by David Safier

By Craig McDermott, cross-posted from Random Musings

Strap in folks, the ride is only going to get bumpier from here...

On Thursday, the House Committee on Employment and Regulatory Affairs is holding a a special meeting at 2 p.m. There is one item on the agenda -

HB2571 public employees; unlawful acts; termination

S/E: state personnel system

The text of the striker isn't available on line as yet, but Steve at Arizona Eagletarian has the scoop on the details of Governor Jan Brewer's scheme to turn the Arizona state government personnel system into a political patronage system where the spoils go to the governor and her allies. His post includes a memo giving an overview of her plan.

If you are a state employee, know a state employee, or just simply believe that state government exists to serve the needs of the people of Arizona, not the whims (and wallets) of certain elected officials, contact the members of the committee - Reps. Eddie Farnsworth, Sally Ann Gonzalez, John Kavanagh, Justin Olson, Lynne Pancrazi, Daniel Patterson, Kimberly Yee, John Fillmore, and Bob Robson (emails and phone numbers available here) and plan to be there on Thursday to show your support for the state's workers, and the integrity of the state's employment system.

More details as they become available...

by David Safier

No, I'm not kidding. SB1467 would make FCC broadcasting standards the touchstone for what can be taught in the classroom. If the FCC says you can't broadcast it, Arizona says you can't teach it.

This law, by the way, would apply to Pre-K through Grad School. Yes, it includes public community colleges and public universities as well as preschools and everything in between.

Want to have some fun? Read the FCC guidelines on obscenity, indecency and profanity. As with all rules of this kind, the guidelines are amorphous and open to all kinds of interpretation. An example:

The FCC has defined broadcast indecency as “language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities.”

That's why we have courts, to draw, redraw and re-redraw those ill-defined lines.

So, what happens to Catcher in the Rye in high school English classrooms? How about the repeated use of the N-word in Huckleberry Finn? What about quality contemporary juvenile fiction which makes for excellent classroom reading but almost always includes a passage or two you might not be able to read aloud on broadcast TV or radio? ("Broadcast," as I understand it, is separate from cable. These are CBS standards, not HBO standards.)

And I'm just talking about high school here. Community colleges and universities? Bye bye D.H. Lawrence, et al.

It's definitely cuckoo time for the morality police up in Phoenix.

SLOPPY BILL WRITING BONUS: If read literally, the bill would include not just what teachers say in a classroom but what they say in their private lives as well.

IF A PERSON WHO PROVIDES CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION IN A PUBLIC SCHOOL ENGAGES IN SPEECH OR CONDUCT THAT WOULD VIOLATE THE STANDARDS ADOPTED BY THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION . . .

Shouldn't the bill include something about the speech happening during school hours or when in contact with students? Otherwise, it's a friggin' violation of personal freedom, and Republicans frown on that kind of thing.

by David Safier

If you haven't done so already, just read Tom Danehy's column in the Weekly: Five years from now, a student writes a letter. Learn about the Al Melvin Secular Charter School, where:

. . . we don't need electric lights in the classrooms, because the glow coming off the walls makes everything nice and bright. A couple of do-gooders complained, but some Republican woman from Phoenix sent us a letter saying that everything is safe. When a reporter asked her why she didn't come in person, she mumbled something about still being in her childbearing years, whatever that means.

Learn the accepted school definition of "socialist." And then there's the banner proclaiming: "Arizona's Schools. The Best Schools in All of Arizona."

Who knew Danehy could sustain this level of satire for an entire column? I guess he did.

Not to be outdone, Fitz, our Satirist-in-chief, intersperses radioactive satire in today's column including these news clips from 2016 and 2017:

2016: Legislature legalizes possession of nuclear weapons with permit, training. . . .

2017: Concealed nuclear weapons without permit OK'd. Legislature approves nuclear weapons in bars and day-care facilities. . . . Nuclear exchange at Tempe bar wipes out Phoenix. Survivors crowd into Biosphere.

Good times for satire. So many targets. So few column inches.

by David Safier

I don't know how many years I've been writing my "Fools Gold" posts about the inner workings of the Goldwater Institute. Years. But in the media, G.I. has mainly been a source of quotes to round out articles and little more. While the Institute was working behind the scenes to shape Arizona's Republican agenda, the media either wasn't paying attention or wasn't interested.

That's beginning to change. A news report by Brahm Resnik on Phoenix's Channel 12 News covered the union rally at the Capitol protesting anti-worker legislation making its way through committees and onto the floor. The report said, the protest focused more on the Goldwater Institute's hand in the legislation than the legislators.

You can watch the video on the azcentral website or below the fold.

The union protester featured in the piece said this:

"It is an issue of peole who are willing to be controlled by the Goldwater Institute, which is in turn controlled by ALEC, which is in turn controlled by the corporate raiders."

Cut to G.I. President Darcy who says, basically: Shucks, G.I. is just a little ol' group trying to get its heartfelt ideas out there. Cut to the committee meeting where G.I. experts are testifying and others are reading statements written on G.I. stationery.

Resnik does an excellent job of letting the facts do the talking. The more he shows of G.I.'s denials, the clearer it is, they're the power behind the anti-worker bills.

The bad news is, G.I. and ALEC are more powerful than ever. The slightly more positive news is, the media is beginning to catch on and reporting about the puppet masters and not just the legislative marionettes dancing on a string.

Watch the video below the fold.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Apparently Jeremy Duda at the Arizona Capitol Times thinks I am overstating the case by giving Jan Brewer the moniker the "Scott Walker of the West" (See The GOP war on organized labor: Jan Brewer's bid to be the Scott Walker of the West begins Wednesday) for the reasons that she has not endorsed the package of anti-union bills, and that the Arizona Police Association, Arizona Fraternal Order of Police and Phoenix Law Enforcement Association endorsed Brewer in 2010, while the Professional Fire Fighters of Arizona stayed neutral. Brewer precedent may spell doom for union bills - Arizona Capitol Times.

First, Brewer rarely discloses her position on a bill before the legislature completes its work. Her spokesman's statement on the package of anti-union bills was about laying down a marker for her priority, her so-called "personnel reform," not any opposition to union busting. Boss Tweed: destroy civil service system before destroying public employee unions.

Second, Brewer may show favoritism towards corrections officers, police officers, and firefighters - just as Scott Walker did by exempting them from his collective bargaining bill in Wisconsin - but when push comes to shove against other public sector employee unions the public safety unions will come to the aid of their brothers and sisters just as they did in Wisconsin. They fully understand that if they do not defend these unions they will be next.

As pastor Martin Niemöller observed in "First They Came"..."Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist... Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me."

So if the "Scott Walker of the West" moniker is only a bit premature, there should be no disagreement that the "Boss Tweed" moniker aptly applies to Jan Brewer's so-called "personnel reforms."

Brewer wants to do away with civil service merit selection system protection and return to the political Spoils system of political patronage and the days of Tamanny Hall. Brewer’s personnel plan seeks to ease firing, hiring state workers - Arizona Capitol Times (subscription required):

Gov. Jan Brewer is seeking to fundamentally alter the way state employees are hired, fired and managed.

In short, the governor wants to make it easier for administrators to hire and fire workers.

In a two-page outline of her “personnel reform” proposal (.pdf), obtained by the Arizona Capitol Times today, newly hired rank-and-file employees would no longer be considered “covered,” meaning the state would strip away some protections and rights to appeal they are currently afforded.

“Uncovered,” workers, on the other hand, can be fired at any time.

Because the proposal would strip away protections available to covered employees, it would also allow administrators to more easily start the process of hiring replacements—instead of having to wait, for example, for an appeals process to play out.

Under the plan, new hires, supervisors, attorneys, and those who hold IT positions are among those who would be “uncovered.” Those who voluntarily accept new jobs within state government would also be uncovered.

Existing employees who already have “covered” status, however, would have the option to remain as such.

Brewer carves out an exemption for peace and correctional officers, who would remain “covered” employees — unless they voluntarily elect otherwise.

Also, the governor wants to prohibit state agencies from considering an employee’s seniority or tenure in the event of layoffs — known as “reductions in force” in government parlance.

[T]he governor wants to alter how the State Personnel Board operates. The board hears and reviews appeals filed by permanent employees who have been dismissed, suspended or demoted as a result of a disciplinary action.

Her outline says the board could no longer modify disciplinary actions on appeal, meaning the board could only accept or reject a supervisor’s proposed penalty or disciplinary action against an employee.

Additionally, state employees would no longer be able to appeal disciplinary actions before a superior court on the grounds that they were arbitrary or capricious.

Brewer also wants to repeal the Law Enforcement Merit Council, replacing it with a 5-member Law Enforcement Personnel Board.

The major difference is that the new body only exists to hear and review appeals. Most of the current council’s duties would be shifted over to the Arizona Department of Administration.

The plan would also limit overtime pay for law enforcement and probation officers—unless it was federally mandated.

Additionally, the plan would authorize reduction in office hours to implement furloughs if necessary.

Finally, it would make most agency directors serve at the pleasure of the governor and their terms of office will also be removed.

Click here to see Brewer’s proposal outline Capitol Times (.pdf)

What this report does not mention is that the Governor is also offering a pay raise to state employees, subject to the condition that they surrender their civil service merit selection system protection and become "uncovered." In legal parlance this is known as "duress." Financially struggling state employees may feel compelled to forgo their employee rights to receive this small "bribe," and that should be considered criminal.

Like the worker's compensation system which was a political compromise to protect employers from a multiplicity of lawsuits for an administrative claims process, the civil service merit selection system was partly a political compromise to protect employers from a multiplicity of lawsuits for an administrative claims process.

This is the law of unintended consequences. The legislature may take away civil service protection, but a public employee doesn’t lose his or her liberty interest in their reputation or their property interest in their job. Both are constitutional claims that can lead to a lawsuit any time a public employee loses his or her job. The civil service system actually avoids such lawsuits. Where public employees are afforded the civil service system appeal process, it is very difficult to sue and to win.

I'll bet the "geniuses" (sic) at the Goldwater Institute behind this package of anti-union bills never even considered this.

by David Safier

Dr. Word noticed a beautifully turned phrase in Newt Gingrich's CPAC speech.

Newt Gingrich, hitting Obama in his CPAC speech, said the president will "wage war on the Catholic church the morning after he is reelected."

Any Republican could have made the same point, but who else would have the command of language to choose the phrase "the morning after" to evoke an image of the Morning-After Pill, which combines the Catholic's objections to contraception and abortion into one neat little package?

Once again, Dr. Word doffs his cap to the master.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC) says its submission of the congressional map and supporting documentation will start the 60-day period for the Justice Department to either approve or reject the map or request more information. Arizona submits congressional map to US for review - Arizona Capitol Times (subscription required).

The commission says its staff now will focus on preparing the equivalent submission for the state’s new legislative districts. That map will be the subject of its own Department of Justice review.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I provided a breakdown of HB2647, a "Rio Nuevo bill" in Downtown developers, 'crony capitalism' and the Arizona legislature's Rio Nuevo Board. It is essentially tax abatement subsidies (incentives) for favored developers in Downtown Tucson.

As I alluded to in the post, the Arizona legislature banned tax abatement subsidies (incentives) for retail development in Maricopa and Pinal counties in July 2007. "Arizona adopted the following law, A.R.S. Sec. 42-6210, which bars municipalities in the Phoenix metropolitan region from providing tax breaks or incentives to retail development. The penalty for cities that violate the law is a reduction in the revenue that they receive from the state equal to the amount of the incentive." Bans on Tax Abatements - Arizona | The New Rules Project.

So if our Arizona legislature, a wholly owned subsidiary of business interest lobbyists, felt compelled to ban tax abatement subsidies (incentives) in 2007, why did a House committee of the Arizona legislature approve tax abatement subsidies (incentives) for favored developers in Downtown Tucson? Panel OKs downtown development incentive.

Because, boys and girls, the legislature seized control of the Rio Nuevo Board from the City of Tucson several years ago. This is only different in kind and degree from the state of Michigan's authoritarian "financial martial law" statute under which the state of Michigan has seized control of school boards and towns, and dismissed the duly elected government representatives and replaced them with a state appointed financial manager who exercises absoute power.

Since the Rio Nuevo Board is the only improvement district in Arizona directly under the control of the Arizona legislature, this is special legislation that favors the Arizona legislature's political subdivision, the Rio Nuevo Board, over similarly situated governmental entities,for which the benefits inure to the Board's favored developers in Dowtown Tucson over other similarly situated developers and business owners. The Arizona legislature and favored Downtown Tucson developers are engaged in crony capitalism. This presents a colorable claim for a violation of constitutional equal protection.

And as I said in my previous post:

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

This is the first "must attend" event of the campaign season for candidates running for office in Pima County. This meet & greet is your chance to introduce yourself to Democratic Party activists and donors.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Arizona: Together We Stand

Friday, February 10th, 6:00pm
San Miguel High School Gymnasium
6601 S. San Fernando Rd.

Stand for families, stand for justice stand for Arizona.

Special Guests: Rep. Grijalva (AZ), Rep. Gutierrez (IL), Rep. Honda (CA)

Sponsored by: Border Action Network, BorderLinks, Coalicion Derechos Humanos, Samaritans, Southside Presbyterian Church

A Whole Lot of People for Grijalva present:

2012 Campaign Kickoff

Sunday, February 19th, 5:30pm
El Casino Ballroom
featuring live music by Los Gallegos!

Join us, and bring your friends and family for a night of FUN, FOOD and FRIENDSHIP in celebration of Raúl Grijalva’s ongoing service to US and our communities.

We can’t kick off Raul’s re-election without you!!

One of our goals this election year is to re-energize and grow our Progressive Democratic base here in Arizona. Through your help and promotion of this event and Raúl’s campaign, you can be instrumental in helping us achieve that goal.

The community and our opponents will be watching. Let’s be loud and clear and send them an unmistakable message. We need your presence to show the depth and strength of Raúl’s support as we launch our next campaign.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

It's time to go to work, people! All hands on deck.

Announcement from the Ron Barber for Congress campaign:

Lifelong Tucsonan and longtime staffer to Congresswoman Giffords,Ron Barber has announced that he will run in the special election for Gabby's seat! This is great news for all of us in Southern Arizona and we are excited to help!

We will be meeting at Pima Dems HQ on Saturday at 9:00 am and 1:00 pm on Saturday and then again at 1:00 pm on Sunday to walk neighborhoods throughout the district, collecting signatures to place Ron’s name on the ballot. We will provide food, water and all of the materials you will need – WE JUST NEED YOU!

If you can help us this weekend, please email Ron's campaign at rsvp@ronbarberforcongress.com and let us know:

• Your Name
• Phone Number
• What shifts you're committing to so that we will know how many packets to have ready.

If you cannot make it to one of these walks, you can come by Pima Dems HQ to sign a petition or even to pick up blank petitions to circulate yourself.

We thank Ron for running and we thank YOU for helping out! Please call Pima Dems HQ at 520-326-3716 if you have any questions.

Saturday, February 11th - 9:00am & 1:00pm
Sunday, February 12th - 1:00pm

Pima County Democratic Headquarters
4639 East First Street
520-326-3716

RSVP: rsvp@ronbarberforcongress.com

by David Safier

It turns out the rich are more educated than the poor. And it turns out, the gap is widening. Who knew education, which is supposed to be the great equalizer and create our level playing field, isn't equalizing because the playing field is tilted?

Education was historically considered a great equalizer in American society, capable of lifting less advantaged children and improving their chances for success as adults. But a body of recently published scholarship suggests that the achievement gap between rich and poor children is widening, a development that threatens to dilute education’s leveling effects.

It is a well-known fact that children from affluent families tend to do better in school. Yet the income divide has received far less attention from policy makers and government officials than gaps in student accomplishment by race.

Now, in analyses of long-term data published in recent months, researchers are finding that while the achievement gap between white and black students has narrowed significantly over the past few decades, the gap between rich and poor students has grown substantially during the same period.

The recent conservative "education reform" emphasis, blaming the schools and the teachers for our education problems and ignoring social and economic factors -- something, unfortunately, Obama and Duncan buy into more than they should -- will help the gap widen further. As the income gap widens, the education gap widens with it. Saying education is the answer, end of story, is just a way of moving the argument "into committee" -- delaying any effective measures to increase our economic and social mobility for years while the problem worsens.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Speaking of the Voter Protection Act, Prop. 105 (1998), the Tea-Publicans are assaulting this provision, and your rights also. They really don't like citizens passing initiatives telling them what to do. (That's reserved for lobbyists who contribute to their campaigns). Now they want to "sunset" review all citizen initiatives since 1998. Lawmaker: Have voter-approved measures face reauthorization - Arizona Capitol Times (subscription required):

In 1998, Arizona voters decided to bar the Legislature from making changes to initiatives and referendums without a three–quarters vote in each house.

Rep. Chester Crandell, R–Heber has proposed that any voter-approved measure using public funds later face reauthorization votes by the public.

HCR 2005, which would refer the matter to the general election ballot, was scheduled for a hearing Thursday [at 9:00 am.] before the House Judiciary Committee.

* * *

The resolution would require that all voter–approved statewide measures involving money be returned to the ballot after five fiscal years. If voters reauthorize a measure, it would face another vote after six years.

An independent audit report with recommendations would be issued to voters at least 60 days before an election.

Crandell’s measure would cover initiatives and referendums back to 1998. Those already on the books would face reauthorization votes in stages beginning in 2014.

* * *

Zachary A. Smith, a regents’ professor at Northern Arizona University’s Department of Politics and International Affairs, said the underlying purpose of the resolution is persuading voters to overturn measures. It also would hurt the original supporters of a measure because they would have to mount another campaign to defend it, he said.

“The public has voted and decided what they want,” he said. “Now they have to go back and look at it again just because the Legislature doesn’t like it.”

If you have been paying attention, our Tea-Publican legislature is in the process of referring to the ballot this November a repeal of just about every citizens initiative enacted by Arizona voters in the past 20-30 years. They will also refer to the ballot measures making citizens initiatives more difficult to bring in the future.

Under Arizona's Constitution the citizens are a "super legislature" superior to our elected representatives in the state legislature. The citizens have the power to enact their own laws. Our Tea-Publican legislators hate this. This is a power grab by lobbyist-owned legislators that the voters should not enable by sacrificing your rights as citizens of Arizona.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The bills assaulting the AIRC that I told you about yesterday breezed through the Senate Government Reform Committee. You're shocked, I'm sure. Redistricting commission repeal clears committee - Arizona Capitol Times (subscription required):

A proposed referral that would ask voters whether they wanted to eliminate the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission took its first step toward the November ballot Wednesday.

The Senate Government Reform Committee approved SCR1035 on a 4-2 party-line vote[.]

* * *

Senate Majority Leader Andy Biggs, who sponsored the measure, said . . . “My remedy, what I believe, is you’ve got to blow it up.”

Hmmm, given his testimony before the AIRC last year I am pretty sure he meant this quite literally, not figuratively.

The committee also approved SB1489, which would require the IRC to also draw district lines for counties, cities, school districts and other political subdivisions. [Committee Chairman] Rick Murphy, the bill’s sponsor, said the bill wasn’t entirely symbolic, despite the logistical problems with having the five-member IRC draw lines for hundreds of cities, counties and other entities.

But Murphy said the bill was mostly meant to make a point about the arguments that legislators shouldn’t draw their own districts because they’re driven by self-interest.

“Why do we want that at the city and county level if we don’t want it at the state level? It seems to me if that’s really a problem, if that’s the real reason, either it’s a problem or it’s not. If it’s a problem then we should fix it universally and if it’s not then we should leave it alone universally,” Murphy said after the hearing.

Of course, Lori Klein said “I find it hard to stomach, but given the interesting wisdom in this, I will pass it out of committee.” Interesting wisdom? This guy is throwing a childish temper-tantrum.

SB1489 passed on a 5-1 vote, with Gallardo joining the Republicans. [Whaaa..?] Sen. David Lujan, D-Phoenix, was the only vote against the bill.

But the bill may not get past the full Senate. Because of the Voter Protection Act [Prop. 105 (1998)], the bill will need a three-fourths vote in the Legislature and will have to “further the intent of the voters.”

Ain't gonna happen, making this waste of time an "entirely symbolic" exercise in Tea-Publicans venting about the AIRC again. I do not think Rick Murphy understands the meaning of "entirely symbolic."

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Email announcement from Andrei Cherny for U.S. Congress:

The promise of America is that if you work hard, you can get ahead.  But today that promise is at risk with families working longer hours and spending less time with their kids, yet still finding themselves stuck in place or falling behind.

That’s why I’m announcing my candidacy for the United States Congress – to save our trampled middle class and renew America’s promise.

We have a Congress that has betrayed the values that have made America great.  We’re not investing enough in education and innovation, we’re rewarding recklessness and greed, and we’re letting irresponsibility in Washington subsidize irresponsibility on Wall Street.  For all the talk that Washington is broken, the truth is that it works great for those with the right connections.  The problem isn’t that Washington’s not working – it’s that it’s not working for us.

If you’ve been waiting to be part of a new kind of politics, and a crusade to save our middle class, I hope you’ll join our people-powered campaign by signing up to volunteer or making a contribution today.  And please watch my short announcement video [below the fold] and forward it on to all those you know who care about America’s future:

In Arizona’s new Ninth congressional district – and across our country – people are looking for something different than what we’ve been getting from Washington.  From north central Phoenix through Tempe and Ahwatukee to Chandler and Mesa, families are finding it harder to make ends meet, students are climbing deeper in debt, and homeowners are underwater without any relief in sight.

They need a representative who will change Washington and not fit right in, who will offer bold new ideas and not just tiny tinkers, and who will deliver real results and not the same tired talking points.  

Rebuilding the middle class needs to be the next chapter of America’s history.  It won’t be easy.  And it won’t happen through politics as usual or the usual politicians.  But we can do it – we’ve done it before– and we can start right here.

Thanks,
Andrei

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Last week some legal observers thought the 44 50 state mortgage fraud settlement negotiations between the states attorney generals and the banksters of Wall Street might be unraveling.

On Friday, "In the latest of a flurry of under-the-wire lawsuits that seem to conflict with an imminent foreclosure fraud settlement, Eric Schneiderman, the Attorney General of New York and a co-chair of the federal task force looking into the residential mortgage-backed securities market, sued three banks for their use of the MERS electronic registry which resulted in fraudulent foreclosure filings." Schneiderman Sues Three Big Banks, MERS for Deceptive Practices, Illegal Foreclosures | FDL News Desk:

While the foreclosure fraud settlement is not supposed to release MERS claims, this is a significant lawsuit that I don’t think can square with any agreement on a settlement. Schneiderman, like Beau Biden before him, is suing MERS for deceptive practices. Those practices resulted in the creation of falsified foreclosure documents. And he’s suing the banks over the use of those documents. This is the ENTIRE point of a settlement in the foreclosure fraud case. I don’t see how you could bring this case and also agree to a settlement[.]

Today, every state but Oklahoma signed off on the foreclosure fraud settlement agreement letting the banksters of Wall Street off with a slap on the wrist. The amount of the settlement is pennies on the dollar compared to the fraud perpetrated; the settlement does not require disgorgement of ill-gotten gains. It is even fewer pennies on the dollar for the amount of fraud that still exists in the system, i.e., mortgage-backed securities in the derivates "shadow market." Paying a fine is just the "opportunity cost" of doing business. Most offensive, under the settlement "nobody's going to emergency, nobody's going to jail." The banksters of Wall Street win again.

Of course, the corporate media is reporting this story quite differenty. The Washington Post reports Landmark settlement announced on foreclosure, mortgage fraud:

State and federal officials on Thursday announced a settlement of more than $25 billion with five of the nation’s banks over flawed and fraudulent foreclosure practices that affected several million homeowners and became commonplace after the housing boom turned to bust in recent years. It is the largest government-industry settlement in more than a decade.

It aims to help troubled borrowers by requiring the banks to reduce the amount borrowers owe on their mortgages, lowering their interest rates and paying restitution to homeowners who suffered mortgage-related abuses. It will force lenders to revamp how they interact with struggling mortgage holders and bar them from trying to foreclose on borrowers while simultaneously negotiating mortgage modifications.

In addition, firms will have to make sure borrowers have a single point of contact with a lender, rather than being shuttled to different employees with each interaction.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced the deal--which he called the largest joint federal-state civil settlement in history[.]

Officials said the settlement-details of which can be seen on www.NationalMortgageSettlement.com -- probably would be filed in a federal court within a matter of weeks and would require the consent of a judge. Once it is approved, banks would begin to deposit money into a trust account, and those funds would be distributed to qualified homeowners by the government. In all, 49 states have signed onto the agreement, with Oklahoma the lone holdout, federal officials said.

* * *

The settlement could grow in size and scope if officials can sign on an additional nine mortgage servicing companies which they’ve been negotiating with in recent weeks. That would bring the total number of banks participating to 14, and could raise the face value of the settlement to about $30 billion.

* * *

The talks got a major boost when they were endorsed by California ­Attorney General Kamala Harris, who had withdrawn her support last fall. Another key holdout, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, also joined in supporting the settlement, which is backed by more than 40 states.

The participation of California and New York helped ensure a key election-year victory for the Obama administration, which has been intent on finalizing an agreement that officials argued would deliver much-needed aid to ailing homeowners. The backing of California and New York also means a much larger settlement than banks otherwise would have been willing to sign.

* * *

Negotiators maintained that they tried to narrowly tailor the legal releases in a way that would allow Schneiderman and others to move forward with investigations of other mortgage abuses.

The initial reluctance on the part of some states was due in part to their concern that the settlement would give banks a broad legal release from further investigations and lawsuits. But negotiators said the release in the final deal applies only to “robosigning” and mortgage-servicing-related claims. It leaves open the possibility of other lawsuits regarding fair housing and fair lending laws, civil rights claims, and claims dealing with how loans were packaged and sold, a process known as securitization. In addition, it does not shield the banks from any criminal violations that arise.

You can bet the banksters' attorneys will argue that this is a complete global release granting them full immunity. They will forum shop and find a conservative ativist judge who will agree, and before you know it, the "Felonious Five" of the U.S. Supreme Court will agree as well.

The New York Times reports Mortgage Plan Gives Homeowners Bulk of the Benefits:

Under the plan, federal officials said, about $5 billion would be cash payments to states and federal authorities, $17 billion would be earmarked for homeowner relief, roughly $3 billion would go for refinancing and a final $1 billion would be paid to the Federal Housing Administration. 

If nine other major mortgage servicers join the pact, a possibility that is now under discussion with the government, the total package could rise to $30 billion.

Because of a complicated formula being used to distribute the money, federal officials say the ultimate benefits provided to homeowners could equal a larger sum — $45 billion in the event all 14 major servicers participate. The aid is to be distributed over three years, but there are incentives for banks to provide the money in the next 12 months.

More than just an attempt to aid consumers and stabilize the housing market, administration officials cast the settlement as an effort to finally hold banks accountable for their misdeeds, more than three years after the mortgage collapse brought on a full-scale financial crisis. [Not one bankster has been prosecuted]

* * *

The amounts from individual banks were linked to their share of the servicing market. The biggest, Bank of America, would provide $11.8 billion, followed by $5.4 billion from Wells Fargo, $5.3 billion from JPMorgan Chase, $2.2 billion from Citigroup and $310 million from Ally. Bank of America would contribute an additional $1 billion for F.H.A. loans.

Despite the billions earmarked in the accord, the aid will help a relatively small portion of the millions of borrowers who are delinquent and facing foreclosure.

[Mortgages owned by the government’s housing finance agencies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, will not be covered under the deal, excluding about half the nation’s mortgages.]

* * *

Officials in Washington emphasized that the accord covered only one element of the housing bust, namely, the fallout for individual homeowners who defaulted on loans they couldn’t pay. Regulators and prosecutors could still pursue questionable behavior in the process by which those loans were made, known as origination, and the packaging of those mortgages into securities sold to investors by the big banks.

Shaun Donovan, the secretary of housing and urban development, said that new servicing standards would “force the banks to clean up their acts,” adding, “No more lost paperwork, no more excuses, no more runaround.”

* * *

President Obama called it a landmark settlement that would “begin to turn the page on an era of recklessness.” He said the government will continue to pursue violations of law in the packaging and selling of risky mortgages that led to the crisis. “We’re going to keep at it until we hold those who broke the law fully accountable.”

I am still waiting, Mr. President. There are statutes of limitations running. And not one bankster has been prosecuted.

[T]he settlement had been held up amid concern by New York’s attorney general, Eric T. Schneiderman, that it provided too broad of a release for banks for past misdeeds, making future investigations much more difficult.

Mr. Schneiderman was able to win significant concessions from the banks in recent days.

In the agreement’s expected final form, the releases are mostly limited to the foreclosure process, like the eviction of homeowners after only a cursory examination of documents, a practice known as robo-signing.

The prosecutors and regulators still have the right to investigate other elements that contributed to the housing bubble, like the assembly of risky mortgages into securities that were sold to investors and later soured, as well as insurance and tax fraud.

Officials will also be able to pursue any allegations of criminal wrongdoing. In addition, a lawsuit Mr. Schneiderman filed Friday against MERS, an electronic mortgage registry responsible for much of the robo-signing that has marred the foreclosure process nationwide, and three banks, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo, will also go forward.

Along with how broad the releases would be, California’s attorney general, Kamala Harris, also pushed for her state to be able to use the state’s False Claims Act. That would enable state officials and huge pension funds like Calpers to collect sizable monetary damages from the banks if officials could prove mortgages were improperly packaged into securities that later dropped in value.

I really hope they are correct and will aggressively pursue the banksters of Wall Street. I won't be satisfied until "somebody's going to emergency, somebody's going to jail."

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Ron Barber announced to the media that he is running for the Giffords seat in the special congressional election.

Press conference from Ron Barber announcement (highlights):

Congresswoman Giffords asked him to run and he has the full support of Gabrielle Giffords and Mark Kelly.

Barber resigned his congressional staff position on Tuesday and made the commitment to run in the special election on Wednesday.

Barber said there were no preconditions to his entering the race. Barber said that he has made no decision regarding the CD 2 general election race, his focus is only on the special election right now. He said that he would make his decision regarding CD 2 known in the near future.

Some reporters pressed Barber on Matt Heinz having said that he would clear the field if Barber was only running in the special election. Barber was also asked if he ran for the CD 2 general election, did he expect that other Democrats would enter the race to primary him. Barber said that "I am not trying to dodge your questions, but my focus is only on the special election right now." Barber said he would be working events and getting petitions signed this weekend.

Barber was asked about the Giffords "war chest" and whether those funds would be available to him. Barber indicated that he is new at this and did not know all the legal requirements, including FEC regulations involved, but that is something which is being looked at.

Barber was asked about his health. Barber said that his strength and energy have returned and he feels that he is fully capable of performing  the job. He was pressed by a reporter about working half days in his congressional position until he resigned on Tuesday. Barber explained that this did not mean he was not putting in full days with the several other projects to which he is committed, such as the Arizona Centennial and the Fund for Civility.

Barber was asked about the contentiousness of the 2010 race and what he thought this race portends. Barber said he would run a civil campaign. "I believe it was Barry Goldwater who said that we can agree to disagree without being disagreeable."

Barber indicated that he and his family have deep roots here in Southern Arizona. In running for Congress, he would continue Rep. Giffords' commitment to border issues and to veterans issues. He would be a moderate voice in Congress.

David Safier made an audio recording of the press conference and will fill in any details I may have glossed over in these abbreviated highlights.

As the press conference was just getting underway, this email announcement from Gabrielle Giffords and Mark Kelly was received, as I am sure many of you received as well:

We are writing today to share some exciting news - our good friend Ron Barber is running to represent Arizona's 8th Congressional District in Congress.

Ron is a leader who puts politics aside and brings people together.   From running Gabby's district operations and working with people to resolve their problems, to 35 years of service helping people with disabilities, Ron has spent his career fighting for those in need.

Gabby and I are honored to stand with Ron as he launches his campaign. We have set a goal of helping him get 1,000 donors before Monday to get his campaign off the ground quickly.

Can you help us by being a founding partner to Ron's campaign and help him continue Gabby's work?

Ron will always put Southern Arizona first. He is committed to solving problems - balancing the budget, protecting Social Security and Medicare, creating jobs and securing our border.

Gabby and I want to make sure that Ron's campaign gets off to a strong start.  You have always been so generous to Gabby and we hope we can count on you to click here and join us now.

Thank you for standing with me and Gabby through this last year.   Now, we ask you to stand with Ron as he helps to continue the work we began together.

Sincerely,

Mark Kelly

by David Safier

Salomón Baldenegro has an excellent op ed in today's Star where he discusses at length the dangerous statement -- Baldenegro uses the term "slander" -- made by TUSD Board member Michael Hicks on Garrett Lewis' Morning Ritual Interviews on KNST February 2. Hicks, in his effort to dirty up UA students and faculty members who support TUSD's suspended MAS courses, implies they may have been guilty of sexual assault against TUSD students.

For those of you who haven't been following this: When some suspended Wakefield Middle School students went to a Teach-In at UA, then attended a university-level Mexican-American Studies course without the media in tow, Hicks used a "Penn State" reference to imply the TUSD students might have been sexually abused behind closed doors.

"For me, I'm like, you know what? You know, Penn State? You know, what's going on behind these closed doors with our children? Children! I mean these are, these are not adults yet, these were Wakefield children . . . I'm like going, this is not [confusing: indicative?] of a university, the University of Arizona statute to bring these people in, these young children in."

The comment is at about the 7:30 minute mark of the interview.

According to Baldenegro,

To mention UA faculty in the same sentence as someone charged with numerous counts linked to child rape and sodomy - which is the image that "Penn State" in this context conjures up - is a slander of the highest order.

[snip]

The potential ramifications of Hicks' utterances are not trivial. A UA MAS faculty member has already received death threats due to his public support of the TUSD MAS program. Having unbalanced individuals believe, based on Hicks' assertion, that MAS faculty are engaging in child rape and such abominations can provoke not only threats but attacks on MAS faculty members.

[snip]

Hicks cannot unring the bell he rung, but he can and should muster the integrity to render a public apology to the UA MAS faculty for the erroneous and odious comments he made about them in that radio interview as well as to the students whom he maligned.

by David Safier

A Republic article about a "tort reform" bill in the state lege spotlights the fact it "is based on model legislation developed by the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council." Praise to reporter Alia Beard Rau for pointing out the ALEC connection. This, I hope, marks what will be a continuing reporting trend.

I was also pleased with this passage putting a human face on the unrelenting attempts to shield corporations from punitive court settlements large enough to make them think twice about putting consumers in jeopardy.

Such a law [like Al Melvin's proposed bill] could have, for example, protected Subaru from the lawsuit Phoenix resident Ashleigh Justice filed after the roof of her 1992 Legacy caved in during a rollover. She was paralyzed.

"Without the threat of punitive damages, companies wouldn't be afraid of making faulty products," said Justice, 26. "Because Subaru met the standards but didn't do everything that would be necessary for consumer safety, I have to deal with this."

She said without the settlement from her lawsuit, she would have to rely on public assistance and state medical services.

She would likely be living at home with her parents.

Instead, she was able to move into her own home, met her husband and now has a baby.

by David Safier

In a push for greater "plurality of methodologies and perspectives in Arizona's colleges and universities," Gilbert Republican Tom Forese has introduced HB 2770 to assure that "a university or community college shall not hire, fire or deny promotion or tenure to any faculty member on the basis of that faculty member's political or religious beliefs."

Frankly, I'm surprised by the liberality of the bill. That means Forese would cheer the hiring and promotion of an avowed Stalinist if that person was determined to be the most qualified for the job. Likewise a white supremacist (JT Ready, time to dust off your resume). Likewise a Muslim who believes violent jihad is sometimes appropriate.

I must admit, I'm overstating Forese's position a bit. He's concerned political and religious conservatives are passed over for hiring and promotion in Arizona's institutions of higher education. But since he can't write a "hire political and religious conservatives" bill, the bill's umbrella is spread wide. Forese didn't comment on the possibility people whose views he might despise would be able to sue state colleges for discrimination if they weren't hired.

My two favorite parts of the Howie Fischer article on the topic:

• Forese couldn't find any faculty to testify about discrimination directed against them because of their beliefs. The reason? "'They would never testify,' he said, because they feel the need to keep their beliefs secret to protect their careers." Interesting. Brave people often step forward to advocate for what they believe is right, regardless of the personal consequences. Forese couldn't find one brave Christian conservative soul to testify, even knowing the supermajority of the state legislature would have his/her back if there were any retribution?
• Democrat Tom Chabin, tongue firmly in cheek, said he too has heard people complain about religious or political discrimination at colleges. He followed with, "The few times I've looked into something, I've often found it was due to their own paranoia,"

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I happened to catch Rep. Matt Heinz (D-LD 29) in an interview on Wednesday's "MSNBC Live with Thomas Roberts," talking about his campaign for the Giffords seat, among other topics. I cannot find the video of this interview to post.

But the first web ad for Matt Heinz is up on YouTube, and is posted below the fold.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I have been hesitant to post about the latest effort to recall our Red Queen, Jan Brewer, not because I disagree with the sentiment but because such a massive undertaking has to be led by a strong organization with a proven track record of success and the ability to raise tons of money in short order for what will be a costly effort. Last year's recall effort was not serious because it entirely lacked this capacity.

A recall is also a distraction that takes volunteers and money away from what I see as far more criticial at this juncture: winning legislative seats, a senate seat, congressional seats, and defeating right-wing measures headed for the ballot in November. Randy Parraz at Citizens for a Better Arizona independently came to the same conclusion.

Nothing personal, but Leonard Clark, a Phoenix area activist, is not the person to be leading a recall effort against Jan Brewer. Mr. Clark has a bad habit of filing recalls against politicians with whom he disagrees that never amount to anything but a statement of protest. (He has also filed a recall against U.S. Senator Jon Kyl, who is not subject to recall and is out the door in January 2013).

That being said, last Friday Leonard Clark filed a recall initiative against Governor Jan Brewer, RC-01-2012. The Committee to Recall Jan Brewer will have until June 2, 2012 to collect 432,021 valid signatures to force a recall election. Click here for full text of initiative: PDF.

A Press conference and rally to recall Jan Brewer is scheduled for this Saturday, February 11, at 10:00 a.m. at Wesley Bolin Plaza (state capitol grounds). The Facebook event announcement is below the fold:

Brothers and sisters: Please...if you can make the recall rally and get out as many of our friends as possible to this recall rally that would be greatly appreciated ! This recall rally will be critical in getting the word out and putting petitions into the hands of our ...supporters. Below, is the official wording of our recall statement turned into the Arizona Secretary of State. Peace and Solidarity!

http://recallbrewer.com/

Taking a page out of the playbooks of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and Ohio Gov. John Kasich, Gov. Jan Brewer and extreme right-wing Arizona lawmakers are pushing a series of bills attacking firefighters, teachers, nurses and other public service workers who work hard to keep our communities safe and strong. These bills would take away all collective bargaining rights for public service workers, leading to large class sizes in our schools, more dangerous working conditions for firefighters, and police officers and making our communities less safe. As in Wisconsin and Ohio these measures are not about balancing Arizona’s budget and are not about jobs. They are about destructive political agendas, right wing politicians and their corporate funders pushing across the country to consolidate their power.

And finally but not least, the workers, the poor, the elderly and children of our beautiful state have been attacked enough by this governor with her cutbacks that threaten to turn our beloved state into a place resembling a third world country. In this year, the centennial of Arizona, We will re-take our state for love, compassion and humanity. May GOD bless the state of Arizona, recall Jan Brewer.

point of contact: lennieclark@hotmail.com 623-329-0284.

Committee to Recall Jan Brewer
21056 North 34th Drive
Phoenix, AZ 85027
623-329-0284

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Following his win in the Florida primary, the conventional wisdom of the media villagers and Beltway bloviators was that Willard "Mittens" Romney now had a clear path through GOP primaries and caucuses in February on his way to "Super Tuesday" in March, and the GOP nomination.

This is the problem with a corporate media that parrots GOP establishment talking points. Saying it over and over again doesn't make it so. The corporate media's "conventional wisdom" is almost always wrong.

On Tuesday, Rick "man on dog" Santorum swept caucuses in Missouri, Minnesota and Colorado (albeit non-binding caucuses). Even without committed delegates, however, Santorum's sweep of caucuses that "front-runner" Romney had been expected to win shatters his "electability" as the GOP nominee.

Romney won Minnesota four years ago. He even had his vanquished opponent, former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty "of nuthin'," working the state for him and he got creamed. Pawlenty is finished as a politician. It was another embarrassing loss for "Mittens" in Missouri. And every political pundit had given Romney Colorado in advance based upon the strength of a supposed "Mormon vote," yet he lost Colorado as well. Triple victory for Santorum again upends GOP presidential race - The Washington Post.

"Electability" was the only selling point that Romney had throughout the GOP primary process, that he could claim he is the most electable against President Obama. That is now gone after losing five primary contests, four to Santorum and one to Gingrich. Romney has nothing else to offer Tea-Publican voters who always questioned his conservative credentials in the first place. 

As I have said before, the more voters get to know "Mittens" Romney, the more they do not like him. Greg Sargent has Romney's upside-down negative numbers in Thumbs down for Romney. (See Update below).

Tea-Publicans may now feel liberated to turn to conservative "purity" between Santorum and Gingrich. The GOP establishment is about to go into full panic mode as GOP strategist Steve Schmidt predicted a couple of weeks ago.

The corporate media really does not want to talk about the naked truth of GOP primary politics: the evangelical Christian base of the GOP will not vote for a Mormon. This has been borne out in the exit polling of every contest held to date. After Arizona, which does have a "Mormon vote," the GOP primary is about to turn to Southern states and the rural Great Plains states where the evangelical Christian base of the GOP is dominant.

Gingrich and Santorum are going to pick up their fair share of states and Romney's "electability" will further erode.

Moreover, GOP voter turnout in primaries this year has been greater for the "Not-the-Romney" candidates than for "front-runner" Romney. As John Zogby observes, "Republicans cannot win without maximizing turnout at the polls and in on-the-ground support from their hard core base voters. Even where Romney has won, turnout by Republicans has been generally lower than in prior cycles, a bad sign looking ahead to November." Obama Only One Winning GOP Primary Fights - Forbes. See also Steve Benen at The Maddow Blog - GOP turnout troubles continue.

Finally, the GOP itself has made a total train wreck out of its primaries so far. Rachel Maddow provides an excellent summary of the "gang who can't shoot straight" in this segment (after the 2:00 minute mark).

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

UPDATE: Charting Romney's negative numbers, from Talking Points Memo.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

This is the West. Wars are fought over water, even reclaimed water from sewage treatment plants. Every drop of water is more precious than gold.

Which is why the Town of Marana, represented by lobbyist Jonathan "Payday" Paton, has been trying to steal a Pima County sewage treatment plant from Pima County without paying for it. In the old West, this would be a hanging offense.

Today, we are supposed to accept colonial oppression of Baja Arizona by our colonial overlords from the state of Maricopa. Marana gets help from Senate leader in sewer-plant dispute:

State lawmakers' attempts to force Pima County to turn over a sewer plant to Marana are getting more aggressive.

Senate President Steve Pierce has asked Gov. Jan Brewer to issue necessary permits the town has been unable to obtain on its own.

Under what legal authority does our Red Queen, Jan Brewer, have any ability to issue a permit? This is new to me. Executive fiat is not lawful authority.

Pierce has also asked the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality to investigate whether the county has the legal authority to operate a sewer system.

Pima county handed over the plant at 14393 W. Luckett Road to Marana last month, but did so under protest, only because the town persuaded the Legislature to pass a new state law that empowered its takeover of the plant. [thanks to lobbying by Jonathan "Payday" Paton]

Pima County has refused to transfer its state and federal permits to the town, saying it cannot because Marana is not a designated management authority under the Clean Water Act. The county is also challenging the constitutionality of the new state law in court.

Pima County is threatening additional legal actions against the town and the state.

Pierce sent a letter to Brewer last week asking her to issue the permits the town needs to run the plant, which serves 1,800 customers on Marana's north side.

* * *

Marana has not signed a contract to pay the county for the outstanding debt on the facility.

"We are very skeptical as to whether Marana will agree to compensate the county for the plant as is required by the very state law that allowed them to take the facility," Pima County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry wrote.

The county spent $23.9 million to build and equip the plant, he said. Under the new state law, Marana needs to pay only the remaining debt, about $18.2 million, over 15 years. A $540,000 principal payment is due July 1.

This matter will be decided in court. The governor and ADEQ should stay the hell out of this, as should Sen. Pierce.

by David Safier

The Republican racist dog whistles continue.

It wasn't too long ago when black employees had to think twice about making a suggestion to their white employers and managers. Say the wrong thing, and they were likely to hear, "Do you think you're smarter than me, boy? Do you think you know better than me?" If the employee wanted to keep his job, he bowed his head, muttered, "No sir" and walked meekly away.

Here's Santorum crowing after his wins last night.

[Obama] thinks he’s smarter than you,” Santorum said. “He think he’s someone who is a privileged person, who should be able to rule over you.”

"The gall!" Santorum is dog-whistling. "This black guy thinks he's smarter than you and can tell you what to do. Why, in my day, we knew how to put those types in their place."

Awhile back, Santorum said Romney is too much like Obama -- a paler shade of Obama:

“We need contrasts,” Mr. Santorum said, “not just a paler shade of what we have.”

Not to be outdone, Gingrich called Romney "Obama Lite." And while Obama is the Food Stamp President (hint, hint), Romney is "Little food stamp."

"We now know from Gov. Romney, he joins President Obama. Obama is big food stamp, he's little food stamp."

No racist appeals to see here folks. Move along -- except, of couse, for those of you who'll vote for me because of this kind of stuff

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Senate Committee on Government Reform has a long agenda beginning at 9:00 a.m. today, but among the bills under consideration are two bills that are part of the Tea-Publican assault on the Arizona Independent Redistricitng Commission.

SB 1489 would Increase the scope of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission to require the AIRC to draw district lines for all political subdivisions of the state (county, municipal, school districts, etc.) The purpose of this is to create more animosity towards the AIRC by involving it in local redistricitng so that the public is more inclined to repeal the AIRC.

Which is what SCR 1035 proposes to do. Sen. Andy Biggs, who has been an unhinged opponent of the AIRC, is the sponsor. Subject to voter approval of a ballot measure, it would repeal Article IV, Part 2, Section 1 of the Constitution of Arizona relating to the Arizona Independent Redistricting Committee.

The committee hearing begins at 9:00 a.m. in Senate Hearing Room 1, 1700 W. Washington St., Phoenix.

by David Safier

If you read my post below, you'll see why I think TUSD Board member Michael Hicks needs to make a public apology. I want Hicks to retract the outrageous allegations he made in a radio interview -- that Wakefield Middle School students may have been sexually abused while they were at UA. Salomón Baldenegro Sr. is also demanding a public apology from Hicks, apparently based on a different segment from the same radio interview.

Salomón Baldenegro Sr. recently shared his perspective on an interview Tucson Unified School District board member Michael Hicks did on the Garrett Lewis A.M. show on KNSR 97.1 in which Hicks lied about where he was during the school board meeting on April 26, 2011. This is the school board meeting in which the student group UNIDOS took over the dais and prevented the school board meeting from continuing.

Either Michael Hicks doesn't understand the responsibility involved in being on a School Board whose task is to watch over the education of the city's children, or he understands and doesn't care. Either way, Hicks is presenting a terrible role model for the students in TUSD by lying and by alleging university students and faculty members who believe in preserving the MAS program would abuse students who are putting themselves on the line to protest the program's removal.

by David Safier

While being interviewed on Garrett Lewis' morning talk show, TUSD Board member Michael Hicks intimated Wakefield Middle School children might have been sexually abused when they attended a college course at UA. He has yet to comment on his vicious, unsubstantiated allegation. Hicks should either give some reason why he suspects the students were molested, or he should withdraw his statement and publicly apologize to the Wakefield students as well as the UA students and faculty members who were present at the time.

There is absolutely no basis for Hicks' allegation. He was at UA while some Wakefield Middle School students who were suspended that day were talking with the press. Then they attended a Mexican American Studies class at the university, but the press was not allowed in the classroom.

Here is how Hicks portrayed the events on the radio show.

Hicks said he walked in during the "press conference." After it was over, the TUSD students were taken "behind closed doors" by "adult, college age students . . . to be taught or to get educated or to be -- I don't know."

After an interruption by Lewis, Hicks continued:

"For me, I'm like, you know what? You know, Penn State? You know, what's going on behind these closed doors with our children? Children! I mean these are, these are not adults yet, these were Wakefield [Middle School] children . . . I'm like going, this is not [confusing: indicative?] of a university, the University of Arizona statute to bring these people in, these young children in."

There are few more serious allegations you can hurl at an adult than sexually abusing a child,which is what Hicks impled with his Penn State reference and his repetition of the idea that college students -- Adults! -- took these TUSD students -- Children! -- behind closed doors. In fact, the door he referred to was the door of a classroom where a prof and a group of students were conducting class. Abie Morales posted video from the events on Three Sonorans.

I could make a similarly unsubstantiated, equally unfair allegation about Michael Hicks, or about anyone for that matter. I could note that every day, Hicks goes into a bathroom and locks the door behind him so no one can get in. "What's going on behind that closed door?" I could ask. "I don't know. Needles? Heroin? You know, what's going on in there when no one is around to see what he's doing?"

If Hicks can explain how his unsubstantiated allegation makes any more sense than my ridiculous inference that he's a heroin addict simply because he goes in a bathroom daily and locks the door, he should do so. If not, it's time for him to apologize publicly to the Wakefield students as well as the UA students and faculty members who were present at the time. Whether he apologizes or not, the TUSD Board should condemn his dangerous statement, as should Superintendent Pedicone. I believe this is a serious enough breech of the trust inherent in Hicks' position as a Board member that he should be asked to resign.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Jonathan "Payday" Paton is no longer in the legislature, but his No Taxpayer Money for Politicians Group continues his purposefully deceptive attempts to repeal Citizens Clean Elections that began in 2010. Paton thinks the voters are just a bunch of rubes for ever enacting Citizens Clean Elections, and he wants you to repeal it.

On Monday, the latest water-carrier for Paton's jihad against Citizens Clean Elections, Sen. John McComish, introduced SCR1021, a proposed constitutional amendment backed by business interests (Arizona Chamber of Commerce) and influential conservative advocacy groups (Goldwater Institute), purposefully deceptively titled the “No Taxpayer Subsidies for Political Campaigns Act” (remarkably similar to Paton's group). Measure to dismantle Clean Elections moves forward - Arizona Capitol Times (subscription required):

The measure, if sent to the ballot and approved by the public, bans the state or any of its political subdivisions from spending money to fund candidates’ campaigns.

The proposed constitutional amendment additionally prohibits any tax credit or deduction to do the same.

Finally, it precludes governments from assessing taxes, fees or surcharges if they’re used to provide money to candidates.

But much of the debate Monday centered on what the ballot measure should be called.

* * *

[S]upporters of the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Act, which voters approved in 1998, said the proposal to gut it should be called what it seeks to do — a repeal of Arizona’s “clean elections” system.

The public knows the program by that name and giving the proposal another title would be “deceptive,” they said.

But the system’s opponents said taking “clean elections” out of the title would provide a much truer sense of what the system is about.

To them, the program is about subsidizing candidates’ campaigns with taxpayer dollars and calling it “clean elections” is deceptive.

The fight over the measure’s title is important.

It is effectively the start of a public relations war over the 14-year old system, which is widely used by Republicans and Democrats alike.

The ballot measure’s title could spell the difference between success and failure at the ballot box.

The Senate Judiciary Committee approved the referral by a vote of 6-2.

As expected, the lawmakers on the panel split along party lines. Republicans backed the measure while Democrats opposed it.

The full Senate still needs to debate and vote on the measure. It will pass. The voters need to educate themselves on what this is really all about. Do not be deceived by these charlatans.

by David Safier

Story after story has detailed cheating on standardized tests by K-12 teachers and administrators to raise schools' scores and rankings. Now comes the not-very-surprising fact that colleges have been cooking the books to raise their ratings on the U.S. News & World Report list of "America's Best Colleges." It's pretty much a given. Use selective data to rank a group of institutions, and the institutions will figure out a way to make those bits of data come out in their favor.

For example:

[C]olleges . . . have spent billions on financial aid for high-scoring students who don't actually need the money, motivated at least partly by the quest for rankings glory.

Students who need the financial aid don't get it so it can go to children of one percenters with higher test scores. Wonderful.

Baylor University . . . paid students it had already accepted to retake the SAT exam in a transparent ploy to boost the average scores it could report.

It seems worth noting that Baylor bills itself as a religious University.

Baylor students are a part of a Christian community of faith. There is a very active community of faith on campus, as well as multiple choices in the larger Waco community.

[snip]

Baylor is small enough to minister to and offer educational opportunities to the individual. From Welcome Week groups to faculty office hours to resident chaplains to specialized tutoring facilities, Baylor offers a place for students to connect and to be treated with the respect and dignity today's students expect and deserve.

Baylor's Center of Christian Ethics puts out a quarterly publication, "Christian Reflection: A Series in Faith and Ethics." I wonder if it has written about the ethics of bribing students to retake tests to boost the school's rating. (I might note, the school is also known for its political conservatism. Its president is Ken Starr, the Independent Counsel during the Clinton-era Monica Lewinsky scandal.)

One more school.

The latest example came last week at Claremont McKenna, a highly regarded California liberal arts college where a senior administrator resigned after acknowledging he falsified college-entrance-exam scores for years to rankings publications such as US News.

RELATED AIMS TEST INQUIRY: Does anyone know more about this? Someone mentioned to me recently that some Arizona high schools have students who have passed AIMS in their sophomore year retake the test as juniors and seniors to raise the school average, even though once you've passed it, you don't have to take it again. Is there any truth to that?

by David Safier

Adam Sarvana, Raúl M. Grijalva's Communications Director, forwards this quote from Grijalva's comments on C-SPAN this morning:

“This union-bashing and this anti-union fervor, almost a frenzy, that’s going on right now, it’s a blame game. Let’s blame the unions for our economic woes. Let’s blame the immigrants for our economic woes. What that blame game does is gets us diverted into fighting among ourselves when we have common issues that we need to deal with. [. . .] The job creators that Mitt Romney and the Republican presidential candidates like to talk about were also the job shrinkers. They took jobs overseas. They got tax breaks, unbelievably. Individuals at the top one percent got richer in the last ten years, and suddenly, when we find ourselves where we want to create a balance and create jobs for people who have been hurting and are unemployed or underpaid, all of a sudden they become the bad guys.”

You can watch Grijalva on C-SPAN here.

by David Safier

The Goldwater Institute thinks it's a great idea to buy back state buildings now, at no savings to the government, instead of using the $106 million to help build the state.

Republicans have said for the past few years they had no choice but cut spending on education and children's health care -- "We really don't want to, but we have no money. Our hands are tied!" Some have even gone so far as to say they're for increasing funding when there's more money in the coffers. Well, tax revenues are up, so they might look like hypocrites if they refuse to increase spending on children's education and health in this year's budget.

But if they deposit $106 million in an account and let it sit there until the bill comes due in 20 years -- we don't save a penny by putting up the money now, the money will just sit there -- Republicans can keep the cuts and say once again, "We really didn't want to, but we have no money. Our hands are tied!"

In G.I.'s words,

The biggest advantage to this early payoff, though, is that it avoids the temptation to spend temporary money on ongoing programs – the ones that it looks like we can afford now, but that we might not be able to afford later.

G.I. and Republican legislators are fine with ignoring the immediate needs of Arizona's children. They might even argue they're following Jesus' example. After all, according to the Bible, Jesus said, "Suffer, little children." (Luke, 18:16, Matthew 19:14)

Of course, that's not the whole quote. The longer version in Matthew is:

But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

I guess Jesus liked little children more than the Goldwater Institute and Arizona Republicans.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

A 2-1 decision by a panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals today held that Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that limited marriage to one man and one woman, violates the U.S. Constitution. Prop. 8: Gay-marriage ban unconstitutional, court rules - latimes.com:

“Proposition 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California,” the court said.

The ruling upheld a decision by retired Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who struck down the ballot measure in 2010 after holding an unprecedented trial on the nature of sexual orientation and the history of marriage.

In a separate decision,  the appeals court refused to invalidate Walker’s ruling on the grounds that he should have disclosed he was in a long term same-sex relationship.  Walker, a Republican appointee who is openly gay, said after his ruling  that he had been in a relationship with another man for 10 years. He has never said whether he and partner wished to marry.

DOCUMENT: Read the court's decision

Santa Clara University constitutional law Professor Margaret M. Russell said the ruling overturned Proposition 8 on “the narrowest grounds possible,” which makes it less likely that the U.S. Supreme Court would review it. Prop. 8: Ruling to have limited effect outside California - latimes.com:

“It is very much anchored in the role of Proposition 8 in California’s history,” the professor said, adding that it would have little effect outside of California.

The ruling was based on a 1996 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down a Colorado initiative that prevented local governments from passing anti-discrimination ordinances to protect gays and lesbians. Romer v. Evans (1996).

The high court in that case said the federal constitution prevents states from taking away rights from minorities because of moral disapproval.

Don't make any wedding plans just yet. Prop. 8: Gay marriages won’t resume immediately in California - latimes.com:

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals left in place a stay on the ruling, which had been issued by a lower federal court, to prevent the resumption of same-sex marriages as the case works its way through the appeals process.

ProtectMarriage, the group that sponsored Proposition 8, said it will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Founding Fathers of Arizona were progressive populists. They included in the Arizona Constitution three progressive era rights of citizens: initiative, referendum, and recall. These rights were to protect the citizens against the abuses by state legislators controled by powerful lobbyist interests.

There are a number of bills in the legislature this session which seek to restrict and limit these rights of citizens in favor of legislators controled by powerful lobbyist interests. In this, our Centennial year as a state, our Tea-Publican legislature rejects and seeks to reverse Arizona's progressive populist heritage.

One such bill is a legislative proposed referendum to severely limit the ability of Arizona citizens to enact new revenue sources for such things as education and health care that our ideological Tea-Publican legislature routinely underfunds in their desire to shred the "socialist" safety net of the "entitlement society."

Arizonans have routinely approved new taxes and spending for education and health care by citizen initiatives every time such initiatives have appeared on the ballot. It is how the citizens of Arizona correct the ideological extremism of our Tea-Publican legislature.

So now our Tea-Publican legislature wants to impose a two-thirds super-majority requirement on citizen initiatives which seek to enact new revenue sources for such things as education and health care. Because a simple majority vote, the foundation of our democratic Republic, apparently no longer is good enough when it comes to taxes.

"The first principle of republicanism is that the lex majoris partis is the fundamental law of every society of individuals of equal rights; to consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt. This law once disregarded, no other remains but that of force, which ends necessarily in military despotism." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1817.

Rep. David Stevens, R-Sierra Vista, is sponsoring legislation that would require any sort of tax hike to receive the approval of two-thirds of voters in order to be enacted. Referendum would raise the bar on raising taxes - Arizona Capitol Times (subscription required):

He says the change proposed by HCR2043 is necessary to keep a small minority of voters influenced by special interest groups from rubber-stamping a tax hike on everyone.

Really? What Rep. Stevens actually proposes is a minority veto power, a "tyranny of the minority."

Our Tea-Publican legislators have pledged their fealty to their lord and master, Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform, the Koch brothers' Americans for Prosperity, the Club for Growth, and dozens of similar anti-tax organizations. These billionaire funded organizations would exercise a minority veto power over the will of the majority of Arizona voters by spending just enough money to convince one voter more than one third of the voters to reject what almost two-thirds of voters favor. As Jefferson said, this is undemocratic and anti-republican, it is despotism.

Ken Strobeck, executive director of the League of Arizona Cities and Towns, pointed out that local governments rarely take tax initiatives to the ballot. When they do, it’s usually for specific purposes.

Proposition 400 in Maricopa County is an example of the sorts of initiatives that would be blocked, he said. In 2004, voters were asked to approve an extension of a half-cent sales tax to fund transportation projects in the region. It was approved by 57 percent of voters.

“Putting a two-thirds threshold on that would pretty much guarantee nothing would ever pass,” Strobeck said.

Craig Sullivan, executive director of the County Supervisors Association of Arizona said counties are required by state law to provide certain functions of government, like providing resources for the courts and criminal justice system.

But at the same time, the counties’ primary source of revenue, property taxes, are capped, as are sales taxes.

“We’re really in a revenue box,” Sullivan said.

So when a county needs money in order to meet some of those state-mandated functions, they have a couple tools at their disposal, including ballot referrals for jail districts and road districts.

But when they do take those measures to the ballot, it’s sometimes a tough sell.

In short, school district, city, county and state governments would never be able to raise revenues to provide essential government services because anti-tax zealots exercising a minority veto power, a "tyranny of the minority," would be able to defeat any measure.

Some of the recent citizens initiatives would have been similarly defeated. The 2006 80 cent-per-pack cigarette tax to fund First Things First only passed by 53 percent, and the Prop 100 temporary sales tax referendum for education only won 61 percent of voter approval in 2010.

Since the voters of this state were foolish enough to fall for the right-wing Prop. 108 in 1992, requiring a two-thirds super-majority vote for any tax increase or the elimination or reduction of any tax exemption or credit, the Arizona legislature has not approved a single tax increase, unable to overcome the minority veto power of the "tyranny of the minority." Every tax increase which has occurred since 1992 has been by way of voter approval at the ballot.

Now the anti-tax lobbyists and Tea-Publican legislators want to take that right away from you.

As long as Prop. 108 remains law, true tax reform in Arizona can never occur. Do not limit your right to citizen initiatives.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

"Is that a handgun tucked in your Speedo? Or are you just really happy to see me big boy!"

The Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday passed a bill that would loosen restrictions on carrying guns in public buildings, including city halls, libraries and municipal swimming pools.

Jaws was just a movie you idiot. That's not a shark, it's just a fat kid with a snorkel. Geezus! What kind of "afraid of his own shadow" freak needs to pack heat in his Speedo at the swimming pool? Get some psychiatric help already for your irrational fears and phobias, will ya?

Sen. Ron Gould, R-Lake Havasu City, who sponsored one of the other bills, admitted the gun bills still need some work. "There are government facilities that need to be secured, but does the swimming pool need to be secured?" Gould asked. "I would argue probably not."

The Senate Judiciary Committee also passed the "guns on campus" bill. More than a dozen witnesses from law enforcement, university officials, and student organizations testified against the bill. Two witnesses testified in favor of the bill: some guy who has never heard of you either fom Tempe and, of course, the lobbyist for the NRA. Guess who the committee listened to? That's right, the NRA lobbyist PAC-ing "swift boat" attack ads -- way more scary to politicians than guns. Senate panel advances guns on campus bill:

The Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday passed Senate Bill 1474, which requires public universities and community colleges to allow anyone age 21 or older with a concealed-carry permit to carry a gun on campus. The schools can keep the guns out of buildings, stadiums and classrooms if they provide secure gun lockers.

The committee also passed a bill that would loosen restrictions on carrying guns in public buildings, including city halls, libraries or municipal swimming pools.

The bills now go to a vote of the full Senate and then to the House for consideration. If they pass the Legislature and Gov. Jan Brewer signs them into law, they would go into effect this summer.

* * *

Supporters and opponents of the Arizona campus gun bill rallied at the Capitol before the hearing and then packed the hearing room to testify before the committee.

More than a dozen people spoke against the bill. Two, including the lobbyist for the National Rifle Association, spoke in support.

Jennifer Longdon, a Phoenix mother of an Arizona State University student and a survivor of gun violence, spoke against the bill. She said both she and her fiance were trained gun owners and were armed when they were hit by "random" gunfire in 2004. Longdon ended up paralyzed.

"This isn't a theoretical discussion for me," Longdon said. "In that moment when bullets start flying and adrenaline and fear are pumping, to expect an untrained person to act with clarity and precision is hubris."

Longdon said until now, her biggest fear for her college son was "some regrettable tattoo."

"To worry that a roommate might be a binge drinker and a gun owner at the same time brings a chill to what is left of my spine," she said.

* * *

The Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police opposed the bill. Arizona State University Police Department Chief John Pickens testified.

"The intent may be good, but we believe this will result in unintended consequences," Pickens said.

He said the current requirements to get a concealed-carry permit in Arizona have been watered down and don't require enough hands-on training.

"There is no guarantee that a person has fired a gun in years, or for that matter ever fired the gun he or she is going to be carrying," Pickens said. "And we are dealing with an age group that a number of times doesn't always use the best judgment."

Steve Yarbrough, R-Chandler, was the lone Republican dissenter. Yarbrough said his no vote was based on the permit requirements being watered down over the past several years.

SB 1448, sponsored by Sen. Steve Smith, R-Maricopa, modifies the definitions of public buildings and public events to only apply to those with armed security. Under the bill, it would only be a crime to knowingly enter a public building or event with a gun if the entrances were secured by an armed guard. If there's no guard, there's no crime.

"If it is a public establishment, it should be secured," Smith said.

Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police lobbyist John Thomas spoke against this bill.

"City Hall would no longer be able to keep weapons out of the building unless there is an officer present whenever the building is open," he said.

As I pointed out the other day, these are those "unecessary government regulations" that drive up the cost of doing business that Tea-Publicans are always whining about. And this would cost taxpayers money just to humor the "happiness is a warm gun" crowd. Why not charge gunowners a user fee and let them pay for it? Typical Tea-Publicans: always making demands without having to pay for it (unfunded mandates). Deadbeats!

by David Safier

This is truly beneath contempt. While TUSD Board member Michael Hicks was on Garrett Lewis' Morning Ritual Interviews on KNST February 2, Hicks implied there was a possibility TUSD middle school students were molested, like children allegedly were at Penn State, while they were at University of Arizona on a day they were suspended from school.

The TUSD Board should pass a resolution condemning Hicks for making such a dangerous, completely unsubstantiated allegation. Pedicone should issue a public statement of condemnation as well. As a retired teacher who knows how seriously schools take any hint of sexual abuse of students, I believe Hicks outrageous statement is reason to call for his resignation.

I read about this on Three Sonorans and listened to Abie Morales' video excerpting the radio program. I was in a state of disbelief, so I contacted Morales to get confirmation. He directed me to the show's website so I could listen to the entire interview. It was exactly as he presented it.

The situation was this. A group of TUSD students, mainly Wakefield Middle School students who had been suspended for walking out of class earlier, were invited to UA. Reporters showed up, and they talked with the students in a kind of impromtu press conference. Then, according to Morales, the TUSD students attended Roberto Rodriguez's Mexican-American Studies class at UA. The press weren't allowed in the classroom, but Morales was allowed to set up a camera, and he videoed the class. He posted excerpts on Three Sonorans.

In his radio interview, Hicks said he walked in during the "press conference." After it was over, the TUSD students were taken "behind closed doors" by "adult, college age students . . . to be taught or to get educated or to be -- I don't know."

After an interruption by Lewis, Hicks continued:

"For me, I'm like, you know what? You know, Penn State? You know, what's going on behind these closed doors with our children? Children! I mean these are, these are not adults yet, these were Wakefield [Middle School] children . . . I'm like going, this is not [confusing: indicative?] of a university, the University of Arizona statute to bring these people in, these young children in."

This quote is around the 7:30 minute mark, if you're interested, or you can hear it on the Three Sonorans post.

Hicks' Penn State reference and his repetition of the "children with adults behind closed doors" theme can be taken as nothing less than an implication there might have been some form of child molestation or child abuse going on. Few charges leveled against adults are more serious than that. Children's lives are permanently damaged when they are sexually abused. If adults are accused unfairly, their personal and professional lives can be ruined. It is wildly irresponsible for anyone, let along a school board member, to imply TUSD students who sat in on a class at UA with a prof and a number of college students in attendance could have been subjected to abuse of any kind.

I hope people on the board and/or in the TUSD administation act on this outrage. I know Mark Stegeman often reads this blog. He recently commented on one of my posts. If Mark reads this and agrees that Hicks' statement is inexcusable, he should take appropriate action. This isn't about whether someone agrees or disagrees with Hicks estimation of the Mexican-American Studies program. He made other comments during the show I thought were ridiculous, but he has a perfect right to say them. It is about Hicks hurling an implied accusation of sexual abuse at people he disagrees with to disparage their characters and dirty up the cause they believe in.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

If you listen to Willard "Mittens" Romney and the rest of the GOP presidential field, their talking points are that the economic recovery would be doing better if not for President Obama's interventionist economic policies (which began under George W. Bush in late 2008 by the way).

It is important to keep in mind that these Tea-Publicans are all true believers in the "invisible hand" of the freee market place. What they are really saying is that the economy should have been left alone to sink into a Great Depression and the "creative destruction" of a depression would have cleaned out the inefficiencies in our economy. The human cost and destruction of lives be damned.

This is not new. It is as old as Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon's "liquidationist thesis": Andrew Mellon advised President Hoover to “Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate.”

Here's the full quote from President Herbert Hoover on the advice given to him by Mellon:

...the “leave it alone liquidationists” headed by [my] Secretary of the Treasury Mellon, who felt that government must keep its hands off and let the slump liquidate itself. Mr. Mellon had only one formula: “Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate.” He insisted that, when the people get an inflation brainstorm, the only way to get it out of their blood is to let it collapse. He held that even a panic was not altogether a bad thing. He said: “It will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people”... (Source: U.C. Berkeley Economist Brad De Long).

* * *

In some ways Andrew Mellon's failed approach resembles the IMF austerity programmes after the 1997 Asian economic crisis that economist Joseph Stiglitz criticized so vehemently in his book Globalization and its Discontents (2002).

It is also the IMF and European Union austerity programmes being put in place today in response to the Euro Crisis that will lead to recession this year -- some warn depression -- in Europe.

And sadly, it is austerity programs of Tea-Publican state legislatures that is holding back our economic recovery in America. As the monthly jobs reports I post every month show, the private sector has been adding jobs for 23 consecutive months, however modest the numbers, but public sector employment continues to be devastated by Tea-Publican budget cutting at the state government level. This takes paying jobs and money out of the economy for economic expansion. Tea-Publicans are systematically sabotaging the economic recovery in blind pursuit of a disproved and discredited economic theory.

As Paul Krugman recently posted, Destructive Austerity, USA - NYTimes.com:

Jared Bernstein has been emphasizing, rightly, the extent to which our weak recovery is being undermined by cutbacks at the state and local level:

But it’s even worse than he says. Why? Because if you look at what’s being cut, it’s heavily focused on investment:

That is, we’re sacrificing the future as well as the present. Oh, and the cuts that aren’t falling on investment in physical capital are largely falling on human capital, that is, education.

[T]his is a time when government investment should be pushed very hard. Instead, it’s being slashed.

What an utter disaster.

This the backgrounder you need for today's opinion by Paul Krugman. Things Are Not O.K. - NYTimes.com:

In a better world — specifically, a world with a better policy elite — a good jobs report would be cause for unalloyed celebration. In the world we actually inhabit, however, every silver lining comes with a cloud. Friday’s report was, in fact, much better than expected, and has made many people, myself included, more optimistic. But there’s a real danger that this optimism will be self-defeating, because it will encourage and empower the purge-and-liquidate crowd.

* * *

That said, our economy remains deeply depressed. As the Economic Policy Institute points out, we started 2012 with fewer workers employed than in January 2001 — zero growth after 11 years, even as the population, and therefore the number of jobs we needed, grew steadily. The institute estimates that even at January’s pace of job creation it would take us until 2019 to return to full employment.

I would point out that during this entire period we have had the massive Bush tax cuts for the so-called "job creators" of the one percent. "Mr. Boehner, where are the jobs?" Magical belief in faith based supply-side "trickle down" GOP economics has been an utter disaster. This economic theory has been entirely disproved and discredited with devastating economic consequences over the past decade.

And we should never forget that the persistence of high unemployment inflicts enormous, continuing damage on our economy and our society, even if the unemployment rate is gradually declining. Bear in mind, in particular, the fact that long-term unemployment — the percentage of workers who have been out of work for six months or more — remains at levels not seen since the Great Depression. And each month that this goes on means more Americans permanently alienated from the work force, more families exhausting their savings, and, not least, more of our fellow citizens losing hope.

So this encouraging employment report shouldn’t lead to any slackening in efforts to promote recovery. Full employment is still a distant dream — and that’s unacceptable. Policy makers should be doing everything they can to get us back to full employment as soon as possible.

Unfortunately, that’s not the way many people with influence on policy see it.

Very early in this slump — basically, as soon as the threat of complete financial collapse began to recede — a significant number of people within the policy community began demanding an early end to efforts to support the economy. Some of their demands focused on the fiscal side, with calls for immediate austerity despite low borrowing costs and high unemployment. But there have also been repeated demands that the Fed and its counterparts abroad tighten money and raise interest rates.

* * *

But there’s also a sort of freestanding opposition to low interest rates, a sense that there’s something wrong with cheap money and easy credit even in a desperately weak economy. I think of this as the urge to purge, after Andrew Mellon, Herbert Hoover’s Treasury secretary, who urged him to let liquidation run its course, to “purge the rottenness” that he believed afflicted America.

And every time we get a bit of good news, the purge-and-liquidate types pop up, saying that it’s time to stop focusing on job creation.

* * *

So here’s what needs to be said about the latest numbers: yes, we’re doing a bit better, but no, things are not O.K. — not remotely O.K. This is still a terrible economy, and policy makers should be doing much more than they are to make it better.

About "The Fire Next Time: The Euro Crisis" and the threat of a recession -- some say depression -- in Europe this year spreading like a contagion to the U.S. economy. Paul Krugman blogs America's European Exposure - NYTimes.com:

It’s now conventional wisdom that the fate of the U.S. economy over the next three quarters — and hence, also, Obama’s reelection chances — depend on events in Europe. So maybe this is a good time to express some skepticism.

The map above — taken from here — tells us that overall, exports to Europe are just 2 percent of GDP. Some states, notably South Carolina, are more exposed (presumably because of those European-owned auto plants). But Obama isn’t going to win South Carolina in any case. And more broadly, even a sharp fall in exports to Europe would be only a small direct hit to demand.

The professor lists several caveats, the most important of which is: "if European events cause a Lehman-type event, disrupting financial markets world-wide, all bets are off." Well, yeah!

With all that, however, it’s still very questionable whether Europe’s looming recession will actually have that much negative impact here. Decoupling didn’t hold in 2008-2009, but that was an epochal disaster. This time might be different.

You see, there's the problem. People always convince themselves "this time it will be different"  and then act surprised when the same result occurs. People do not learn from their mistakes. We have had nearly a century to bury Andrew Mellon's liquidationist thesis on the ash heap of history, and yet here we are with Tea-Publican presidential candidates advocating for Mellon's disproved and discredited economic theory in the 21st Century.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

My team was not playing in the Superbowl once again this year, so I was not emotionally invested in either team. Despite a close game I thought the game was a little boring, at least until late in the fourth quarter.

Congratulations to Eli Manning and the New York Giants. Giants fans will be insufferable at least until next September.

Madonna is always worth the price of admission, she knows how to put on a show and she delivered with her Cecil B. DeMille cast of thousands Hollywood extravaganza halftime show.

But what about the battle of the Superbowl ads? No contest. Best Superbowl ad goes to Clint Eastwood and Chrysler for its "imported from Detroit" ad, "It's Halftime in America" (below the fold. The NFL is pulling down YouTube posts of this ad for copyright, so catch it while you can). I stood up and cheered. Well done, sir.

And for true sports fans, "pitchers and catchers report" (the four sweetest words in the English language) on February 17 for the Oakland A's and Seattle Mariners, and February 19 for all other teams. Full squads report on February 24.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Our Tea-Publican legislature has been using "theme" weeks for legislative initiatives. Last week it was "Destroy Public Employee Unions Week." And as Craig McDermott pointed out in his "This Week" post, this week is "Guns on Campus - and Everywhere Else Week":

Monday at 2 p.m. or upon adjournment of the floor session, Judiciary will meet in SHR1. The nastiest agenda of the week. Up for consideration: SB1304, removing the ability of counties and municipalities to pass laws restricting or barring the discharge of firearms within a quarter mile of an occupied structure (you know, like a house); SB1448, making is OK to pack heat in a public building if access to that building is not restricted by a cop or security guard; SB1474, the annual "guns in schools" bill; SB1479, a bill with too many provisions to summarize quickly here, but it's another in the pro-gun/anti-society group of gun bills this year[.]

* * *

Wednesday at 9 a.m., Military Affairs and Public Safety will meet in HHR3. Up for consideration: HB2728, allowing the use of silencers while hunting. I'd make another "jackrabbits" wisecrack, but combined with the "limitless" magazines bill above, the cynic in me thinks that the intended prey for these hunters is a little browner and a lot taller than the average jackrabbit. And that isn't something to joke about.

Tucson has had enough of crazy people with easy access to guns. 4 Dead In Univ. Of Arizona Shooting (October 2002), and of course the mass shooting on January 8, 2011. Is making these kinds of incidents more likely to occur a rational, responsible policy? I think not.

The president of the University of Arizona is voicing opposition to a bill allowing guns on state university campuses. Eugene Sander says bringing guns on campus creates enormous problems for law enforcement. UA president opposes campus guns bill - Arizona Capitol Times

Sander added the Tucson school would be required to spend thousands of dollars to install gun lockers in buildings, an expenditure that Sander says is misguided.

Hmmm, sounds an awful lot like those "unecessary government regulations" that drive up the cost of doing business that Tea-Publicans are always whining about, doesn't it? And this would cost taxpayers money just to humor the "happiness is a warm gun" crowd. Why not charge gunowners a user fee and let them pay for it? Typical Tea-Publicans: always making demands without having to pay for it (unfunded mandates). Deadbeats!

Comedian Daniel Tosh of Tosh.0 on Comedy Central offered a unique perspective on this issue recently in this video "Web Redemption - I Just Shot Myself - Uncensored" (NWS) below the fold: "Anything Arizona is in favor of is probably bad for America."

by David Safier

The ill-conceived, poorly executed gun running operation Fast and Furious is over but for the shouting of Republicans who want to turn it into a political issue. But the ongoing problem of guns crossing the border into Mexico continues at a pace both fast and furious.

Mayors Against Illegal Guns has written a letter "Call[ing] on Congress to Oppose S.570/H.R.3814 – Protect Law Enforcement Authority to Fight Gun Trafficking by Mexican Drug Cartels." It's addressed to Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner. Here's the beginning.

A "WHERE IS TUCSON'S MAYOR?" NOTE: The letter is signed by 600 mayors from around the country -- 3 from Alabama, 29 from California, too many to count from Pennsylvania -- and one mayor from Arizona: Mayor Sara R. Presler of Flagstaff. I understand Jonathan Rothschild is a new kid on the mayoral block, and I also know this state is pretty crazy when it comes to gun regulation, so it would take guts for him to take a public stand. But this is Tucson, Arizona's closest big city to the border, and Rothschild is a reasonably progressive guy who must deplore the way guns can end up in the hands of crazies (think Jared Loughner) and criminals with few background checks or limits on the number of purchases.

Jonathan, if you need the phone number or email for Mayors Against Illegal Guns, just say the word. I've got them.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

While we're on the subject of our colonial overlords in the Arizona legislature disenfranchising the citizens of Baja Arizona and usurping our rights of local control, the Arizona Daily Star today has an editorial opinion taking our colonial overlords to task. GOP bill sidelining Huckelberry unfair to 89% of voters:

In their efforts to take power from Pima County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry - a man they truly, deeply don't like - nine Southern Arizona Republican legislators have proposed a law that is grossly unfair to taxpayers in the city of Tucson and unincorporated Pima County.

The county currently has a 25-member bond advisory committee. Each of the five elected county supervisors appoints three members; the five incorporated cities each name one; the two Indian nations each select one; and administrator Huckelberry chooses three.

The committee makes recommendations to the Board of Supervisors about what bond projects it should ask voters to approve.

The proposed legislation would replace this 25-member group with a six-person committee: one each representing the city of Tucson, unincorporated Pima County, Oro Valley, Marana, Sahuarita and South Tucson.

A majority would give proposed bond projects a thumb's up or down. If it said "yes," voters would still have the final say.

A huge problem with the legislation is that it would give equal power to the representative from South Tucson, which has 5,000 residents, and the member from Tucson, which has 520,000 people.

Indeed, the four small jurisdictions - South Tucson, Sahuarita, Marana and Oro Valley - with a combined population of 105,000, could form a majority and outvote the two people who represent the 870,000 residents of Tucson and unincorporated Pima County.

That's hugely unfair.

But this legislation isn't about fairness. It's about the disdain Republicans in the Legislature have for Huckelberry.

Rep. Terri Proud, R-Tucson, the main sponsor of the legislation, recently called him a "dictator."

Sorry, lady. That would be the Tea-Publican tyranny coming from our Arizona legislature, subjugating the citizens of Pima County and the City of Tucson.

At Thursday's House Committee on Technology and Infrastructure hearing on her bill, Proud explained her position this way:

"For too long we've had one man control everything, and I think that needs to stop."

Proud is certainly entitled to her view of Huckelberry, but the fact is he serves at the pleasure of the five elected Pima County Supervisors. He's a hired hand, not a dictator.

* * *

The deeper political story is that Marana is the driving force behind the bill. And Marana and Pima County remain in a huge payment dispute over a county-built sewer plant that the Legislature ordered turned over to Marana. [Another act of Tea-Publican tyranny]

One of Marana's complaints about the current bond process is that projects and spending are sometimes changed after the fact.

Proud said that amounts to the Board of Supervisors adjusting spending without general voter approval or the approval of the cities and towns most affected.

But county lobbyist Mike Racy testified that 95 percent of the projects from the 2004 and 2006 bond issues have been completed as originally scheduled.

* * *

We agree that there shouldn't be significant changes to bond projects without going back to voters. And all cost changes certainly must have transparent review. That already happens with the existing advisory committee and with the Board of Supervisors.

Political differences will always flare up among local governments, but the answer is not to devise a "fix" in order to neutralize one hired bureaucrat.

Even worse, in their haste to sideline Huckelberry, the Republican legislators would give 11 percent of the population of Pima County veto power over the other 89 percent.

A "tyranny of the minority" by our authoritarian Tea-Publican legislature.

by David Safier

A poll has been taken in other countries, certainly in Asian countries, and the consensus is, the U.S. has the finest system of higher education in the world.

It's not a poll, exactly. It's students from Asian countries voting with their feet and their dollars, spending huge amounts of money to attend U.S. universities.

U of Washington is a case in point. Today, 18% of its students come from abroad, up from 2% in 2006. Most of the foreign students are from China. They're willing to pay full tuition -- $28,059 per year -- as well as airfare and living expenses. That doesn't count the cost of paying people to help them with their admission forms and essays.

U. of Washington is an example, not an exception.

By the reckoning of the Institute of International Education, foreign students in the United States contribute about $21 billion a year to the national economy, including $463 million here in Washington State.

To sum up: Our graduating high school seniors have access to the finest colleges and universities in the world. If they attend their in-state public institutions, they pay a third of what the foreigners (and out-of-state students) are charged. And apparently our K-12 education system is good enough, our students can hold their own in world-class universities. In fact, Asian students often have to learn how to master the art of thinking for themselves after attending the rote learning institutions which prepare them better for standardized tests than for ingenuity and self determination.

What we need to do is figure out a way to convince our best and brightest to go into courses of study which will further the country's intellectual and innovative competitiveness rather than signing up for the new finishing schools. "Finishing schools" used to be places for "young ladies" who wanted to learn how to catch a man. Today, they are MBA programs, which teach students the culture of the business world along with a smattering of real education so they can catch a corporation and join the one percent without benefiting anyone but themselves. The perverse incentives luring students into these program are counter to our national interest. We need fewer university-trained vultures and more genuinely educated adults. And every indication is, they can get their educations right here at home in one of the finest, if not the finest, higher education systems in the world.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Craig McDermott included in his "This Week" post at the legislature this heads up:

"Thursday at 9 a.m., Technology and Infrastructure will meet in HHR1. On the agenda: HB2647, a Rio Nuevo bill..."

Here is the explanation. A group of Downtown Tucson developers and business interests wants the Arizona legislature to make big changes to Rio Nuevo, including a change that could guarantee them financial relief for future projects. Businesses press lawmakers to make Rio Nuevo changes:

Fletcher McCusker, one of the key promoters of downtown redevelopment, is unofficially calling the effort the "Downtown Tucson Initiative."

* * *

Backers said the key to righting the scandal-ridden project hinges on several items:

• Creating incentives for developers to build within the district - potentially waiving development fees, eliminating impact fees, abating property taxes or allowing developers to keep sales taxes collected by their business for five to 10 years.

• Expanding the authority of the Rio Nuevo Board, which can only spend money on a convention center and the as-yet-economically-infeasible convention hotel.

• Streamlining the regulatory burden on developers, to provide more clarity in obtaining building permits.

• Building more accountability and standardization into procurement.

McCusker, whose backers include Jim Horvath, Buzz Isaacson, Kevin Madden, Don Martin and Scott Stiteler, said he fears that with the Rio Nuevo Board and city of Tucson at an impasse and threatening to meet in court, some legislators might decide to pull the plug on the project altogether. This would be a way to show the project still retains support and could get back on track, he said.

* * *

McCusker said he doesn't believe the effort is stepping on any toes, since it's going to need backing from both the Rio Nuevo Board and the city to get through the legislative process.

"The time frame for issuing or denying municipal licenses and permits to any applicant for any project within a county stadium district established within the municipality pursuant to section 48-4202, subsection B shall not exceed thirty days after the submission of a complete and correct application."

This addresses the frequent complaint that the City of Tucson's Development Services Department takes too long to approve licenses and permits. I have represented developers and I tend to agree with this assessment. However, the 30 day deadline is unrealistic and is an arbitrary deadline. There needs to be flexibility to deal with unforeseen issues that arise during development projects. This does little to encourage cooperation between Development Services and developers.

The second key provision of HB2647 is an amendment to A.R.S. Sec. 42-5061, new paragraph 56:

56.  Retail sales conducted at a business located in a county stadium district established pursuant to section 48-4202, subsection B that after January 1, 2013 is improved by the construction of new or expanded fixed capital assets equal to fifty per cent of the original full cash value of the property as determined by the county assessor.  The deduction under this paragraph applies with respect to the taxpayer that made the initial capital investment, and expires on the sale or transfer of the property to another owner.  The amount of the deduction under this paragraph is determined as follows:

(a)  For the first 120 consecutive months beginning after the municipality issues a certificate of occupancy for the capital improvements, the deduction is one hundred per cent of the gross proceeds of sales at the location.

(b)  for the 121^st through the 132^nd months, the deduction is eighty per cent of the gross proceeds of sales at the location.

(c)  For the 133^rd through the 144^th months, the deduction is sixty per cent of the gross proceeds of sales at the location.

(d)  For the 145^th through the 156^th months, the deduction is forty per cent of the gross proceeds of sales at the location.

(e)  For the 157^th through the 168^th months, the deduction is twenty per cent of the gross proceeds of sales at the location.

(f)  Thereafter, the deduction is zero.

This is an abatement of the transaction privilege tax (sales tax) "incentive" allowing developers of new development in the Rio Nuevo District to keep sales taxes collected by their business. The abatement is 100 percent for the first ten years with a graduated reduction over the next two years.

A few years ago the Arizona legislature passed a bill outlawing this very kind of incentive in the Phoenix metroplitan area between cities that were engaged in "tax incentive wars" to attract business. There may be an equal protection argument here treating similarly situated businesses differently based upon the municipality in which the business is located, and established businesses within the district versus new businesses.

The third key provision of HB2647 is an amendment to Sec. 5.  Title 42, chapter 13, article 7, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding section 42-13305, to read:

"42-13305.  Property located in county stadium district

A.  This section applies only to real property and improvements that are classified as class one pursuant to section 42-12001, located in a county stadium district established pursuant to section 48-4202, subsection B and that after January 1, 2013 are improved by the construction of new or expanded fixed capital assets equal to fifty per cent of the original full cash value of the property.

B.  Beginning with the valuation year in which the municipality issues a certificate of occupancy for the capital improvements and for nine consecutive valuation years thereafter, the county assessor shall value property that meets the requirements of subsection A of this section at the same full cash value determined for the valuation year immediately preceding the year in which the municipality issues the certificate of occupancy.

C.  For ______ consecutive valuation years after the last year to which subsection B of this section applies to the property, the assessor shall annually increase the property's full cash value by equal ______ increments. Thereafter, the property is subject to valuation at its current full cash value as provided by law."

This is a property tax abatement incentive for ten years, with a graduated increase in assessed value to full cash value thereafter. Since it only applies to real property and improvements that are classified as class one pursuant to section 42-12001, once again, there may be an equal protection argument here treating similarly situated businesses differently.

(Note: There are other bills in the legislature that seek to emininate or restrict development fees and impact fees.)

The fourth key provision of HB2647 is an amendment to A.R.S. Sec. 48-4204(B), and a new paragraph (C) redefining what the taxes collected within the Rio Nuevo District can be used for:

"c.  Any component of the multipurpose facility or other commercial real estate development under subsection B, paragraphs 1 and 2 of this section may include privately-owned projects as follows:

1.  The project must comply with all applicable municipal codes.

2.  In the board's judgment, the project must either:

(a)  Substantially increase tax revenue, employment or public pedestrian traffic at the project site.

(b)  Create an extraordinary increase in tax revenue, employment or public pedestrian traffic throughout all or part of the district.

3.  Any financial assistance for the project may not violate article IX, section 7, Constitution of Arizona, relating to donations or grants of public monies.

4.  The developer may transfer to the district, and the district may accept and hold one or more conservation easements over the project pursuant to title 33, chapter 2, article 4 in return for financial assistance from the district to the project.

5.  The district may loan money to finance the project, including loans that may be repaid by crediting against the loan the incremental periodic amounts of transaction privilege tax revenue collected by all taxing jurisdictions from the development that exceed the transaction privilege tax revenue collected by all taxing jurisdictions before the development was begun."

This expands "the authority of the Rio Nuevo Board, which can only spend money on a convention center and the as-yet-economically-infeasible convention hotel." This removes the punitive knee-jerk limitations imposed by the Arizona legislature in micromanaging the development of Downtown Tucson. It gives the District the flexibility it needs to consider other value-added development in Downtown Tucson. This is a good thing.

The problem, however, is that a handful of wealthy Tucson developers can run to our colonial overlords in the Arizona legislature to get what they want, and to disenfranchise the citizens of the colony of Tucson by usurping their right of local control to make these decisions for themselves. Some might call this "crony capitalism." Some might call this "picking winners and losers" in a free market economy. Some might call this a "regulatory burden" and micromanagement of "matters of purely local control."

And they would be the very same Tea-Publican conservatives who level these charges against the federal government asserting "states' rights." It is a different story, however, when Tea-Publicans are engaged in authoritarianism towards the "liberal blue island" of the City of Tucson. Shameless hypocrites.

by David Safier

E. J. Montini begins with satire, then leaves it to simply tell the truth. Here's how his column begins.

An Arizona legislative committee last week approved a bill to create an elective high-school class called "The Bible and its Influence on Western Culture," a divinely inspired proposal that needs only two minor changes.

First, the class should not be elective but mandatory. Second, it should not be taught to high-school students but to legislators.

Can I get an "Amen!"?

The rest of the column is chapter and verse, literally, teaching legislators what the Bible says and how it contrasts with what they do. Brilliant.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Political Calendar is posted on Sundays. Please send us notice of your political events prior to the Sunday before your event (7 days would be most helpful). See the calendar icon in the right-hand column of the blog page for easy access to the calendar.

SPECIAL ELECTION DEADLINES

• Candidate nomination petitions are due Monday, February 27, 2012 by 5:00 p.m.
• Legal challenges to candidate nomination petitions must be filed by Monday, March 5, 2012.
• Early ballot voting begins Monday, April 2, 2012. (15 days)
• Party primaries Primary Day is Tuesday, April 17, 2012.
• Early ballot voting begins Tuesday, May 29 , 2012. (15 days)
• Candidate nomination petitions for the general election are due Wednesday, May 30, 2012 by 5:00 p.m. (prior to the Special Election)
• Normal statutory rules for legal challenges to candidate nomination petitions apply to general election.
• 'Special' Election Day is Tuesday, June 12, 2012.

We Are Listening in 2012! Campaigns are encouraged to submit notices of campaign events to BforAZ at BlogForArizona@gmail.com.

Political Calendar For The Week of February 5, 2012

Sundays, 6:00 p.m.: Drinking Liberally, at The Shanty, 401 E. 9th Street (at 4th Avenue). An informal, inclusive progressive social group, and lively discussion. Contact: www.livingliberallytucson.org.

Sunday, February 5, 3:00 p.m.: Tanque Verde Valley Democrats meeting, at the Kirk-Bear Canyon Library, 8959 E. Tanque Verde Road (Tucson). Featured speaker is U.S. Senate candidate former U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona. The Club invites our fellow Democrats to join us for this occasion. For more information please contact info@tanqueverdedems.org or visit our website. They promise you will be home in time for kickoff of the Superbowl.

Monday, February 6, Noon: Democrats of Greater Tucson luncheon, Dragon's View Restaurant (400 N. Bonita, South of St. Mary's Road between the Freeway and Grande Avenue, turn South at Furr's Cafeteria), buffet lunch costs $8.50. Featured speakers are Pat Fleming, candidate for LD 25 (New LD 14) Senate, and Mohur Sarah Sidhwa, candidate for LD 28 (new LD 9) House. Visit DGT's web site at www.tucsondemocrats.org. Next Week: David Bradley, candidate for LD 28 (new LD 10) Senate.

Monday, February 6, 6:00 p.m.: Cochise County Democratic Party meeting, at the Cochise County Democratic Party Headquarters, 1010 E. Fry Blvd. (Sierra Vista). Featured speaker is Ann English on new districts. For more information please contact (520) 458-9467.

Monday, February 6, 6:30 p.m.: Pima County Democratic Party Executive Committee meeting.

Monday, February 6, 7:00 p.m.: Douglas Area Democrats meeting, at the Los Obreros Hall, 406 8th Street (Douglas). For more information please contact Corny Munoz at douglasrfl@hotmail.com or (520) 227-7125.

Tuesday, February 7: Colorado Caucus. Minnesota Caucus. Missouri Primary.

Tuesday, February 7, 5:30 p.m.: Greater Huachuca Area Democrats meeting, at the Cochise County Democratic Party Headquarters, 1010 E. Fry Blvd. (Sierra Vista). For more information please contact Maggs at maggzilla2u@yahoo.com or (520) 417-1533.

Wednesday, February 8, Noon: Northside Democrats meeting, at Coco's Restaurant, 7250 N. Oracle Road ((just north of Oracle/Ina) Featured speaker is Pima County Democratic Party Chair Jeff Rogers on issues facing voters in the coming election year. Food and beverage available for purchase, please arrive a few minutes early to order. All are welcome. For more information please call (520) 297-0095.

Wednesday, February 8, 2:00 p.m.: Arizona Secretary of State campaign-finance workshop, at the Arizona Capitol, Secretary of State, 7th Floor Conference Room, 1700 W. Washington Street (Phoenix). A special Invitation is extended to all candidates and to treasurers of political committees. Presentations on Arizona campaign finance laws and campaign finance reporting requirements will provide information for the upcoming 2012 Primary and General Elections. Political committees that file campaign finance reports with the Secretary of State must do so electronically using the Secretary of State provided web-based campaign finance reporting system. Learn how to do it correctly. Candidates and their treasurers are strongly encouraged to attend. For more information please contact (602) 542-8683.

Thursday, February 9, 5:30 p.m.: Pima County Democratic Party Nucleus Club meeting, at the Viscount Suite Hotel, 4855 E. Broadway Blvd. Featured speaker is Sandra Kennedy, Arizona Corporation Commissioner. For more information please contact Martin Bacal at (520) 326-3716.

Friday, February 10, 3:00 p.m.: (Special date & time) Democratic Club of the Santa Rita Area meeting, at the Joyner Green Valley Library, 601 N. La Canada Drive (Green Valley). Special screening of the documentary film "Heist" by Frances Causey and Donald Goldmacher, about the roots of the American economic crisis and the continuing assault on the working class and middle-class Americans. Followed by discussion. Click here to go to the Heist website for more information. The meeting is open to the public. For more information please call (520) 625-3133.

Saturday, February 11, 10:00 a.m.: Mule Mountain Democratic Club meeting, at El Cobre restaurant (south on Naco Highway, Bisbee). Join us for no-host breakfast at 9:30; meeting will start at 10 AM. For more information please contact John Viverto at Vivertos@aol.com or (520) 432-2366.

Saturday, February 11, 2:00 p.m.: The Saguaro Eastside Democrats host their 8th Annual 'I Love Liberty' Party, at the home of Bob & Shelley Schwartz, 3455 N. Winslow (4 blocks West of Sabino Canyon Road, One block North of Cloud Road). This has become the traditional "meet and greet" event for candidates seeking office in Pima County. Come meet the candidates and socialize with your fellow Democrats. Please bring an appetizer or dessert with your own serving utensils. Wine, beer and soft drinks are provided by SED. Please RSVP to Steve Gall to let him know what you will be bringing at stevejgall@hotmail.com or (520) 777-3000.

Note: for additional Democratic Party events around the state see http://azdem.org/events/Calendar/.

Special Announcements:

DCSRA Discussion Group

Wednesdays, 11:00 a.m.: Democratic Club of the Santa Rita Area hosts a Current Events Discussion Group at Green Valley Democratic Party HQ, Continental Shopping Plaza, 240 W. Continental Road (exit 63), Upstairs Meeting Room (elevator is available). Join us at the weekly meeting of the Democratic Headquarters Current Events Discussion Group. We'll talk about some of the major events of the previous week, including but not limited to political topics, and try and go behind the news for a deeper understanding. For more information, please contact Amy Johnson at acalkins10@aol.com.

Monday, February 13, 6:00 p.m.: Legislative District 29 meeting, at the Sam Lena Library, 1607 S. 6th Avenue. For more information please contact Matt Kopec at LD29Chair@gmail.com or (520) 400-3020.

Monday, February 13, 7:00 p.m.: Democrats of Oro Valley meeting, at the Oro Valley Library (at the corner of La Canada and Naranja Drive). Featured speaker is Jim Nintzel, senior writer for the Tucson Weekly and long time contributor to Arizona Public Media’s Friday political round-table on Arizona Illustrated where he is now the regular host. Mr. Nintzel is sure to have some interesting insights on local, state and national politics. The meeting is open to the public at no cost. For more information please contact Mike Dayton at (520) 742-3774. Please visit our web site at www.demsov.org.

Monday, February 13, 7:00 p.m.: The Tucson chapter of Progressive Democrats of America is co-hosting a talk by Margaret Flowers, a spokeswoman for Physicians for a National Health Program, at the Pima County Housing Center, 801 W. Congress Street, in the Jon Miles Room. The event is cosponsored by Physicians for a National Health Program of Arizona and the Alliance for Global Justice. Kevin Zeese will also speak about the Occupy movement.

Tuesday, February 14: Arizona Statehood Centennial - 100 today! And it's Valentine's Day too!

DeWa and DCSRA Presents Border Issues With Terry Goddard

Friday, February 17, 2:00 p.m.: Democratic Women in Action (DeWA) and the Democratic Club of the Santa Rita Area (DCSRA) host former Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard on the topic of “Better Solutions for Border Security,” at the Joyner Green Valley Library, 601 N. La Canada Drive (Green Valley). The meeting is open to the public. For more information please call (520) 625-3133.

Saturday, February 18, 9:00 a.m.-5:30 p.m.: Vail Pride Day, at the at the Pima County Fairgrounds, 11300 S. Houghton Road (Located South of I/10 and Houghton Rd. Exit 275). View the Schedule of Events and Performances (.pdf) for Vail Pride Day to take place “Rain or Shine.” For more information about the event, please contact Rosemary McCain via e-mail at mccainr@vail.k12.az.us or by phone at (520)879-3931. Visit our web site at Vail Pride Day 2012 – An Arizona Centennial Celebration.

Coalition of Arizonans to Abolish the Death Penalty presents Sister Helen Prejean

Sunday, February 19, 1:00 p.m.: The Coalition of Arizonans to Abolish the Death Penalty presents Sister Helen Prejean, at the Rialto Theatre, 318 E. Congress Street (Tucson). Please join us as Sister Helen and other special guests discuss the death penalty and why it should be abolished. Tickets are $10 in advance or at the door. Afterward, Sister Helen will attend a private, ticketed meet and greet. Tickets for the meet and greet are $100. Event sponsorships are available and include tickets to both events and recognition at the event and in the program. For more information please call (520) 838-1721.

Monday, February 20: Presidents' Day.

Tuesday, February 21, 7:00 p.m.: Legislative District 26 meeting, at the Metro Water (Board Room), 6265 N. La Cañada Drive. For more information please contact Brian Clymer at (520) 323-1234.

Wednesday, February 22, 6:00 p.m.: Legislative District 25 meeting, at the Wheeler Taft Abbett, Sr. Library, 7800 N. Schisler Drive (Marana). For more information please contact Jeff Lawrence at AZLD25@aol.com.

Arizona Advocacy Network Dinner with Sen. Bernie Sanders

Thursday, February 23, 5:30 p.m.: Arizona Advocacy Network Dinner with Sen. Bernie Sanders, at the Wyndham Downtown Phoenix Hotel, 50 E. Adams Street (Phoenix). You can rsvp a table of 10 now to fill with your friends. Ticket and table prices will be announced after January 1st. Save some holiday cash so you can join us for an event that will help change the direction of Arizona for our next 100 years!

Saturday, February 25, 11:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.: 30th Annual Tucson Peace Fair & Musical Festival, at the Reid Park Bandshell, Country Club and 22nd Street (Tucson). Arizona's largest gathering of peace, social justice and environmental groups. Free to Attend! To participate in the Peace Fair please email stelnik@webtv.net This e-mail address is protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it with Peace Fair in the subject line, or call 235-0694 and either way, be sure to include your snail mail address for an application. Visit our web site Tucson Peace Center Events.

Legislative District 30 "Boot Stompin' Red Hot Chili Lovers Cook-Off"

Saturday, February 25, Noon-2:00 p.m.: Legislative District 30 hosts its "Boot Stompin' Red Hot Chili Lovers Cook-Off" fundraiser, at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Tucson, 4831 E. 22nd Street (Tucson). Master of Ceremonies is Tucson Mayor Jonathan Rothschild. Celebrity Judges are Cheryl Cage, Linda McNulty, Jeff Rogers, and John C. Scott. Prizes awarded for: best beef or pork chili, best turkey or chicken chili, best vegetarian chili. Ticket price includes chili samples and soft drinks: Contestants $10, Attendees $20 in advance, $25 at the door, kids under 12 free admission. To obtain tickets, entry form and contest rules please contact Jen Prileson at jenprileson@earthlink.com or (520) 299-2317. To purchase tickets please contact Paul Olson at paul@vantagepointrealty.com or (520) 358-9779.

Cochise County Democratic Party's Annual High Desert Dinner

Monday, February 27, 5:45 p.m.: Cochise County Democratic Party's Annual High Desert Dinner/Fundraiser, at Cafe Roca, 35 Main Street (Bisbee). Cash bar at 5:45 p.m., Dinner at 6:30 p.m., brief comments by candidates at 7:00 p.m. Our special guest is political cartoonist and humorist David Fitzsimmons at 7:30 p.m. Tickets are $75 each, additional contribution amount greatly appreciated. Seating is limited - NOTICE: SOLD OUT!

Monday, February 27, 6:00 p.m.: Legislative District 27 meeting, at the Tucson downtown library, 101 N. Stone Avenue (parking in garage under library). For more information please contact Greg Wagner at gregory.m.wagner@gmail.com or (520) 784-8355.

Tuesday, February 28: Arizona Primary. Michigan Primary.

Saturday, March 3: Washington Caucus.

Tuesday, March 6: "Super Tuesday": Alaska (caucus), Georgia (primary), Idaho (caucus), Massachusetts (primary), North Dakota (caucus), Ohio (primary), Oklahoma (primary), Tennessee (primary), Vermont (primary), Virginia (primary), Wyoming (caucus, March 6-10).

Wednesday, March 7, 2:00 p.m.: Arizona Secretary of State campaign-finance workshop, at the Arizona Capitol, Secretary of State, 7th Floor Conference Room, 1700 W. Washington Street (Phoenix). A special Invitation is extended to all candidates and to treasurers of political committees. Presentations on Arizona campaign finance laws and campaign finance reporting requirements will provide information for the upcoming 2012 Primary and General Elections. Political committees that file campaign finance reports with the Secretary of State must do so electronically using the Secretary of State provided web-based campaign finance reporting system. Learn how to do it correctly. Candidates and their treasurers are strongly encouraged to attend. For more information please contact (602) 542-8683.

Arizona List 8th Anniversary Luncheon

Saturday, March 10, 11:00 a.m.: Arizona List 8th Anniversary Luncheon celebrating the work of Women Leaders, at the Sheraton on Grant, 5151 E. Grant Road. Our featured speaker is Congresswoman Donna Edwards of Maryland. We will be honoring Emily Herrell and Cathy Nichols for all the work they’ve done in the Tucson community. Registration at 11:00 a.m., Event starts at Noon. For more information please call (520) 327-0520.

March 14-18: Pinal County Fair, at the Pinal County Fair Grounds, 512 S. Eleven Mile Corner Road, Casa Grande (Take I - 10 to exit 194. Travel east 7 miles on Hwy 287. Turn South on Eleven Mile Corner Rd.) Admission: $6 adults, $3 children. For more information call (520) 723-7881.

LD 28 Annual St. Patrick's Day Fundraiser - Save the Date!

Saturday, March 17, 1:00 p.m.: Legislative District 28 Annual St. Patrick's Day fundraiser, at the home of George and Margie Cunningham, 630 N. Alamo Avenue (Tucson). This is the annual campaign kick-off event for Southern Arizona. Come meet the candidates and socialize with your fellow Democrats. Tickets are $20 each in advance prior to March 10, $25 thereafter. Limited number of tickets are available. For more information and to RSVP please contact Ted Prezelski at prezelski@aol.com or (520) 326-3716 (leave message).

1st Annual Morris and Stewart Udall Dinner - Save the Date!

Sunday, March 18, 6:00 p.m.: The Pima County Democratic Party hosts the 1st Annual Morris and Stewart Udall Dinner, featuring Keynote Speaker U.S. Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO). Master of Ceremonies is Fred DuVal. $75 general admission, $65 for precinct committeepersons. 5:30 p.m. registration, 6:00 p.m. dinner. Location TBD.

March 23-25: 4th Avenue Spring Street Fair (Tucson). Visit our web site 4th Avenue – Tucson, AZ » Street Fair General Info.

Arizona Democratic Party Presidential Nomination Caucuses - Save the Dates!

Saturday, March 31: All registered Democrats in Arizona may participate in Arizona's Presidential Nomination Caucuses which will be held in each congressional district. Arizona is allocated a total of 79 delegates and 6 alternates for the 2012 Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C. during the week of Sept. 3. Delegates are responsible for all costs incurred during their travel and stay at the convention. The Arizona Democratic Party will release the list of all caucus locations on or before Feb. 17.

Those interested in running for delegate to the national convention must contact the Arizona Democratic Party and file a statement of candidacy by March 1 to be considered eligible for selection at the March 31 district-level caucuses. A total of 46 delegates will be selected by Democratic precinct committee persons at the caucuses.

Those interested in running for delegate to the National Convention but unable to attend the March 31 district-level caucuses will have one additional opportunity to be selected: the Democratic State Convention on April 21. Interested parties must file a statement of candidacy by March 21 in order to be considered eligible for selection at the April 21 Democratic State Convention. A total of 15 delegates and 6 alternates will be selected by Democratic state committee members at the Democratic State Convention on April 21.

For more information about Presidential Nomination Caucuses, the 2012 Democratic National Convention or Delegate Selection, please call (602) 298-4200.

April 3-8: 60th Annual Yuma County Fair, at the Yuma County Fair Grounds, 2520 E. 32nd Street (Yuma). Admission: $5 adults, $3 children 6-12, children under 5 free. Tuesday dollar days. Parking free. For more information call (928) 726-4420.

April 11-15: Maricopa County Fair, at the AZ Exposition and State Fair Grounds, 1826 W. McDowell Road (Phoenix). Admission $9, children under 8 free. Parking $7 per vehicle. For more information call (602) 252-0717.

April 19-29: Pima County Fair, at the Pima County Fairgrounds, 11300 S. Houghton Road (Located South of I/10 and Houghton Rd. Exit 275). Admission $8, children 6-10 $3, children 5 and under free. Parking $5 per vehicle. For more information call (520) 762-3247.

Arizona Democratic Party Spring State Committee Meeting in Phoenix - Save the Date!

Saturday, April 21: Arizona Democratic Party Spring State Committee Meeting in Phoenix (details to be announced). The party has committed to supporting the Phoenix Pride Festival Parade in the morning. Election of a chair to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Andrei Cherny on the plenary meeting agenda.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Ann Richards, Governor of Texas, in her 1988 Democratic National Convention keynote address: "Poor George, he can't help it — he was born with a silver foot in his mouth." (said with a smile as big as Texas and a twinkle in her eye). I miss her and Miss Molly Ivins. We could use their wit and wisdom today.

By Craig McDermott, cross-posted from Random Musings

First: an apology to readers for not finishing last week's legislative schedule post. My personal schedule got tight, and these posts take 6 - 8 hours to put together when the lege's committees are going full speed.

Hence, the early start on this is meant to ensure that this is done by Monday. And since I'm going to spend most of Sunday watching or in preparation for watching the New England Patriots win the Super Bowl... :)

Those visiting the Arizona Capitol this week may want to think about wearing body armor - the gun nuts firearms industry lobbyists will be out in force this week. Lots of gun-related bills on a number of different agendas.


As usual, all agendas are subject to change without notice.


On the House side of the Capitol -

...Monday at 1 p.m., Rules will meet in HHR4. Long agenda. It may take them all of five minutes to approve it. Preview of coming floor calendars.

...Monday at 2 p.m., Ways and Means will meet in HHR1. Lots of mischief on this one. Many of the bills look to carve out tax breaks for special interests. One lowlight: a same subject striker to SB1047, increasing the allowable tax credits for contributions to Steve Yarbrough school tuition organizations. The fiscal note attached to rhe original bill estimates that it would cost the state $4 million in revenue starting in FY2013, but they also low-ball the estimate. The striker doesn't look to be too different from the original, but I haven't closely looked at the differences.

Note: when a Senate bill reaches a House committee this quickly, the measure is being fast tracked. In a big way.

...Monday at 2 p.m., Energy and Natural Resources will meet in HHR4. Short agenda, but one very bad bill - HB2640, allowing hunters to use ammunition magazines of unlimited size. 'Cuz you never know when you are going to miss that jackrabbit with the first 15 rounds.

...Monday at 2 p.m., Education will meet in HHR3. On the agenda: HB2505, "adjusting" high school academic curriculum standards by added financial literacy to mathematics classes, and free market economics and the history of capitalism to social studies classes (there is a proposed amendment to the bill striking the social studies clause, but don't expect this attempt at propagandizing school curriculums to go away).

...Monday at 2 p.m., Banking and Insurance will meet in HHR5. Mostly features bills relating to workmen's compensation and unemployment insurance. HB2519 is a measure intended to make life a little tougher for the unemployed.

...Tuesday at 2 p.m., Government will meet in HHR4. Included: a same subject striker to HB2168, mandating municipalities with more than 100K residents to implement a process for building permits that would allow builders/developers to "self-certify" their compliance with building codes.

...Wednesday at 9 a.m., Military Affairs and Public Safety will meet in HHR3. Up for consideration: HB2728, allowing the use of silencers while hunting. I'd make another "jackrabbits" wisecrack, but combined with the "limitless" magazines bill above, the cynic in me thinks that the intended prey for these hunters is a little browner and a lot taller than the average jackrabbit. And that isn't something to joke about.

...Wednesday at 9 a.m., Health and Human Services will meet in HHR4.

...Wednesday at 9 a.m., Commerce will meet in HHR5. On the agenda: a striker to HB2606 titled "liquor omnibus" (text not available as yet). "Omnibus" bills often have nuggets of nastiness, so keep an eye on this one.

...Wednesday at 10 a.m., Higher Education, Innovation, and Reform will meet in HHR1.

...Wednesday at 2 p.m., Appropriations will meet in HHR1. On the agenda: Budget presentations from the Department of Corrections and AHCCCS. Also, HB2736, requiring any state agencies, boards, or commissions that apply to the federal government for any grants or financial assistance greater than $500K to submit the application to the lege's Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) for "review". I think this bill would set up JLBC, aka the lege, as a gatekeeper between executive branch organizations and federal funding.

...Thursday at 9 a.m., Transportation will meet in HHR3. On the agenda: HB2678, creating a "virtual" driver's license; HCM2004, a memorial (aka - letter to Congress) asking them to stop collecting the federal highway tax, which is dedicated to funding transportation projects, so that states can get their hands on the money directly; HB2358, authorizing the creation of public-private partnerships for the operation of highway toll facilities; and Rep. Steve Farley's HB2046, barring license plate covers or anything else that diminishes the readability of characters on a license plate (hey, I have to include at least one decent bill per week, right?).

...Thursday at 9 a.m., Technology and Infrastructure will meet in HHR1. On the agenda: HB2403, the annual attack on newspapers but removing one of their primary sources of revenue - the mandatory publication of legal notices; a striker to HB2417 that would allow government communications that are, by law, required to be in writing to be by email. I'm not sure, but this measure seems so broadly written that things like legal summonses, court orders, and other court documents are covered by it; HB2647, a Rio Nuevo bill (there are many provisions in this where I don't understand the impact, so I will leave the commentary on this one to the southern AZ experts at Blog for Arizona).

...Thursday at 9 a.m., Judiciary will meet in HHR4. Long agenda, many bad bills. Lowest of the lowlights: HCR2005, a proposed amendment to the AZ constitution to mandate that any voter-approved measures that mandate any kind of spending or revenues must be reauthorized every six fiscal years. Guess the Rs don't like the voters interfering in the drive to destroy Arizona's social safety net.

...Thursday at 9 a.m., Agriculture and Water will meet in HHR5. On the agenda: HJR2002, surrendering Arizona's rights to a certain quantity of water from the Colorado River to some contractors.



On the Senate side of the Capitol -

...Monday at 1 p.m., Rules will meet in Senate Caucus Room 1. As with the agenda before the Rules committee in the House, the agenda is long and best serves as a preview of floor calendars for the rest of the week and early next week.

...Monday at 2 p.m. or upon adjournment of the floor session, Natural Resources and Transportation will meet in SHR109.

...Monday at 2 p.m. or upon adjournment of the floor session, Judiciary will meet in SHR1. The nastiest agenda of the week. Up for consideration: SB1304, removing the ability of counties and municipalities to pass laws restricting or barring the discharge of firearms within a quarter mile of an occupied structure (you know, like a house); SB1448, making is OK to pack heat in a public building if access to that building is not restricted by a cop or security guard; SB1474, the annual "guns in schools" bill; SB1479, a bill with too many provisions to summarize quickly here, but it's another in the pro-gun/anti-society group of gun bills this year; and SCR1021, a proposed amendment to the AZ constitution to end Clean Elections.

...Monday at 2 p.m., or upon adjournment of the floor session, Education will meet in SHR3. Lowlight: SB1443, creating state mandated standards for teacher performance pay (heavily weighted toward scores on statewide tests).

...Tuesday at 9 a.m., Veterans, Military, and Government Affairs will meet in SHR3. Looks quiet so far.

...Tuesday at 2 p.m., Banking and Insurance will meet in SHR3. On the agenda: at least a couple of bills that Sen. Nancy Barto is shilling for the health insurance industry.

...Tuesday at 2 p.m., Appropriations will meet in SHR109. Looks fairly quiet right now, but that will change as budget time looms.

...Wednesday at 9 a.m., Government Reform will meet in SHR1.

...Wednesday at 9 a.m., Public Safety and Human Services will meet in SHR3. On the agenda: SB1364, further easing regulations of fireworks in Arizona and barring municipalities and counties from crafting stronger regulations; SB1365, allowing licensed professionals to engage in unprofessional behavior without repercussion if they cite religious beliefs as justification for those actions; would also allow people and businesses to breach contracts if they cite religious beliefs; includes a clause that would bar public bodies, including the state's courts and judicial branch boards and commissions, from refusing to nominate or appoint someone to a position because of his/her religious beliefs. Directly aimed at the Arizona Commission of Appellate Court Appointments. In late 2010, when the Commission was screening applicants for the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, one of the members of the judicial commission expressed reservations about an applicant because of the applicant's belief that church and state shouldn't be separate.

...Wednesday at 9 a.m., Commerce and Energy will meet in SHR109. On the agenda: SB1510, messing with the state lottery.

...Wednesday at 2 p.m., Water, Land Use, and Rural Development will meet in SHR3. Best summary for this agenda: Why don't they just name this committee the "Senate Anti-Enviroment Committee"?

...Wednesday at 2 p.m., Healthcare and Medical Liability Reform will meet in SHR3. Lots of Nancy Barto-pushed bills for the health insurance industry.

...Wednesday at 2 p.m., Economic Development and Jobs Creation will meet in SHR109. One bill on the agenda thus far: SB1301, creating a tax credit for "community development entities" certified by Jan Brewer's Commerce Authority.

...Thursday at 9 a.m., Finance will meet in SHR1. Analogous to the Ways and Means Committee in the House, and like that committee, focused on carving out exemptions for special interests.

...Thursday at 9 a.m., Border Security, Federalism, and States Security will meet in SHR109. The agenda is short on items, but as is the pattern for this committee, long on lunacy. On the agenda: SB1332, which directs the federal government to surrender all federal lands in the state to Arizona by the end of 2014 or those lands will be subject to state taxes (ummm, yeaaahhhh. Good luck with that one.); SB1358, creating a legislative committee to "neutralize" any federal laws that it doesn't like (ditto).


...The lege's events calendar for the week is here; the Arizona Capitol Times' Capitol Calendar is here.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

First the Democratic side of the ledger, because really folks, that's what matters.

Friend of Blog for Arizona Carolyn Classen was kind enough to forward a copy of a Yellow Sheet Report (ungodly expensive subscription gossip rag), captioned: Giffords Set to Endorse Barber:

Multiple sources say that Giffords’ advisors held a conference call this afternoon to discuss what role she would play in the special election to replace her, and one source with knowledge of the conversation said Giffords is prepared to throw her support behind longtime aide Ron Barber to fill out her term.

However, her endorsement hinges on Barber entering the race, a decision the source said he will make by Monday. “If he decides to run, [Giffords and her team] will endorse him,” the source said.

If Barber, who reportedly is still unable to work full days because of his recovery from being shot in the same attack that wounded Giffords, opts not to run, the source said there is “no backup plan” and the congresswoman would not issue an endorsement.

I just came from a meeting of Legislative District 30 Democrats at which Rep. Steve Farley (D-LD 28) was the featured speaker. Rep. Farley informed Democrats that the report above is the current status for Democrats -- Ron Barber is considering whether to run as a caretaker for the Giffords seat in the CD 8 special election.

Barber reportedly has not yet made his decision. Let's keep in mind people that he suffered near fatal injuries on January 8, 2011 from which he is still recovering, this would be a major sacrifice on his part to serve the constituents of CD 8. Barber is expected to make his decision soon.

Should Barber decide to run, Democrats will clear the field for him in the special election for the Giffords seat.

Should Barber decide not to run there will be a wide-open primary. The DCCC reportedly has a poll in the field now testing public response to several candidates.

Rep. Farley said he has not made any decision about running for Congress. He wants to see the results of the DCCC poll first.

Rep. Farley indicated that Sen. Paula Aboud, also from LD 28, would run if Barber decides not to run, joining Rep. Matt Heinz (D-LD 29) who filed earlier this week and is circulating petitions. Others may be tempted to enter a wide-open primary.

I would hope that all of these questions will be resolved no later than the close of business on Monday. Time is running short -- candidates must submit their petitions for the special election by Monday, February 27 at 5:00 p.m. Tick-Tock...

On the Tea-Publican side of the ledger, Sen. "Don't make me angry" Frank Antenori (R-LD 30) now has a contested in primary.

Clear Channel Communications executive (the billboard side of the company that cost Tucson taxpayers lots of money in litigation costs over almost a decade of litigation Positive Signs | Tucson Weekly) and University of Arizona sportscaster, Dave Sitton, has filed to run. UA broadcaster Sitton enters CD8 race. This guy will have GOP bundler Jim Click and his GOP donors behind him. Rugby players will support him (longtime player-coach). Rumor has it that Sitton has some fairly moderate positions on issues that the Tea Party types may reject.

Texas Tea-bagger Jesse Kelly has come back to Tucson (he owns a property in CD 8 but not in CD 2) has returned from Texas to run again. Republican Jesse Kelly to run for CD8 seat he sought in '10. Antenori is already characterizing him as a carpetbagger.

A new name has entered the mix of Tea-Publicans, Martha McSally, Colonel Ret. U.S. Air Force. CD8 Special Election: Who's Martha McSally and Why Are People Saying She Might Run for Congress? | The Range. You may recall a story about McSally challenging the requirement that she dress in Muslim garb while serving in Saudi Arabia from 60 Minutes. She has an impressive resume, but no name I.D., and little is known about her positions on the issues.