one that is similar, and truth be told one that is also better, in his post on this topic...how about...?] become overtaken by paroxysms of apoplexy [yep, that one'll do :) ] over this.

That's not a very "peaceable" or "diplomatic" attitude on my part, but then I'm not up for any awards either. :))

Later...

Horne promises access to those who give him large campaign contributions

There's a not-so-fine line between blunt honesty and utter brazenness, and Tom Horne has stepped *way* over that line.

From AZCentral.com -

State schools Superintendent Tom Horne says he has not decided whether he will run for attorney general next year, but he has promised his biggest campaign
contributors that, if elected, he will meet with them at quarterly lunches during his term.

{snip}

In e-mails and printed mailers obtained by The Arizona Republic, Horne tells prospective donors that he has formed an exploratory committee to consider running for attorney general in 2010. In the material, he points out that the maximum amount an individual can donate is $840, or $1,680 per couple.

"If I am elected as attorney general, I pledge to have quarterly lunches with members of the '840 Club' throughout my administrations," the material says.

Horne denied that he was offering special access to maximum contributors, conflating his pledge of regular access to an event held by Janet Napolitano after her first election as Governor and campaign fundraising dinners held by candidates nationwide.

Apparently, he's hoping that no one notices that those examples are of one-time-only events, while he is promising repeated and regulary scheduled access to him for his largest contributors.

The best part of the pledge, for Horne and his bribers "contributors" anyway, is that if he wins, it's not like they will have to worry about a corruption investigation from the AG's office.

Tom Horne - he's spent eight years running Arizona's schools into the ground, and now he wants us to give him a chance to do the same to the Attorney General's office.

The sad part is that he has a real chance at the GOP nomination for the job - his only (presumed) opponent in the Republican primary is Andrew Thomas, the man best known as a puppet for Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio (witness the prosecution of journalists who have criticized Arpaio and the hiring of expensive out-of-state lawyers to act as special prosecutors to push Arpaio's jihad against the county supes, something that no credible AZ prosecutor will touch).

Welcome to politics in Arizona folks.

Apparently, the GOP isn't as business-friendly as it wants people to think

At least, it's not friendly to small businesses...

From AZCentral.com -

Arizona health regulators have proposed dramatic increases in licensing fees for more than 2,000 child care facilities to help make up for state funding cuts.

The annual three-year licensing fees are now a flat $150, but the Department of Health Services' planned rule change would set rates for new and renewed licenses ranging from $581 to $13,442, depending on the number of children.

"The amounts are too much, too soon, at the worst possible time," said Bruce Liggett, the executive director of the Arizona Child Care Association. "We as private businesses are reeling."

The complete list of fees is on page 7 of this .pdf.

While most child care facilities won't have to worry about the $13,442 fee (that's for facilities with more than 150 children), they're still looking at license fee hikes of 400% to 4900%.

The vast majority of these "facilities" are small businesses employing just a few people and helping to care for the children of folks who have limited choices. Most of those businesses will have to pass on the increased cost to their customers.

And if the cost of their childcare provider goes up too much, it could force many of the parents, particularly single working mothers, to find that working just isn't economically feasible.

I'm sure that within a day or so, one of the "leading intellectual lights" of the AZGOP (you know, Russell Pearce, Jack Harper, or one of their ilk) will find the nearest microphone and pontificate on the "need for shared sacrifice in these trying fiscal times" or somesuch BS.

I'm just as sure that if AZ Game and Fish tries to promulgate similar fee hikes for hunting and fishing licenses, the same "leading intellectual lights" will scream for heads to roll at AZGFD.

After all, the GOP probably figures that gun nuts "outdoor firearms enthusiasts" are more likely to vote for (and give money to) Republicans than childcare providers (who tend to be rather too poor and, well, too *nice* to support Republicans.

Later...

Short Attention Span Musing

Edit later on 10/7 with a correction to a factual error...

Just a few questions that I've been wondering about...


...Wouldn't it be ironic if AZ Senator Jon Kyl's anti-maternity care diatribe during a Senate hearing on health care reform is what pushes Maine Republican Senator Olympia Snowe off the fence and onto the side of health care reform?

- In a related note, at 1 p.m, State Rep. Kyrsten Sinema and a group of Arizona mothers and medical personnel will rally at Kyl's office (2200 E. Camelback in Phoenix) to protest Kyl's contempt for them and all expectant mothers (OK, so that's a bit of an overstatement, but he served this one up like a BP fastball to Albert Pujols).


...What's going on in the Scottsdale City Hall? There is, as usual, a 4 - 3 divide on the Council regarding most significant issue (Mayor Lane and Council members Borowsky, Littlefield, and Nelssen on one side and Council members Ecton, Klapp, and McCullagh on the other).

That divide is actually pretty much par for the course with the Scottsdale City Council. What is interesting is the way that it has manifested itself.

For instance, I've noticed something while attending the meetings of the Charter Review Task Force - the "three," Ecton, Klapp, and McCullagh have been at each one, observing intently and taking notes. After talking with other City Hall-watchers, I found out that they've also been regulars at the meetings of the Budget Review Commission.

Considering that the work being performed by the folks on the Task Force and the Commission is vital to both the short-term and long-term interests of Scottsdale, the fact that Council members are paying close attention is laudable.

So why aren't the "four" - Lane, Borowsky, Littlefield, and Nelssen - there too?

Disclaimer: I *did* see Borowsky at one meeting of the Charter Review Task Force, but she entered the Kiva (City Hall meeting area) from the back of the building, watched the proceedings for a moment, and left. She was just passing through, not watching and learning.

Are the "three" more dedicated to their jobs? Or are they just not receiving the same breadth and depth of info from Council staff , which is overseen by Tim Lasota, Lane's chief of staff ?

Edit to add a correction: I contacted Pat Dodds, Scottsdale's Public Affairs Officer, for info about the structure of the Mayor and Council's staff.

It turns out that Council staff members do not directly report to Tim Lasota. It used to be that the staffers for the Mayor and Council reported to the City Manager's staff reported to the City Manager. That was changed earlier this year so that they now report to the City Clerk. While it seems likely that the Mayor's own staffers (an admin and an assistant) are directed by Lasota in practical terms, they and the Council staff do not report to him officially.

Of course, the change in the org chart reporting lines (from City Manager to City Clerk) only serve to highlight the dysfunctionality that currently permeates Scottsdale's City Hall. (see the "jihad" comment below)

Thanks to Mr. Dodd for his quick response with the correct information.

Also. apologies to Mr. Lasota if he was offended by the comment that he was in charge of Council staff. I don't expect that he was offended, but since the factual error was mine, an apology is merited.

End edit...

Disclaimer2: I have never voted for any of the "three", but am beginning to wonder if maybe I should have.


...I am beginning to wonder if the current budget stalemate/meltdown at the Capitol, with all of the very public internecine Republican angst associated with it, was all part of a larger plan to force a smaller, anti-Arizonan, pro-corporation model of government onto Arizona, without bothering with a change to AZ's Constitution?

Let's see some of the signs that have recently been in the news -

The Governor and the Legislature crippling the Arizona Corporation Commission, the fourth branch of government in created in the Arizona Constitution (Article 15), with more cuts to the rest of the government coming due to their continued inaction regarding the budget crisis;

The Governing Board of the Maricopa County Community College District micromanaging the District toward mediocrity (and proudly saying that is their job);

The jihad that the Republican mayor and council in Scottsdale is conducting against professional staff.

This all may not be part of a specific plan for a quiet de facto coup d'etat, but it highlights what happens when a major political party allows a petty and extreme political ideology to triumph over professionalism and a committment to the community.

Stay tuned...

Sal DiCiccio - not letting facts get in the way of campaign posturing

From AZCentral.com -

Phoenix City Councilman Sal DiCiccio and members of an Ahwatukee Foothills residents' committee say they have studied state and county plans to link Chandler and west Phoenix with a 22-mile freeway and come to a conclusion:

Put the South Mountain Freeway on the Gila River Indian Community.

{snip}

DiCiccio said Monday that neither ADOT nor MAG has formally asked Gila River officials if they would consider a freeway deal.

"I'm telling you, when the public finds out about what has not happened, people are going to be outraged," DiCiccio said.

{snip}

Alia Maisonet, a Gila River Indian Community spokeswoman, confirmed that neither state nor county officials have presented a formal proposal to put Loop 202 on tribal land. But she said the tribal council has twice considered the matter internally and twice voted against it, although she noted that the council could change its mind.

"Things can change," she said.

But ADOT spokesman Timothy Tait said he was baffled by DiCiccio's implication that Gila River officials have been left out of freeway negotiations.

"They (Gila River officials) attend MAG meetings and have been part of the process all along," he said. "We have not approached them because they have passed resolutions against the freeway."

So basically, DiCiccio is trying to pander to Ahwatukee voters by telling them that the freeway that they've known was scheduled for Pecos Road for almost a quarter century can be redirected onto a reservation (the residents of which, shockingly enough, aren't his constituents) at no cost to them.

Leaving out the fact that the reservation government has repeatedly said "NO!" or that it would cost Arizona taxpayers billions of dollars to do so anyway. And that they themselves are Arizona taxpayers.

It's one thing to engage in a little pandering during a campaign (hey, it *is* a campaign after all), but this move is so cravenly transparent as to speak of a deep level of contempt for the intelligence of the residents of District 6 (and an all-encompassing contempt for the residents of the Gila River Indian Community).

It also doesn't speak well for Mr. DiCiccio's own intelligence and political acumen - if he really wants to "protect" the well-heeled residents of Ahwatukee from the that big meanie ADOT, he'd run for his LD's Republican nomination for a legislative seat.

Only he's not running for lege - he's running for City Council against Dana Kennedy. Who is focused on City of Phoenix and District 6 issues, not legislative ones.

Not the exactly the epitome of breaking news

From the Phoenix Business Journal -

Conservative radio commentator and former Scottsdale congressman J.D. Hayworth is consider a run against U.S. Sen. John McCain in next year’s Republican primary.

There has been speculation/expectations regarding this for months, both here and elsewhere. The Business Journal is something of a johnny-come-lately here.

I truly don't believe that Hayworth would have a serious shot against McCain, but I'm not a Republican insider (so that's not exactly the epitome of breaking news, either :) ). As such, I can't offer any definitive insights into the minds of Republican primary voters. Based on what I've seen though, the only way that McCain loses the primary next year is if he isn't *in* the primary.

However, there has been a quiet rumor, and I don't have details, that a Democrat with a higher profile than Stuart Starky is considering a run for U.S. Senate next year. That seems to indicate that some folks with better sources inside the GOP (or at least within the McCain camp) believe that McCain may end up retiring, creating a race for an open and poachable seat.

If the Reps nominate somebody like Hayworth, somebody who appeals only to their shrinking base, not the growing number of independents in AZ, it will give a major boost to the Democratic nominee, whoever he or she may be.

Hell, Starky may have been steamrolled by McCain in 2004, but even he'd have a fighting chance against somebody like Hayworth.

Later...

John Shadegg - low profile even among his fellow Kool-Aid drinkers

This one is pretty minor, but still to funny to pass up....

From NaplesNews.com -

What do you say we move the capital out of Washington and transport it to Omaha or somewhere in the center of the nation where people still exhibit common sense and a deep-seated patriotism! Certainly this idea has crossed my mind more than once. If only we could completely shut down the bloated, intrusive, metastasized, arrogant federal government and reopen it somewhere in the Midwest under new management and dramatically scaled down. What a vision that would be!

After reading that opening paragraph, most sstute readers will realize that the author of the piece, one Edward Wimberly, is as anti-government and anti-public services as even the most extreme winger in the Arizona Legislature (Ron Gould, perhaps?)

In other words, one of Congressman Shadegg's fellow travelers, just without the title "Congressman.".

Yet a later paragraph shows that Mr. Wimberley doesn't really have much of a clue about Arizona's native son (who seems to spend more time canoodling with out-of-state lobbying groups like the Heritage Foundation and the Club for Growth than he does working for his constituents). (emphasis mine)

This steady drain on the people’s rights has not gone unnoticed. For instance, a little known Congressman from Arizona by the name of James Shadegg has been introducing a bill entitled “The Enumerated Powers Act” every year since 1995 which would require the sponsors of every piece of legislation to specify just where in the Constitution the particular bill derives its authority.

Maybe it really *is* time for Shadegg to retire. Between his lack of regard for the people who hired/voted for him, and the obvious lack of regard that his ideological peers have for him, it's likely that no one will miss him when he's gone.

Sunset provisions and the lege - Intersession silly season

During yesterday's post regarding political events scheduled for the coming week, I mentioned a couple of hearings that will be taking place at the lege this week.

There will be "committees of reference" holding sunset review hearings on various state agencies. (Agendas here and here)

This was something of a strange (but not totally unheard-of) concept to me, so a little further research was called for.

Turns out that during some previous legislatures, ARS Title 41, sections 2951 through 3102 (aka Chapter 27 of Title 41) were passed into law, creating the sunset process for all state agencies, departments, boards, commissions, institutions and programs. It also establishes a sunset review process of legislative hearings for each agency, etc.

In essence, it's a system of killing off agencies and programs that the current legislature doesn't approve of for ideological reasons.

For instance, during this week's meetings, agencies like the Arizona Neighborhood Preservation and Investment Commission, Legislative Council; Ombudsman for Private Property Rights, Office of Ombudsman-Citizens Aide, Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records; Board of Library Examiners, and State Board on Geographic and Historic Names and the Board of Athletic Training will have to justify their continued existence.

With the likely exception of the Ombudsman for Private Property Rights (that one falls completely within the ideology of the wingers in the lege), all of those agencies will be raked over the coals and (probably) be ended. Regardless of much value they provide to the people of Arizona (I mean, who needs neighborhoods in a place whose economy is based on the massive cookie-cutter residential subdivision?)

If the committees of reference recommend for the continuation of a particular agency, they must get a bill through the lege that changes the sunset date, something that is far from guaranteed even if the committee of reference supports it.

In addition to this week's hearings (and those next week, which will include a sunset review of JLBC), the following agencies, etc. will face a legislative star chamber in the near future:

Department of Water Resources

Department of Juvenile Corrections

Commission for the Deaf and the Hard of Hearing

Department of Insurance

Department of Health Services

Motor Vehicle Division


Anybody want to start a pool to bet on which ones the lege's Republicans kick to the curb?

Later...

The coming week...

As usual, all info gathered from the websites of the relevant political bodies/agencies (except where noted) and subject to change without notice.


...The floor action in the U.S. House is going to be dominated by money issues, but there will be a few other issues of interest.

- H.R. 3590, Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009;

- H.R. 1016, Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act of 2009, CRS summary here (note: this one is cosponsored by CD5's Harry Mitchell and most of the Democratic members of the Arizona delegation);

- S. 1717, "A bill to authorize major medical facility leases for the Department of Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 2010, and for other purposes."

...all of the above bills will be heard under suspension of the rules, meaning that a 2/3 majority will be needed to pass the measures.

The following budget-related items will be heard "under a rule" -

- The conference report for H.R. 2997, Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010;

- Possible consideration of the conference report on H.R. 2892, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010;

- Possible consideration of the conference report on H.R. 2647, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010.

- Also to be heard under a rule, H.R. 2442, Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Expansion Act of 2009.

...Over in the Senate, scheduled floor action includes consideration of H.R. 2847, Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010. Committee schedule here.


...Back here in Arizona, the budget is still out-of-balance and the legislature is still out of session. However, there is still activity on West Washington this week.

- On Monday at 9 a.m. in HHR1, the Senate Education Accountability and Reform and House of Representatives Education Committee of Reference will meet regarding the school performance audits of Chandler Unified School District, Tolleson Union High School District, Somerton Elementary School District and Flagstaff Unified School District.

- On Thursday at 1:30 p.m., the Senate Government Institutions and House of Representatives Government Committee of Reference will meet in HHR4 regarding the sunset review of: Arizona Neighborhood Preservation and Investment Commission, Legislative Council; Ombudsman for Private Property Rights, Office of Ombudsman-Citizens Aide, Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records; Board of Library Examiners, and State Board on Geographic and Historic Names.

- Also on Thursday in HHR4, but at 9:30 a.m., the Senate Commerce and Economic Development and House of Representatives Government Committee of Reference will meet regarding the sunset review for the Board of Athletic Training.


...On Thursday at 10 a.m., the Arizona Corporation Commission will hold an open meeting dealing mostly, but not exclusively, with securities matters. The ACC's hearing schedule is here.


...The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors has two meetings this week.

The highlight of Monday's informal meeting is item 3 -

Authorize legal action including filing and/or defending an appeal and taking other legal actions as may be appropriate regarding the Judgment in the matter of Andrew Thomas et al v. Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, CV-2008-033194 (C-06-10-114-M-00)



There will also be an executive session.



Wednesday's formal meeting agenda looks to be fairly non-controversial, though there are a number of items related to the offices of the county sheriff and county attorney.



There is a special/executive meeting scheduled to take place immediately after the formal meeting.





...The Tempe City Council is meeting on Thursday. The agenda is here. The Council's calendar of events is here.





...The Scottsdale City Council is meeting on Tuesday. The agenda includes an item for approving the employment agreement with the interim City Treasurer, David Smith.



The Council has an executive session scheduled immediately prior to the regular meeting.



- The City's Charter Review Task Force is scheduled to meet Monday evening at 5 in the City Hall Kiva. The agenda includes consideration of language that would allow the Council and Mayor to directly appoint City Staff, apparently to bypass the City Manager's influence over the hiring of professional employees.



Yippee - when the Task Force isn't pushing language to protect the profit margins of favored corporations, they're helping Jim Lane gather power to himself and his professional staff.



I wonder if everyone, even *anyone*, involved realizes that they are supposed to be working to help Scottsdale, not just themselves or their friends.



Scottsdale's community meetings schedule is here.



Not scheduled to meet this week: Arizona Board of Regents, Citizens Clean Elections Commission, the Boards of Directors of both the Maricopa Integrated Health System and Central Arizona Project, Governing Board of the Maricopa County Community College District.

Scottsdale looking to turn its charter on its ear

The City of Scottsdale has a task force reviewing its charter, looking toward voter approval of changes at a special election in March. Most of the changes suggested are of the "technical correction" variety (updating language for current usage or for clarification purposes, etc.)

However, some of the proposed changes that they are considering are somewhat less innocuous.

Here is the public comment that I submitted to the Charter Review Task Force regarding some very specific language proposed for the charter -

Good afternoon,

At the Charter Review Task Force meeting on September 28, I submitted a written comment on the appropriateness of inserting into Scottsdale’s charter language written by the “ORANGE Coalition”. At the time, I advised against doing so, but because of the short notice, that comment wasn’t quite as specific as it should have been.

The Charter Review Task Force was established to make recommendations for updates to the City Charter, with an eye toward making it more citizen-friendly, among other things. More generally, the Task Force is charged to work on improvements and updates to the Charter that benefit Scottsdale’s citizens as a whole.

However, the language suggested by the ORANGE Coalition has only one beneficiary - American Water.

American Water’s subsidiary, Arizona American Water (AZAm Water), has a small but troubled presence in the Scottsdale water market. Its approximately 2000 customers and their families have repeatedly been faced with TCE-contaminated water pouring from their taps. This situation has led to some residents, including members of the Scottsdale City Council, to call for looking into acquiring AZAm Water’s system and adding those customers to Scottsdale’s water system.
(http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/06/23/20090623srwater0624.html)
Naturally, American Water objected to this, and while the movement to acquire AZAm Water has fizzled, American Water is taking no chances. The ORANGE Coalition seems to have been created specifically to ensure that such an idea is removed even from the realm of possibility.

- The ORANGE Coalition was incorporated as a non-profit corporation on November 12, 2008 with two directors listed as having the address of 1025 Laurel Oak Road in Voohees, New Jersey. (http://starpas.azcc.gov/scripts/cgiip.exe/WService=wsbroker1/names-detail.p?name-id=14878680&type=CORPORATION)

- That address is the same address as that of the corporate headquarters of American Water. (http://www.amwater.com/about-us/contact-us.html)

- One of the directors listed on the incorporation paperwork, Daniel Kelleher, is a retired American Water executive and currently serves as a consultant to American Water on defending it against condemnation initiatives. (http://pr.amwater.com/PressReleases/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=261448)

The members of the Charter Review Task Force are attorneys, professional lobbyists, and current and former elected officials. To a man and woman, you all
are familiar with the idea of representing the interests of others. As Task Force members, your chosen duty is to represent the interests of the people of Scottsdale.
If any member of the Task Force (or, for that matter, the Mayor or the City Council) wants to stand before the community and argue that the residents of the City are best served by protecting the revenue stream of a corporation that has a documented history of poor customer service and threats to public health (as if forcing overpriced and contaminated water on its customers is merely “poor” customer service), of course they are free to do so.

However, it isn’t the place for the Task Force members to provide political cover for such a scheme by burying the ORANGE Coalition’s charter changes among a large number of innocuous technical corrections and housekeeping changes, expected to be the subject of a special election in March.

I urge you to reject the ORANGE Coalition’s proposed changes. If there is enough support in the community for the changes they desire, they should have no problem gaining the signatures needed to place a stand-alone referendum question on the ballot next fall.

Thank you for your consideration.

Among the fine observations that I left out of the comment that one of the benefits of creating the ORANGE Coalition at a non-profit corporation instead of a political committee is that political committees have to disclose their donors while non-profit corporations do not.

Why bother though?

Using the same address as American Water's corporate HQ shows that they don't really care if people know who is behind the ORANGE Coalition.

Mayor Jim Lane and his friends are being as subtle as baseball bats in their quest to consolidate power in Scottsdale and to protect their friends' profits, both at the expense of the best interests of Scottsdale's residents.

Lane and his supporters may rail against the influence that the Scottsdale Chamber of Commerce had during the Manross administration (complaints that have more than a little merit), but the only thing that has changed with his election has been the names of those pulling the strings, not the facts that strings *are* being pulled, and that enough money gets you a turn at tugging on one of the strings.

Later...

Arizona court slaps down most of the lege's misogynistic anti-abortion laws

From AZCentral.com -

A state judge on Tuesday blocked implementation of several key parts of a new Arizona law restricting abortions, while allowing a few provisions to take effect.

The preliminary injunction issued by Judge Donald Daughton of Maricopa County Superior Court allows a 24-hour waiting period to take affect, but he blocked requirements that a woman see a doctor in person for advance disclosures before getting an abortion.

{snip}

The state judge also blocked provisions prohibiting nurse practitioners from performing surgical abortions, requiring the notarizing of parental consent forms and expanding an existing law that now permits health-care workers to refuse to participate in abortions.

The Center for Arizona Policy and their water carriers on West Washington have already promised to continue their fight enact a de facto revocation of a woman's right to control their own bodies, so stay tuned. If all or part of the new laws are struck down permanently, expect them to return in some form in the new session of the lege in January.

There are five more Republicans in DC tonight...

...and they joined the Soullessly Corrupt wing of the GOP.

From the New York Times (emphasis mine) -

After a half-day of animated debate, the Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday rejected efforts by liberal Democrats to add a government-run health insurance plan to major health care legislation, dealing the first official setback to an idea that many Democrats, including President Obama, say they support.

All of the other versions of the health care legislation advancing in Congress — a bill approved by the Senate health committee and a trio of bills in the House — include some version of the government-run plan, or public option.

{snip}

The committee on Tuesday afternoon voted, 15 to 8, to reject an amendment proposed by Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia, to add a public option called the Community Choice Health Plan, an outcome that underscored the lack of support for a government plan among many Democrats.

Mr. Baucus voted no, as did Senators Thomas R. Carper of Delaware, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, and Bill Nelson of Florida, joining all 10 Republicans in opposition.

This development isn't the end of the debate on a public option, in fact it was expected - the committee chair Baucus has staunchly opposed a public option (surely he hasn't been influenced by the hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions that he has received from health insurers over the years, right?), so one was never going to get through his committee.

It's still frustrating though - one of the reasons that Democrats have a majority in both chambers of Congress (and one of the reasons that I personally am a proud Democrat) is that in 2006 and 2008, we could point to the Republicans and their outright sellout of America and Americans to corporate interests and say "that's not us."

Tonight it is us.


If you live in a district represented by a Democratic Congressman/woman, contact them now and let them know that if they truly support the best interests of their constituents, they will push for and support a health care reform bill that contains a viable and robust public health insurance option.

Anything less is no reform at all.


Gabrielle Giffords (CD8) has a contact form here

Raul Grijalva (CD7) here

Ann Kirkpatrick (CD1) here

Ed Pastor (CD4) here

Harry Mitchell (CD5) here


Later...

Fear and Loathing in Phoenix - state Sen. Sylvia Allen on climate change

On Monday, State Sen. Sylvia Allen (R-6000 years) held a meeting of her anti-science committee (aka the Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Climate Initiatives).

The agenda featured a number of industry lobbyists presenting to an "adjusted" committee membership (Chuck Gray and Russell Pearce were added to the committee late last week).

With a mix like that (Allen, industry lobbyists, and Pearce and Gray) expectations were low at the outset of the hearing, and it lived down to those expectations.

It was clear from that outset that this meeting was not concerned with science, Allen made that clear in her opening remarks when she pointedly thanked "business leaders" for attending.

Allen herself set the tone for the meeting, also in her opening remarks, when she announced that she was "quite frightened" by the initiatives to address climate change.

The other speakers tapped into that fear vein.

Michael Curtis of the Arizona Municipal Power Users Association railed against H.R. 2454, better known as Waxman/Markey or the "American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009."

He objected to the bill's "economy-wide approach" and derided it as a "transfer of wealth."

Kimball Rasmussen of Deseret Power (Utah), a long-time skeptic of climate change, reiterated the wealth transfer theme, as well as creating an "us vs. them" atmosphere, with small states vs. big states and middle states vs. the coasts (aka - red vs. blue states).

Craig Idso, chair of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, argued that climate change was real, but that higher temps and increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere would be good for plants. He disregarded the impact of increased CO2 levels on human and animal life. It wouldn't be good (see the atmosphere of Venus).

Chuck Gray (R-East Mesa) served up a softball question, asking the presenters what the lege could do to facilitate the construction of a nuclear plant or oil refinery in Arizona.

One presenter advised him to put aside safeguards (you know, safety standards and such are such an unnecessary drag on corporate profit margins) and another advised him to short circuit the Arizona Corporation Commission's permitting process.

When all was said and done, Sylvia Allen though had the best line of the day -

Socialism and Marxism are about concentrating the wealth in the hands of the few who are going to make billions off of this cap and trade scheme

Apparently, Sen. Allen pays as much attention to the finer nuances of economic theory as she does to those of scientific theory.

Well, that's assuming that the basic tenets of Marxism qualify as a "finer nuance."