Posted by Bob Lord

If you write for a local blog, the best you can hope for is to have our views echoed by those with larger platforms. So it was gratifying to read George Packer's op-ed in today's NY Times, Celebrating Inequality. Packer picked up on two themes I've mentioned in previous posts. But he drew a connection between them that I had not noticed. And that connection is quite significant. It may explain why his work is on the opinion pages of the NY Times and mine is posted here. 

A few months ago, in a post entitled Trillionaires, I noted how we foolishly celebrate the achievements of the super rich as we do the accomplishments of athletes on steroids:

Remarkably, as we pass the milestones, $10 Billion, $50 Billion, soon $100 Billion, no alarm bells ring. Instead, we celebrate the expanding fortunes of the super-rich as we do athletes breaking sports records. Reaching $1 Trillion will be treated like hitting 73 home runs was before we knew Barry cheated to get there. With any luck, our first Trillion Dollar fortune also will be tainted by misdeeds of the achiever. Perhaps that will wake us from our slumber.

Packer focuses on this phenomenon, how we worship celebrities as demi-gods in times of inequality:

What are celebrities, after all? They dominate the landscape, like giant monuments to aspiration, fulfillment and overreach. They are as intimate as they are grand, and they offer themselves for worship by ordinary people searching for a suitable object of devotion. But in times of widespread opportunity, the distance between gods and mortals closes, the monuments shrink closer to human size and the centrality of celebrities in the culture recedes. They loom larger in times like now, when inequality is soaring and trust in institutions — governments, corporations, schools, the press — is falling.

Packer connects this phenomenon to what I've referred to as the bastardization of the American dream. In A Numbers Guys View of The American Dream, I wrote:

I've contended in prior posts that conservatives have bastardized the concept of the American Dream, and progressives largely have let them get away with it. According to today's conservative dogma, the American Dream represents the chance in America to go from humble beginnings to vast fame and fortune through hard work. To conservatives, Steve Jobs represents the American Dream. In my mind, the real American Dream is entirely different. It is simply the ability of any American who works hard -- a teacher, a cop, an auto worker -- to enjoy a good life.

In his op-ed, Packer concludes:

This new kind of celebrity is the ultimate costume ball, far more exclusive and decadent than even the most potent magnates of Hollywood’s studio era could have dreamed up. Their superficial diversity dangles before us the myth that in America, anything is possible — even as the American dream quietly dies, a victim of the calcification of a class system that is nearly hereditary.

As mindless diversions from a sluggish economy and chronic malaise, the new aristocrats play a useful role. But their advent suggests that, after decades of widening income gaps, unequal distributions of opportunity and reward, and corroding public institutions, we have gone back to Gatsby’s time — or something far more perverse. The celebrity monuments of our age have grown so huge that they dwarf the aspirations of ordinary people, who are asked to yield their dreams to the gods: to flash their favorite singer’s corporate logo at concerts, to pour open their lives (and data) on Facebook, to adopt Apple as a lifestyle. We know our stars aren’t inviting us to think we can be just like them. Their success is based on leaving the rest of us behind.

So, Packer connects the dots in a way I'd not noticed. The glorification of celebrities and the re-definition of the American dream are very closely related. And both are outgrowths of the obscenely unequal society we've allowed to develop in America. 

by David Safier

There's the story out of the Oklahoma town devastated by today's tornado of a teacher who took the six children in her charge into a bathroom and laid on top of them so any falling or collapsing debris would injure her first. She put her body on the line to protect her children from harm.

We keep hearing stories like this about teachers in emergencies and disasters -- not the occasional heroic teacher, but the majority of them who do whatever they can to protect their students when they're confronted with horrific, life-or-death situations. We expect police and fire responders to put themselves in harm's way -- that's the job they chose -- but teachers without the necessary training, without the desire to confront danger? They didn't sign up for that duty, yet when they have to, teachers perform nobly and heroically, again and again.

Let's stop belittling our teachers, shall we? Let's give them credit for doing whatever they can for the sake of the children in their classrooms and in their schools, day after day. They don't do it in obvious, heroic ways. That's not the way their worlds are structured most of the time. But that's the kind of love, care and devotion to their children that motivates them in their daily teaching duties.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Let's set Mr. Peabody's WABAC time machine to a little less than a year ago, to June of 2012 when this was the GOP position on national security leaks to the media. Republicans demand (again) special investigator to investigate leaks - CNN:

A group of Republican senators continued to fire away Tuesday at the Obama administration for its failure to appoint a special counsel to investigate leaks of classified information.

Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, once again led the charge at a Capitol Hill news conference, criticizing Attorney General Eric Holder for his decision to appoint two Justice Department prosecutors to investigate the recent leaks to the media.

"To think that two people appointed prosecutors from Mr. Holder's office, overseen by Mr. Holder, is also offensive," McCain said. "We need a special counsel. We need someone who the American people can trust and we need to stop the leaks that are endangering the lives of those men and women who are serving our country."

Holder responded to the accusations at a June 12 congressional hearing. He said the Justice Department and the FBI are keeping a careful eye on any potential conflict of interest, but said of the prosecutors, "We have people who have shown independence, an ability to be thorough, and who have the guts to ask tough questions. And the charge that I've given them is to follow the leads wherever they are ... wherever it is in the executive branch or some other component of government."

* * *

The Republican senators derided President Barack Obama for his recent comment that he found offensive any notion that members of his administration intentionally released classified information.

"Any other administration, in my memory, Democrat or Republican, would have been absolutely apoplectic looking for the culprits, trying to find out who were the people that actually committed these criminal leaks," Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Mississippi, complained. "Instead the president is offended that someone would suggest such a thing. And frankly, members of the administration are sort of smugly happy that information come forward that appears to make the president seem tough."

* * *

The senators suggested Congress might have to take matters into its own hands if the Obama administration does not change course.

"My hope is that Congress will take up the responsibility to do what (it) is constitutionally authorized and obligated to do, and that is to investigate this matter ourselves," said Sen. John Cornyn of Texas.

The two Justice Department prosecutors appointed to investigate the leaks to the media actually did the investigation that these Republican senators, including Sen. John McCain, demanded that day. Under sweeping subpoenas, Justice Department obtained AP phone records in leak investigation.

Now the GOP has suddenly rediscovered the First Amendment and freedom of the press, something the GOP has never had much use for in the past, because it is convenient to the conservative media entertainment complex narrative of "scandals" consuming President Obama's second term. This is all about the narrative, they have no genuine concern for the media or freedom of the press.

And the investigation has now ensnared one of their own, James Rosen, FAUX News chief Washington correspondent. Justice sought Fox News reporter’s e-mails after N. Korea story in 2009. The "news" (sic) network that heavily promoted this intentional leaks narrative and GOP demands for a special counsel to investigate and prosecute national security leaks last year, is now singing quite a different tune today. Fox calls DOJ investigation of reporter “downright chilling”.

The GOP wants to have it both ways on national security leaks to the media. It is rank hypocrisy.

Posted  by AzBlueMeanie:

Announcement from Congressman Ron Barber:

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Announcement from Legislative District 2:

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I hate it when I have to agree with the Arizona Republic's über-conservative columnist Robert Robb, but even a broken clock is right twice a day, am I right?

Keep in mind that this latest column from Robert Robb is actually the strategy for a legal challenge to Governor Jan Brewer's Medicaid (AHCCCS) restoration plan, likely from his old employer, the Goldwater Institute, which is actively opposing the Governor's plan. If the Governor's plan is enacted by the legislature, the Goldwater Institute will file a lawsuit. (To his credit, Robb has written several columns arguing in favor of Governor Brewer's plan as a practical matter, much to Goldwater's chagrin I imagine).

I have had several Democratic legislators tell me that they agree with the Governor's legal analysis that the hospital bed tax is just a provider assessment that can be imposed by an agency head. I suspect this is wishful thinking. I have little confidence in the Governor's lawyers. I have previously posted that I disagree with this analysis. I believe this is rightly characterized as a tax, and any new tax requires a two-thirds super-majority vote of both chambers of the legislature to be approved under Prop. 108 (1992). This is why I have long argued for the repeal of the undemocratic Prop. 108.

Robert Robb writes, Senate passes Medicaid expansion. Or did it?

According to news reports, the Arizona Senate passed Gov. Jan Brewer’s Medicaid expansion plan. But did it really?

There are two serious legal problems with the Senate’s action.  Under Brewer’s plan, the head of the state Medicaid program would establish a new provider assessment, mostly on hospitals, to pay for the state’s cost of providing coverage principally to childless adults. The state Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to increase state revenues, including “the imposition of any new state fee or assessment or the authorization of any new administratively set fee.” That would seem precisely on point.

Two-thirds approval would require 20 votes in the Senate. The bill containing Brewer’s Medicaid proposal only got 19.

The second legal problem is the attempt to shoehorn Medicaid expansion into the budget bills. The assessment is a revenue measure, not an appropriation. The state Constitution says that bills passed by the Legislature can only cover “one subject.” With regard to appropriations, the Constitution says: “The general appropriation bill shall embrace nothing but appropriations for the different departments of the state …. All other appropriations shall be made by separate bills, each embracing but one subject.”

The Senate hammered the Medicaid expansion into the health and welfare budget reconciliation bill, which cannot be argued to embrace but one subject. It has over 50 provisions ranging from setting reimbursement rates for Medicaid providers, to establishing county contributions for long-term care programs and the confinement of sexually-violent offenders, to requiring welfare recipients to take drug tests.

So, a very serious argument could be made that the Arizona Senate did not, in fact, pass the governor’s Medicaid expansion proposal.

Actually the Senate did pass it, but the Senate action can be legally challenged as constitutionally invalid. Assuming that the legislature enacts Governor's Brewer's plan and she signs it into law, this will require litigation to set it aside.

While it ain’t over ‘til it’s over, it seems clear that Medicaid expansion can’t get the two-thirds approval needed to be cleanly enacted under the state Constitution. Referring it to voters would require only a simple majority, which the proposal seems to have.

If the expansion is enacted without a two-thirds approval, or buried within a budget reconciliation bill, opponents will sue. So far, Brewer and the hospitals, the financial interest with skin in the game, prefer the litigation risk to the electoral risk.

If the consequences weren’t so great, I’d say they were making a bad bet. It seems to me a slam duck that the assessment requires a two-thirds vote and Medicaid expansion has to be passed as a stand-alone bill.

But courts get shy when the consequences are large. And the consequences in this case would be monumental.

This is an excellent point. You will recall that when the legislature enacted the AHCCCS enrollment freeze as part of its budget cutting package, a lawsuit was filed on the grounds that the legislature's actions violated both the Healthy Arizona Prop. 204 (2000) and the Voter Protection Act, Prop. 105 (1998).

Rather than require the legislature to restore the funding in compliance with the will of Arizona voters in enacting these two citizens initiatives, the court claimed an ambiguity in Prop. 204 and relied on the separation of powers doctrine of a political question to rule that the court was powerless to compel the legislature to restore the funds under Prop. 204. The collateral damage was that the court largely disregarded the mandate of the Voter Protection Act, rendering it no protection at all, the voters be damned.

I am disinclined to believe that the court is willing to render Prop. 108 (1992) null and void to sustain Governor Brewer's AHCCCS restoration plan. Prop. 108 has been the firewall for anti-tax zealots in this state ever since it was enacted. The Arizona legislature has not enacted a new tax in the past 20 years.

The Arizona Constitution allows legislation, in whole or in part, to be referred to voters by petition. So if Medicaid expansion were buried within a reconciliation bill, just the expansion could be referred.

Supporters would then have to initiate the litigation, arguing that it couldn’t be referred because it was part of an appropriations bill and appropriations aren’t generally referable. Opponents could then argue in the alternative: let our referendum go to a vote, or declare that the expansion was unconstitutionally enacted.

At that point, judges wouldn’t be being asked to overturn a legislative enactment but to thwart the right of voters to vote on it. Judges deny it, but such things matter.

Evil bastards! That's actually pretty brilliant. I have to admire that.

For all these reasons, House Speaker Andy Tobin has the right approach: refer the expansion to the voters this fall. Let’s have a clean fight on the issue, rather than a legal brawl over the constitutionality of its enactment.

There is, however, one unfortunate omission in Tobin’s current proposal. One of the benefits of going to the ballot is that it would permit the existing general fund liability for the previous Medicaid expansion, Proposition 204 in 2000, to be extinguished.

Only if that is actually part of the ballot measure referred to the voters. There is no reason why a complimentary measure which is compatible with Prop. 204 (2000) cannot be drafted. Whether it would have the votes in the legislature for referral to the ballot is another matter.

So we are left with two bad options: first, refer AHCCCS restoration as a refrendum to the voters in a costly special election this fall for a plebescite; or second, piss away taxpayer dollars on costly litigation in court, with a substantial risk of loss, and enrich the lawyers at the Goldwater Institute.

I have to agree with Robert Robb: "refer the expansion to the voters this fall. Let’s have a clean fight on the issue, rather than a legal brawl over the constitutionality of its enactment."

Longterm, we need a ballot measure to repeal Prop. 108 (1992), and to throw the radical Tea-Publicans out of office.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

An essential element of the conservative media entertainment complex cult is advancing conspiracy theories in which conservatives are perpetually being persecuted for their whacky beliefs by the big bad government and "librul" media. This is what gives the cult its cohesion, and its sense of tribalism. Conservatives rely on the high priests of the conservative media entertainment complex to tell them what to think, resulting in epistemic closure and a feedback loop.

Too often the corporate "lamestream" media follows the lead of the the conservative media entertainment complex cult, and creates an echo chamber for their talking points.

One talking point that has been stated repeatedly about the IRS "scandal" is the claim that "only Tea Party and Patriot groups were 'targeted' by the IRS" for additional scrutiny of their 501(c)(4) applications for tax exempt status.

The problem with the fact-free world of FAUX News Fraudcasting and the conservative media entertainment complex cult is that this claim is factually false. The corporate "lamestream" media has an obligation to stop repeating this falsehood.

RAW Story reported on the congressional hearing into the IRS "scandal" this past Friday. Republican accidentally debunks GOP narrative at IRS hearing:

During a congressional hearing regarding the IRS on Friday, Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) inadvertently led the head of the IRS to contradict the notion that conservative nonprofits were singled out for scrutiny.

At the hearing, outgoing acting IRS commissioner Steve Miller repeatedly objected to the use of the word “targeting.” He said the so-called “be on the lookout” (BOLO) list was an “inappropriate” organizational tool or “shortcut” that IRS staff used to find potential political cases. Miller claimed the tea party groups would have be subjected to extra scrutiny regardless of the BOLO list.

“If the targeting wasn’t targeting, if the targeting wasn’t based on philosophy, how come only conservatives got snagged?” Roskam confidently asked.

“They didn’t, sir,” Miller responded. “Organizations of all walks and all persuasions were pulled in. That’s shown by the fact that only 70 of the 300 organizations were tea party organizations, of the ones that were looked at by TIGTA [Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration].”

Roskam angrily cut off Miller and asserted his statement was at odds with the inspector general’s testimony, then ended his questioning.

But Treasury inspector general J. Russell George testified during the hearing that no evidence indicated the additional review of the 300 groups was politically or ideologically motivated. He blamed the incident on mismanagement.

Of the 298 groups subjected to additional review, 72 were “tea party” groups, 11 were “9/12″ groups and 13 were “patriots” groups, according to the inspector general’s report.

You keep using that word "only." I do not think it means what you think it means. Less than one-third is not even a majority, but then Tea-Publicans aren't good at math either. Facts simply do not matter in the fact-free world of the conservative media entertainment complex cult.

UPDATE: Reminder from Ed Kilgore at the Political Animal blog. Bordering On a Big Lie:

I hate to keep confusing the “narrative” with facts, but when it comes to the 501(c)(4s), we aren’t talking about tax audits. These were reviews of applications that nobody was required to submit, and that nobody needed to submit unless they were pretty sure they were on the borders of political activities incompatible with tax-exempt status (otherwise, they could just file their tax returns like anyone else and claim tax-exempt status).

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

ABC's Jonathan Karl got caught this past week having cited emails in his reporting that he claimed were directly quoted from the actual emails on Benghazi! Yeah, not so much. It turns out that what Karl cited as actual quotes from the actual emails in his reporting were from summaries prepared by staffers for Republicans in Congress leaked to the media. Those summaries are most charitably "inaccurate," and at worst intentional fabrications. ABC ran the story as an "exclusive" report and touched off a Scandalpalooza last week.

Major Garrett at CBS essentially pantsed Jonathan Karl with his reporting last week, laying side-by-side the actual emails versus the fabricated summaries in Karl's report, and concluded that "There is no evidence [that] the White House orchestrated these changes."

ABC later updated its story, but has not publish a "correction" or any assertion that Jonathan Karl had been duped by his source.

Today Jonathan Karl offered a non-apology apology on CNN -- oddly not on ABC's This Week -- for his reporting. Media Matters reports, ABC's Jon Karl Tells CNN He Regrets Getting Benghazi Talking Points Reporting Wrong.

The bigger story here, also from Media Matters, is this. ABC News & The Whitewater Tactics At The Center Of The Scandal Machine:

Right-wing media have been quick to invoke Whitewater, the real estate scandal that developed during Clinton's first term, as part of their endless quest to scandalize the Obama administration over the tragedy in Benghazi.

And reliance on shady Whitewater tactics - which involved leaking selectively edited transcripts to the media to push forth the scandal -- was on full display this past week, leading to a critical question: how will the media respond to the campaign of press manipulation?

CBS News reported on May 16 that Republican staffers have been selectively and deceptively leaking information to reporters in order to keep the Benghazi "scandal" alive.

As Kevin Drum of Mother Jones explained:

So here's what happened. Republicans in Congress saw copies of these emails two months ago and did nothing with them. It was obvious that they showed little more than routine interagency haggling. Then, riding high after last week's Benghazi hearings, someone got the bright idea of leaking two isolated tidbits and mischaracterizing them in an effort to make the State Department look bad. Apparently they figured it was a twofer: they could stick a shiv into the belly of the White House and they could then badger them to release the entire email chain, knowing they never would.

ABC News, which initially reported that it had "obtained" the actual emails showing greater White House involvement editing the talking points than administration officials had acknowledged, was forced into a slippery acknowledgement that its "exclusive" report was based only on summaries of emails, a method of reporting that journalism experts called "highly problematic ethically" and "sloppy."

ABC's flawed reporting on the emails, based on selective leaks, has led to questions about reporter Jonathan Karl's future, vividly demonstrating the consequences of this type of press manipulation. But whether fellow journalists - and viewers - will demand accountability from Karl remains to be seen.

* * *

In the 1990s it was David Bossie, at the time an investigator for the House Government Reform and Oversight, who leaked selectively edited transcripts to the press in order to advance the scandal mongering of President Clinton. Bossie was reportedly fired for his role manipulating the press.

Will the media, which once again saw one of their own get burned by relying on selective leaks in furtherance of a hunting of a president, demand accountability this time?

One brave soul has. Rachel Maddow twice last week roasted Jonathan Karl's nuts and ABC for their scandal mongering reporting based upon fabricated emails from Republican Congressional staffers leaked to the media. Crooksandliars.com has a transcript of this segment (video below). Maddow: Fair Game to Disclose Names of Republicans Who Lied to ABC News:

After taking her viewers through the whole, long, ugly mess with ABC's big "scoop" on the Benghazi emails and the how the story pretty much fizzled out by the end of the week with the discovery that Republicans were responsible for doctoring the supposed quotes from the emails that they published, Rachel Maddow gave her two cents on ABC still protecting the sources who lied to them.

MADDOW: And now, part of the scandal here is a press scandal. You know what? When you get used like this and you end up publishing false information, false quotes, you have to correct it. But the bigger scandal here is not a process matter, not a press matter. There's a very stark fact that somebody in Congress right now, or somebody working for somebody in Congress right now, a staffer, concocted a big lie to try to make the White House look very desperately bad on this Benghazi scandal that they otherwise have not been able to get traction on.

Who told the lie? And a note to my journalist pals who got involved in this scandal. If your source lied to you, they are not actually a source. They are a con artist and you are their victim. It means you don't have to protect them any more. They're not a source.

When you get lied to, when you are a tool of somebody else's deception, when you get lied to, the person lying to you is no longer a source, they are news. Their lie to you is itself news and you can report that news. Republican Congressional offices shopped a false dossier as if it was a White House email. That is a story. The office and the staffers and the members of Congress maybe who did that... that is news. And if you know who it is, you can say so.

Brian Beutler at Talking Points Memo has more on The Backstory on Those ‘Doctored’ Benghazi Emails .

The real Benghazi! scandal is the fabricated emails, who leaked them to the media, and media scandal mongering. That scandal does not seem to interest the media villagers -- partly because it means they would lose access to Republican politicans and staffers if they identified the culprit(s), and partly because it involves their own lack of professionalism and judgment.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Saint Ronnie Reagan's speechwriter and Special Assistant to the President, Peggy Noonan aka the "Nooner," the one who wrote those speeches for Ronnie about how "I didn''t know nuthin' bout no arms to Iran for hostages!", and "I didn't know nuthin' bout no Oliver North running an illegal war in Nicaragua out of the basement of the White House!," has been slipping from reality into dementia for quite sometime now, just like Saint Ronnie, but the "Nooner" has completely lost touch with reality this week.

As Hunter wrote at Daily Kos this week, Peggy Noonan takes a turn in the conspiracy theory funhouse:

Leave it to Peggy Noonan to chew the scenery on this one. She'd like you to know that the president is "not unconnected" to IRS mismanagement and the FBI fetching AP phone records because of leadership osmosis. She also is fairly certain that the IRS business is some sort of Orwellian scheme to oppress conservatives, which would be fine and all if that's what happened.

This is what the "Nooner" wrote in the the op-ed pages of Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal this week, This Is No Ordinary Scandal:

We are in the midst of the worst Washington scandal since Watergate. . .

The president, as usual, acts as if all of this is totally unconnected to him. He's shocked, it's unacceptable, he'll get to the bottom of it. He read about it in the papers, just like you.

But he is not unconnected, he is not a bystander. This is his administration. Those are his executive agencies. He runs the IRS and the Justice Department.

A president sets a mood, a tone. He establishes an atmosphere. If he is arrogant, arrogance spreads. If he is too partisan, too disrespecting of political adversaries, that spreads too. Presidents always undo themselves and then blame it on the third guy in the last row in the sleepy agency across town.

Wow, really? The conspiracy theory world where conservatives are perpetually being persecuted for their whacky beliefs by the big bad government and "librul" media meme again? "We're all persecuted and martyrs for Christ." This is what the conservative media entertainment complex cult is going with?

First of all, "the worst scandal since Watergate"? The "Nooner" conveniently leaves out of her op-ed any mention of the Iran-Contra scandal, which is odd because she was there. She also fails to mention the Bush-Cheney regime's unnecessary and illegal war in Iraq, and their illegal wiretapping and "sneak peak" searches of American citizens, and their war crimes for illegal torture, rendition to black site prisons, and indefinite detention of prisoners. As I recall, the "Nooner" was an apologist for all these illegal actions. In her desire to present conservative agitprop, the "Nooner" has lost any sense of perspective or fairness.

Secondly, the "Nooner's" line that "The president, as usual, acts as if all of this is totally unconnected to him. He's shocked, it's unacceptable, he'll get to the bottom of it. He read about it in the papers, just like you," is essentially the speech that she wrote for Saint Ronnie Reagan that I mocked above. Pot, meet kettle.

The "Nooner" is a regular panelist on ABC's This Week Sunday bobblehead show, but today she was a guest on NBC's Meet The Press Gregory. Now, there is no finer example of a Beltway media villager than David Gregory, but to his credit, he wasn't going to take any of this crap from the "Nooner" today.  Gregory Points Out Noonan's Iran-Contra Omission in Scandal Mongering Op-Ed:

So just how overblown does your scandal mongering and false equivalencies have to get before they're even too much for NBC's David Gregory to stomach without some push back? Peggy Noonan found out this Sunday on Meet the Press, after writing an op-ed this week which called these trumped up "scandals" the media has been fixating on "the worst Washington scandal since Watergate."

As Gregory pointed out to Noonan, the administration she worked for well after the Watergate scandal had that pesky little problem called Iran-Contra that she somehow forgot to mention in her article. Of course, reminding her about St. Ronnie's problems didn't seem to phase her one bit:

GREGORY: Peggy Noonan, you wrote something this week that really struck me in your column on Friday. And I want to put it up on the screen and ask you about it. “We are in the midst,” you write, “Of the worst Washington scandal since Watergate. The reputation of the Obama White House has, among conservatives, gone from sketchy to sinister, and, among liberals, from unsatisfying to dangerous. No one likes what they’re seeing. [The IRS and AP scandals] have left the administration’s credibility deeply, probably irretrievably damaged. They don’t look jerky now, they look dirty. The patina of high-mindedness the president enjoyed is gone.”

I have to say, Peggy, what you don’t talk about here is an administration for a man that you worked for who led the Iran-Contra scandal where they ran a secret war and lied to Congress and all the rest. Over-- overstatement here?

PEGGY NOONAN: I don’t think so. I think this is-- what is going on now is all three of these scandals makes a cluster that implies some very bad things about the forthcomingness of the administration and about its ability to at certain dramatic points do the right thing. And I got to tell you, the-- you-- everyone can argue about which of these things is most upsetting, but this IRS thing is something I’ve never seen in my lifetime. It is the revenue gathering arm of the U.S. government…

GREGORY: Peggy-- Peggy, wait a second.

NOONAN: …going after political…

GREGORY: Richard Nixon specifically directed people to investigate to audit people. I mean, of course, we’ve seen it in our lifetime.

NOONAN: Understood but [but, but . . . ]

It is clear that the "Nooner" has no problem lying her ass off and will keep right on lying even when she is caught red-handed doing agitprop. So why is this woman allowed on the Sunday morning bobblehead shows? She has no credibility. Do these so-called news shows have no standards for their guests? (You don't need to answer that.)

The editorial board of the Washington Post, which includes that has-been Bob Woodward sitting next to the "Nooner" in the video above, who is openly hostile to President Obama, had a retort to this conservative agitprop in an editorial opinion the other day. Obama a new Nixon? Oh, get serious. Matthew Dallek writing at the Post is equally dismissive. Rough times for Obama? Sure. But Nixonian? Please.

Nate Silver took apart the "Nooners" other fanciful assertion that conservative were being targeted for IRS audits. "Some conservatives allege that the I.R.S. also targeted individual taxpayers, but a handful of anecdotal data points are not worth much in a country of 300 million." Audit Allegations Show a Flawed Statistical Thinking.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Press release from Move to Amend. Arizona Barnstorming Tour with Ashley Sanders.

Arizona Barnstorming Tour with Ashley Sanders

May 10, 2013

Move to Amend is barnstorming through Arizona and we're coming to a town near you! Catch a talk in your area, and learn how you can get involved in the campaign to end corporate personhood and demand real democracy!

Ashley Sanders is touring Arizona for Move to Amend in an effort to build connections, inspire activism, and reveal the origins of corporate power in America.

Ashley Sanders is a long-time community activist from Salt Lake City, Utah. She began political work doing campus organizing against the Bush administration and then worked to build third parties as the Nader spokesperson in 2008. She worked for Democracy Unlimited (a Move to Amend Founding Organization) in 2009 and helped to form the Move to Amend coalition. She founded the Salt Lake affiliate of Move to Amend and serves on the National Leadership Team.

Move to Amend is a national coalition of over 285,000 people and organizations whose goal is to amend the US Constitution to end corporate rule and get money out of politics.

Sanders tells the history of the American Constitution as it pertains to Corporate Personhood and illegitimate but legal corporate constitutional rights, followed by facilitated discussion/Q and A. "Organizing to End Corporate Rule & Get Money Out of Politics" aims to help local folks understand how they can work to abolish corporate personhood and establish a government of, by, and for the people.

All events are free & open to the general public. We appreciate your donations to help us finance these tours, but no one will be turned away for lack of funds.

Click the links below for more info about each event, including location and organizer contact:

• Wednesday, May 22nd - Prescott, AZ - Evening Presentation

• Thursday, May 23rd - Phoenix, AZ - Evening Presentation

• Friday, May 24th - Yuma, AZ - Evening Presentation

• Sunday, May 26th - Tucson, AZ - Afternoon Presentation

If you are planning to attend, please post on our rideshare board so that folks can get together to carpool to the events.
www.ridebuzz.com/movetoamend

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Announcement from the Pima County Democratic Party:

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Announcement from the AZ AFL-CIO, PALF, IBEW 570, Tucson PDA, and Border Action Network:

WHAT: Join Arizona Advocacy Network Foundation to expose how lobbyists and Big Money buy favor with officials at the our expense. We begin with a special showing of Bill Moyers’ United States of ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council), exposing how Big Money uses campaign cash and freebies to buy access to OUR tax dollars for greater profit at the expense of jobs and voter priorities. We then highlight important bills being voted on by the legislature and Congress on Clean Elections, other political anti-corruption/conflict of interests bills, voting rights and election administration. Learn more about our March 18, 2013 U.S. Supreme Court hearing to defend every eligible citizen’s right to register to vote without the barriers Arizona politicians keep in place.

WHEN: Saturday, June 1, 2013

Check-in 10:00 a.m. - Film begins 10:30 a.m. - Lunch and Legislative Update 11:30 a.m.

WHERE: IBEW 570 Union Hall, 750 S. Tucson Blvd., Tucson

This event is FREE, but registration is required.

REGISTER: Facebook Page

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Event announcement from the Pima Area Labor Federation:

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Announcement from Legislative District 10 Democrats:

LD 10 Presents the 1^ST Annual Spring

Ice Cream Social with Political Bingo

Saturday, June 1, 1-4 PM, Pima County Democratic Party Headquarters, 4639 E. 1^st Street, Tucson 85711 (Swan and Speedway)

Cost is only $10 or $15 at the door, includes plenty of ice cream and bingo fun playing for your favorite legislators and MEETING THEM AS WELL!!

Contact Steve Gall, Fundraising Chairman, stevejgall@hotmail.com or (520) 777-3000

Pay online: https://secure.actblue.com/page/springicecream

Paid for by LD10-2012 Pima Democratic Committee - Paul Olson, Chair - Bob Clark, Treasurer

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Announcement from the Cochise County Democratic Party:

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Announcement from Congressman Grijalva:

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.

Political Calendar For The Week of May 19, 2013:

Monday, May 20, 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 speaker is Diana Rhoades, Chair of Tucson Chapter of U.S. Green Building, on “Turning our schools green.” Next Week: Dave Cullier, Ph.D., Director and Associate Professor, U of A Journalism, on “Words that kill: swaying and death thoughts.”

Monday, May 20, 6:30 p.m.: Saguaro Eastside Democats meeting, at the New Spirit Lutheran Church, 8701 E. Old Spanish Trail (on the northeast corner at Camino Seco). The meeting begins at 6:30 p.m. with light refreshments and time for socializing. The formal program will begin at 7 p.m. Featured speaker is Serah Blain, the Executive Director of the Secular Coalition for Arizona (SCA), who will speak on the separation of church and state. SCA is a political advocacy organization working to defend secular principles and to safeguard the wall of protection between church and state in Arizona. All meetings of SED are free and open to the public. You do not have to be a member to attend. For more information please contact Pat Wiedhopf at (520) 850-6755.

Tuesday, May 21, 11:00 a.m.: Democratic Women of Southeastern Arizona meeting, at the Pueblo Del Sol Country Club, 2770 E. St. Andrews Drive, (Sierra Vista). Featured speaker is Cochise County Supervisor Ann English, on the topic of Cochise County concerns and plans, as well as a follow-up on the election changes. The lunch is $15.00. Please reserve your seat with Patricia Hickey at 520-459-1054 or 520-456-5596 or email jopath54@live.com.

Tuesday, May 21, 6:30 p.m.: Legislative District 9 meeting, at the Northwest Medical Center (in the La Paloma Urgent Care Community Classroom), 4001 E. Sunrise Drive. For more information please contact Brian Clymer at brianclymer@yahoo.com or (520) 297-3539.

Tuesday, May 21, 6:30 p.m.: Oracle Democrats meeting, at the Oracle Fire Department, 1475 W. American Avenue (Oracle). For more information please contact Renee Barbaree at reba520@q.com or (520) 896-9054.

Wednesday, May 22, 6:00 p.m.: Drinking Liberally, at The Shanty, 401 E. 9th Street (at 4th Avenue). Featured speaker is Nancy LaPlaca, exploratory committee candidate for the Arizona Corporation Commission. Contact: www.livingliberallytucson.org.

Thursday, May 23, 3:00 p.m.: Sunflower Democrats meeting, at the Rock 'n' Java, 7555 W. Twin Peaks Road in Marana (corner of Twin Peaks and Coachline Road). For more information please contact Ralph Perillo at reperillo@hotmail.com.

Thursday, May 23, 7:00 p.m.: Heritage Highlands/Dove Mountain Democrats meeting, at Heritage Highlands Clubhouse, 4949 W. Heritage Club Blvd. (Marana). For more information please contact Sandra Tiffany at stiffany60@mac.com.

Saturday, May 25, 9:00 a.m.: Rita Ranch Fun Days, at Purple Heart Park on Rita Road. LD 14 Democrats will be tabling for voter registration and information at this event. For more information contact either Jean Vickers at jean.vickers@cox.net or 520-300-4322 or Jan Kalthoff at clemjan@attglobal.net or 520-885-9005.

Saturday, May 25, 10:00 a.m.: Northern Cochise County Democratic Club meeting, at the Benson City Council Chambers, 120 W. 6th Street (Benson). For more information please contact Mark Suagee at (520) 586-9153 or Maria Troutner at (520) 212-5288.

Saturday, May 25, 10:00 a.m.: Legislative District 2 Town Hall, at the Sahuarita City Council Chambers, 375 W. Sahuarita Center Way (Sahuarita). Sen Linda Lopez and Reps. Andrea Dalessandro and Rosanna Gabaldon will provide an update on the legislative session and answer questions. For more information please call 1-800-352-8404.

Saturday, May 25, 2:00 p.m.: Legislative District 11 meeting, at the Mountain Vista Unitarian Universalist Church, 3601 W. Cromwell Drive (Tucson). For more information please contact Jo Holt at jomholtaz@gmail.com. Find us at www.AZLD11Dems.org.

For additional political calendar items see the Arizona Democratic Party: Calendar.

Special Announcements:

DCSRA Discussion Group

Wednesdays, 10:00 a.m.: Democratic Club of the Santa Rita Area hosts a Current Events Discussion Group at the DCSRA Headquarters, Continental Shopping Plaza, 240 W. Continental Road (exit 63), Green Valley. 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 Pam Duchaine at pamduchaine@gmail.com.

Drinking Liberally

Wednesdays, 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.

Monday, May 27: Memorial Day.

Monday, May 27, 6:00 p.m.: Legislative District 3 meeting has been CANCELED this month due to conflict with Memorial Day. For more information please contact Luis Gonzales at (520) 594-5500.

Tuesday, May 28, 11:30 a.m.: Blue Tuesdays Luncheon Forum, at the Starfire Golf Club, 11500 N. Hayden (Scottsdale). Featured speaker is Felicia Rotellini, Democratic candidate for Attorney General. Please RSVP on Facebook at Blue Tuesday Luncheon Forum.

Wednesday, May 29, 3:00 p.m.: Community Forum on Health Care for Women and Children, at the El Pueblo Neighborhood Center, Seniro Center Multi-Purpose Room, 101 W. Irvington Road (Tucson). Please join Congressman Raúl M. Grijalva, including national and community health center experts, to discuss health care reform updates and opportunities for improving the health of women and children in Arizona. Please RSVP to Adriana Perez at Adriana.Perez@mail.house.gov.

Thursday, May 30, 9:00 a.m.: Breakfast with Congressman Ron Barber, at the Green Valley Democratic Headquarters, Continental Shopping Plaza, 240 W. Continental Road (exit 63), Green Valley. Contributions to Congressman Barber for Congress are encouraged. Please RSVP to Emily Gray at rsvp@ronbarberforcongress.com or (520) 207-0937.

Private for-profit prisons, the facts, the policies and what you can do about it

Thursday, May 30, 6:30 p.m.: Presentation by Dianne Post, J.D., on "Private for-profit prisons, the facts, the policies and what you can do about it," at Cochise County Democratic Committee Headquarters, 1010 E. Fry Blvd. (Sierra Vista). Find out the facts, the policies and what you can do about it. Dianne Post is an attorney who spent 20 years representing battered women and children in family court and then 13 years doing international human rights work primarily on gender-based violence. She is Legal Redress Chair of the Maricopa County NAACP and President of the National Lawyers Guild, Central Arizona Chapter. For more information please contact Pat Fleming at cochisecodems@gmail.com or (520) 458-9467.

Saturday, June 1, 10:00 a.m.: Legislative District 2 meeting, at at the DCSRA Headquarters (upstairs meeting room #248), Continental Shopping Plaza, 240 W. Continental Road (exit 63), Green Valley. For more information please contact Marla Daugherty at (520) 594-5265.

Exposing Arizona's Political Corruption

Saturday, June 1, 10:00 a.m.: PALF and Progressive Democrats of Arizona with the Arizona Advocacy Network host "ALEC Exposed" and a discussion of changes to Arizona's Citizens Clean Elections, at the IBEW Union Hall, 750 S. Tucson Blvd. Check-in 10:00 a.m. - Film begins 10:30 a.m. - Lunch and Legislative Update 11:30 a.m. This event is FREE, but registration is required. REGISTER: Facebook Page.

Cochise County Democratic Party/Northern Cochise County Democratic Club Annual Picnic

Saturday, June 1, 11:00 a.m.-2:00 p.m.: Cochise County Democratic Party/Northern Cochise County Democratic Club Annual Picnic, at Keiller Park, on Bisbee Avenue, south of Rex Allen Drive, in Willcox. The Northern Cochise County Democratic Club members and friends are hosting Cochise County Democratic Committee to combine the general membership meetings, followed by a potluck picnic. Democrats and friends from LD14 Cochise, Graham, Greenlee and Pima County are invited and welcome. Special events will include music by local band "Arizona Southern" and a silent auction.For more information please contact Kathleen Day Cain, president of NCCDC at kathleendaycain@yahoo.com.

LD 10 Spring Ice Cream Social with Political Bingo

Saturday, June 1, 1:00 p.m.: Legislative District 10 Spring Ice Cream Social, at Pima County Democratic Party HQ, 4639 E. 1st Street (one block South of Speedway and West of Swan). Tickets are $10 in advance, $15 at the door. There will be plenty of ice cream and bingo fun playing for your favorite legislators and meeting them as well! For more information please contact Steve Gall at stevegall@hotmail.com or (520) 777-3000. To purchase tickets in advance secure online go to https://secure.actblue.com/page/springicecream.

Saturday, June 1, 1:00 p.m.: Sun City/Vistoso Democrats meetings are on summer hiatus until September. For more information please contact Ben Love at (520) 825-8064.

Monday, June 3, 6:30 p.m.: Pima County Democratic Party Executive Committee meeting.

Fireside Chats with FDR and Eleanor

Tuesday, June 4, 2:00 p.m.: Fireside Chats with FDR and Eleanor, at the Community Performing Arts Center, 1250 W. Continental Road (Green Valley). James and Elisabeth Gooden recreate the Fireside Chats of FDR. A dessert buffet will follow the 90 minute presentation. Ticket prices are $20 basic ticket, $40 sponsor, and $80 patron. Tickets may be purchased by mailing a check made payable th "DCSRA" to: Democratic Club of the Santa Rita Area, P.O. Box 131, Green Valley, AZ 85622. For more information please contact DCSRA HQ at (520) 838-0590.

Tuesday, June 4, 6:00 pm.: Greater Huachuca Area Democratic Club meeting, at the Cochise County Democratic Party HQ, 1010 E. Fry Blvd. (Sierra Vista). Guest speaker is SV CIty Council Member, Tom Reardon. For more information please contact Phil Micheau at ghadc1@yahoo.com.

PALF 3rd Annual Golf Tournament

Saturday, June 8, 7:30 a.m. shotgun start: PALF 3rd Annual Golf Tournament, at the El Rio Golf Course, 1400 W. Speedway Blvd. First come, first served. Includes Golf with cart, lunch and prizes, 4 person scramble. $55 per person or $200 per foursome. Sponsor rates available and tournament brochure advertising rates. Entry form and fee must be received no later than May 31. For more information please contact David Garcia at dgarcia998@aol.com or (520) 850-0156, or Laura Hogan at pimaalf@yahoo.com or (520) 388-4139.

Saturday, June 8, 9:30 a.m.: Tanque Verde Valley Democrats "drop in" meeting, at the Risky Business, 8848 E. Tanque Verde Road. Special guest is Tucson Mayor Jonathan Rothschild, on the pros and cons for annexation. There will also be a discussion about the issues surrounding the city of Tucson. For more information please contact Luci Messing at (520) 591-7615.

Saturday, June 8, 10:00 a.m.: Mule Mountain Democratic Club meeting, at the Community Y, 26 Howell Avenue (Bisbee). For more information please contact Sandy Hummingbird at (520) 432-7305.

Saturday, June 8, 3:00 p.m.: Democratic Club of the Santa Rita Area meeting, at the DCSRA Headquarters (upstairs meeting room), Continental Shopping Plaza, 240 W. Continental Road (exit 63), Green Valley. Dinah Bear, an environmental lawyer, will give us an update on the status of the Rosemont Mine. A social hour will follow in the downstairs Headquarters. For more information please contact (520) 838-0590 or visit our web site www.gvdemocrats.org.

Greater Huachuca Area Demcoratic Club Wine Tasting Fund Raiser

Saturday, June 8, 4:00 p.m.: Greater Huachuca Area Democratic Club host Wine Tasting fund raiser for CCDC, at the Holiday Clubhouse, Resort Drive, Sierra Vista. The Greater Huachuca Area Democratic Club is hosting a Wine Tasting! We will sample affordable selections, available locally, of reds, whites, and sparkling. Join us for an educational and fun experience. Yummy Canapés and non-alcoholic punch will be available. Proceeds to assist the operations of our CCDC Headquarters. Space is limited to the first 30 guests. Cost is $25.00 per person, tickets available at Democratic Headquarters, GHADC members, or call Joy Mims (520) 803-9637.

Monday, June 10, 7:00 p.m.: Democrats of Oro Valley meeting, at the Oro Valley Public Library, 1305 W. Naranja Drive (SE corner at La Cañada). Featured speaker is Pam Simon on the topic of gun violence. For more information please contact Mike Dayton at teachers12@msn.com or (520) 742-3774, or visit our web site http://www.demsov.org/.

Tuesday, June 11, 3:30 p.m.: Saddlebrooke Democrats meeting, at SaddleBrooke Activities Center, 64518 E. Galveston Lane (Saddlebrooke). For more information please contact Hollace Lyon at Email Us or visit our web site. SaddleBrookeDemocrats.org.

Wednesday, June 12, Noon: Northside Democrats meeting at new location, Mimi's Cafe, 4420 N. Oracle Road (Tucson). Please note this is a new location for the Northside Dems meetings, in a separate building in the Tucson Mall property, SW corner. We will be in the Winery Room, please arrive early to order from menu, admission free. Featured speaker is Sarah Garrecht Gassen, editor/columnist for the Arizona Daily Star. For more information please contact (520) 297-0095 or visit our web site at www.northsidedems.org.

Thursday, June 13, 5:30 p.m.: Pima County Democratic Nucleus Club meeting, at the Viscount Suite Hotel, 4855 E. Broadway Blvd. For more information please contact Martin Bacal at (520) 326-2716.

Friday, June 14: Flag Day.

Tucson 43rd Annual Juneteenth Festival

Saturday, June 15, 10:00 a.m.: Tucson 43rd Annual Juneteenth Festival, at the Donna Liggins Center, 2160 N. 6th Avenue (& Grant Road), Tucson. Free all day fun! Live performances, Kid Zone: train rides, sliding castle, arts & crafts and face painting, food vendors. Free hot dogs and drinks at Noon. Juenteenth historical presentations and exhibit: morning program at 10:30 a.m., afternoon program at 3:30 p.m. Everyone is welcome! For more information please contact Sharif at (520) 27-2742.

Sunday, June 16: Father's Day.

Tuesday, June 18, 11:00 a.m.: Democratic Women of Southeastern Arizona meeting, at the Pueblo Del Sol Country Club, 2770 E. St. Andrews Drive, (Sierra Vista). The lunch is $15.00. Please reserve your seat with Patricia Hickey at 520-459-1054 or 520-456-5596 or email jopath54@live.com.

Tuesday, June 18, 6:30 p.m.: Oracle Democrats meeting, at the Oracle Fire Department, 1475 W. American Avenue (Oracle). For more information please contact Renee Barbaree at reba520@q.com or (520) 896-9054.

Tuesday,June 18, 6:30 p.m.: Legislative District 9 meeting, at the Northwest Medical Center (in the La Paloma Urgent Care Community Classroom), 4001 E. Sunrise Drive. For more information please contact Brian Clymer at brianclymer@yahoo.com or (520) 297-3539.

Wednesday, June 19, 5:30 p.m.: Pinal County Democratic Party meeting, at Pinal County Democratic Party HQ, 350 N. Main Street (Florence). For more information please contact Henry Wade at hsefndr@aol.com or (602) 619-4440.

Wednesday, June 19, 7:00 p.m.: Legislative District 10 meeting, at Pima County Democratic Party HQ, 4639 E. 1st Street (one block South of Speedway and West of Swan). For more information please contact Paul Olson at ld10dems@gmail.com or (520) 791-2965.

Thursday, June 20, 6:00 p.m.: Casa Grande Democrats meeting, (location varies). For more information please contact Jack Guthrie at democratsofcasagrande@gmail.com and Like Us on Facebook.

Friday, June 21, 2:00 p.m.: Democratic Women in Action and the Democratic Club of the Santa Rita Area host Sam Wercinski and the Arizona Action (AZAN) Network for a prrsentation of PBS' Bill Moyers Special about ALEC, at the Joyner Green Valley Library, 601 N. La Canada Drive (Green Valley). Free of charge, open to the public. For more information please contact Laurie Cirrincione at cinkster54@q.com or (520) 625-3133.

Saturday, June 22, 2:00 p.m.: Legislative District 11 meeting, at the Mountain Vista Unitarian Universalist Church, 3601 W. Cromwell Drive (Tucson). For more information please contact Jo Holt at jomholtaz@gmail.com. Find us at www.AZLD11Dems.org.

Monday, June 24, 6:00 p.m.: Legislative District 3 meeting, at the Joel Valdez Main Library, 101 N. Stone Avenue (parking under the library). For more information please contact Luis Gonzales at (520) 594-5500.

Thursday, June 27, 3:00 p.m.: Sunflower Democrats meeting, at the Rock 'n' Java, 7555 W. Twin Peaks Road in Marana (corner of Twin Peaks and Coachline Road). For more information please contact Ralph Perillo at reperillo@hotmail.com.

Thursday, June 27, 7:00 p.m.: Heritage Highlands/Dove Mountain Democrats meeting, at Heritage Highlands Clubhouse, 4949 W. Heritage Club Blvd. (Marana). For more information please contact Sandra Tiffany at stiffany60@mac.com.

Friday June 28, May 25, 10:00 a.m.: Northern Cochise County Democratic Club meeting, at the Rose Allan Senior Learning Center, 990 Scott Avenue (Wilcox). For more information please contact Mark Suagee at (520) 586-9153 or Maria Troutner at (520) 212-5288.

Thursday, July 4: Independence Day.

Pima County Democratic Party fundraiser at The Gaslight Theater

Saturday, July 27, 7:00 p.m.: The Pima County Democratic Party presents a fundraiser at The Gaslight Theater, 7010 E. Broadway, featuring "The Incredible Spider-Guy." Fun for the whole family. Tickets are $30 per person. Seating is limited, so order your tickets today! Buy your tickets HERE, or send your check made payable to The Pima County Democratic Party to: P.O. Box 40211, Tucson, AZ 85717. The deadline for ticket purchases is July 5. All tickets will be held at the door. For more information, please contact Elaine Lim at 795 -3909 or microrpcv@yahoo.com.

Pinal County Democratic Party Gala Dinner - Save the date!

Saturday, August 10, 5:30 p.m.: Pinal County Democratic Party Gala Dinner, at The Property in Casa Grande. Keynote speaker is Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick. Details TBA. For more information please contact pinaldemocrat@gmail.com.

Democratic Women in Action host Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick- Save the date!

Saturday, August 24: Democratic Women in Action hosts Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick, at the Desert Diamond Casino (Pima Mine Road). 3-course meal, wine and beer cash bar. Tickets $35 per person. More details TBA. For more information please contact Laurie Cirrincione at cinkster54@q.com or (520) 625-3133.

50th Anniversary of the March on Washington - Save the Date!

Wednesday, August 28: Citizens from across the country will converge upon our nation’s capital to commemorate and celebrate the historic March On Washington which occurred 50 years ago on August 28, 1963, at which the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered his "I have a dream" speech. For more information go to 50thanniversarymarchonwashington.com, and like us on Facebook for updates.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Craig McDermott posted about the upcoming week in the legislature, and covered the Medicaid (AHCCCS) restoration and budget which moves to the House this week.

The Senate held the omnibus elections bill last week from its marathon appropriations bills session. The omnibus elections bill is likely to be scheduled for action in the Senate before the end of this week.

After a cursory review of SB 1493, it appears to me that Sen. Michele Reagan (R-Scottsdale) and Rep. Michelle Ugenti (R-Scottsdale) have abandoned earlier attempts to modify their so-called election "reform" bills to address the complaints of voting rights groups and Democratic legislators, and are now sticking with the earlier versions approved in committee in an attempt to ram these unnecessary and counter-productive measures through the legislature.

This is a middle-finger salute to voting rights groups and Democrats. It moves Arizona backwards on voting rights.

Each of the measures standing alone attracted unified opposition from Democrats and enough Republican opposition to stall these bills in the legislature. By combining all of these measures into a single omnibus bill and tacking it onto the package of appropriations bills, Senate President Andy Biggs was hoping to strong-arm this bill through the Senate by insisting on party unity. That tactic failed on the appropriations bill for Medicaid (AHCCCS) restoration, and the omnibus elections bill was held from consideration.

Your senators need to hear from you now. Pick up the phone and call your state senator to oppose SB 1493. The Senate directory is here: http://www.azleg.gov/MemberRoster.asp?Body=S. Keep calling them until this awful bill is defeated.

By Craig McDermott, cross-posted from Random Musings

What started out as a quiet week last week became colorful in a hurry when the Arizona Senate passed a package of budget bills, including provisions for Medicaid expansion.

Now the whole package is scheduled to go over to the House for consideration.

As of this writing, there isn't anything in terms of committee agendas or floor calendars posted for the coming week for either chamber, so all that's left to do is speculate a little.

1.  The bills face a murky path in the House, but speculation is that they are likely to pass.  There just may be a little drama first. 

2.  On Friday's Horizon on KAET (PBS channel 8 in Phoenix), the journalists who were part of their weekly "Journalists Roundtable" speculated that the bills won't be heard (and voted on) until after Memorial Day.  According to them, this coming week may see House Speaker Andy Tobin try to push, or at least go through the motions of pushing, his proposal to put the Medicaid restoration before the voters.

However, while there do seem to be enough votes in the House to pass Medicaid restoration, it doesn't seem likely that there is any real support for putting the question before the voters - mostly because they think it will be approved by the voters anyway, and by a wide margin, making the legislature look worse for passing the buck on an easy decision.

Note: As of now, KAET has not posted Friday's episode of Horizon on its website, but will likely do so on Monday. 

3.  There may yet be a little more drama over this in the Senate.  Standard procedure is that once a bill is passed by one chamber, that bill is sent, or "transmitted" to the other chamber after 24 legislative hours.  Unless one of the senators on the prevailing side of the vote on the bill moves to reconsider, or bring back, the measure within that time.

No motion to reconsider has been made yet, so far as I know, but the possibility remains open for such a motion to be made on Tuesday.

There have been a few whispers of such a move, but it seems unlikely.  While one of them might want to walk back their vote (Michele Reagan looks like that she it trying to be on both sides of this issue), to actually overturn the measure, five of the six Rs who voted for Medicaid restoration would have to change their votes.

While I expect that there is a lot of arm-twisting going on in R-land this weekend, the Republicans who voted for this knew what was coming when they cast their votes, so they're prepared.  I don't expect any changes in the outcome.

Though a few members may show up Tuesday with an arm in a sling. :)

4.  No matter how this turns out, expect a change in the GOP leadership in the AZ Senate.  The Senate Majority Leader (John McComish) and Majority Whip (Adam Driggs) voted for Medicaid restoration and worked to get it passed over the objections of the Senate President (Andy Biggs).  Something's got to give.

Speculation is that by the end of the week, there will either be a new Senate President or a new Majority Leader and Whip.

Predictions for the week; take with a grain of salt - these are more the product of reading tea leaves and making some wild-ass guesses (WAGS) than the product of facts and talks with the players (for some reason, the members of the R leadership in both chambers don't have me on their speed dial lists.  Shocking, I know :) ):

1.  No motion to reconsider in the Senate.  The bills go to the House and are introduced and assigned to House Appropriations.

2.  The chair of that committee, Rep. John Kavanagh, may try to play games with the package, but at most, he'll strip out the Medicaid language in a committee amendment.  If that happens, the change will probably be rejected in the Committee of the Whole, or COW, session consideration of the bill (all committee amendments have to be approved by the COW; normally, that process is pro forma, but this week it could mean something).

3.  The entire package will be approved by the full House by, say, a 34 - 26 margin, on Thursday.

4.  After that, it will depend on what other work gets done during the week.  There are still a few things that have strong support for passage (i.e. - Governor Brewer's sales tax "reform" scheme proposal).  If those are completed, they may just do a marathon session on Thursday and adjourn sine die this week to get the hell out of Dodge...errr...Phoenix...before the Memorial Day holiday.  Otherwise, they'll be back next week, with an eye toward finishing up.  If they are unable to finish their work before the end of next week, they may just sine die anyway,  planning on a quick special session later to finish up the work.

Regardless of how it ultimately turns out (and how accurate my fearless predictions turn out to be :) ), keep your popcorn handy this week.  It's going to be more entertaining than any of formula-based sequel/prequels special effects fests playing at the local multiplex this week.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

According to the stats kept by Scotusblog.com, the U.S. Supreme Court has heard 74 merit cases this term, and issued opinions in 39 of those cases.

This leaves 35 opinions to be announced over the next six weeks before the end of June. Mondays are orders and opinions days, with the exception of Tuesday, May 28, because of the Memorial Day holiday.

There are several cases I am following for decisions expected to be issued late in the term on June 17 or June 24, but one never knows.

There are two voting rights cases. The first is Arizona v. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., (12-71), which involves the question whether the National Voter Registration Act preempts Arizona's Prop. 200 (2004) that requires persons who are registering to vote to show proof of citizenship to register to vote. The federal law requires only an attestation of citizenship, subject to prosecution for false attestation. This is a federal preemption issue.

The "big one" that everyone is waiting for is Shelby County v. Holder, (12-96), which involves the question whether Congress’ decision in 2006 to reauthorize Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act under the pre-existing coverage formula of Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act exceeded its authority.

This is the "preclearance" provision of the Voting Rights Act with which covered states, such as Arizona, must comply because of past history of voter discrimination. Arizona has yet to qualify for the "bail out" provision of the Voting Rights Act because Arizona has not had a record of non-discrimination for more than 10 years.

If Section 5 is struck down, it will be a conservative activist court substituting its judgment for the judgment of Congress, which reauthorized the Voting Rights Act with overwhelming bipartisan support. That would set off a firestorm of protest, and justifiably so.

There is the affirmative action case of Fischer v. University of Texas at Austin, (11-345), which involves the question whether the Court’s decisions interpreting the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, including Grutter v. Bollinger, permit the University of Texas at Austin’s use of race in undergraduate admissions decisions.

There are the two marriage equality cases that could be either a landmark civil rights decision on the magnitude of Brown v. Board of Education overturning the "separate but equal doctrine" of state-sanctioned racial segregration, or the court could opt for a more limited application of its decisions.

There is a growing sense that the Court is likely to strike down the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in United States V. Windsor, (12-307), which involves the question whether Section 3 of DOMA violates the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection of the laws as applied to persons of the same sex who are legally married under the laws of their State. The case arises out of the application of the inheritance tax to a legally married surviving spouse.

There is a separate jurisdictional issue on the question whether the DOJ's agreement with the court below that DOMA is unconstitutional deprives the Court of jurisdiction to decide this case; and whether the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives has Article III standing to be a party in this case.

The other marriage equality case is Hollingsworth v. Perry, (12-144) which involves the question whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the State of California from defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Because of procedural questions involving proper parties and jurisdiction, the court has a way to punt this case without rendering a decision on the merits.

If the court does rule on the merits, the emerging sense is that the court's holding will be limited to the state of California, rather than a landmark decision on the magnitude of Brown v. Board of Education.

However, in the past month the states of Rhode Island, Delaware and Minnesota have enacted marriage equality statutes, bringing the number to 13 states. The State of Illinois is debating a marriage equality bill that could be voted on before the court issues its opinion in June.

Supreme Court Justices are keenly aware of political trends and the momentum behind marriage equality, and they want to be on the right side of history. They do not want to be remembered as the court which adopted the "separate but equal" doctrine justifying state-sanctioned racial segregation in Plessy v. Ferguson. There is still a chance that this could be a landmark decision.

by David Safier

Recent international tests of students have put Finland's schools at or near the top of the rankings. Finnish education has a few traits that should make conservative "education reformers" sit up and take notice. It doesn't give standardized tests to students until high school, and very few even then. Instead of punishing or closing "low performing schools," it puts money and resources into improving student achievement (The usual result is, student achievement improves). And its teachers are drawn from the top 10% of the country's college students unlike the U.S., where teachers tend to come from the middle of the college pack.

A Finnish expert on education, Pasi Sahlberg, has an article debunking the idea that "Great Teachers" are the answer to improving U.S. education. He acknowledges the importance of strong teachers, of course, but the promoters of the "Great Teachers" solution are ignoring more important aspects of our country's education problems.

Sahlberg puts poverty at the top of the list of the concerns the U.S. needs to address to improve its children's education. He cites studies concluding that at most a third of the variation in student achievement is the result of teacher quality, school climate and leadership. The other two-thirds is attributable to factors outside the school. And it's almost universally acknowledged, poverty is the number one factor in low student achievement. Sahlberg compares the U.S. and Finland.

In the United States today, 23 percent of children live in poor homes. In Finland, the same way to calculate child poverty would show that figure to be almost five times smaller. The United States ranked in the bottom four in the recent United Nations review on child well-being.  Among 29 wealthy countries, the United States landed second from the last in child poverty and held a similarly poor position in “child life satisfaction.” Teachers alone, regardless of how effective they are, will not be able to overcome the challenges that poor children bring with them to schools everyday.

There's more to the article, but for me, that's the most important takeaway. Bill Gates can push the "Great Teacher" solution to our education problems and his new high tech teacher evaluation methodology all he wants. But if he and other corporate "education reformers" would look at their own bank accounts compared to the bottom 50% of the country and put their energies towards lowering our shameful poverty rate, that effort would go a lot further toward improving our students' achievement than all their bashing of teachers and traditional public schools.

by David Safier

The NY Times has a good op ed by UCLA law prof Joanna C. Schwartz on the value of malpractice litigation in reducing medical errors. Contrary to the notion that malpractice suits result in people hiding problems, she says it encourages improved practices.

New evidence, however, contradicts the conventional wisdom that malpractice litigation compromises the patient safety movement’s call for transparency. In fact, the opposite appears to be occurring: the openness and transparency promoted by patient safety advocates appear to be influencing hospitals’ responses to litigation risk.

[snip]

[W]hile hospitals historically took an adversarial and secretive approach to lawsuits and error, that has begun to change. In recent years, hospitals have become increasingly open with patients: over 80 percent of hospitals in my study have a policy of apologizing to patients when errors occur. And hospitals are more willing to discuss and learn from errors with hospital staff.

What accounts for these changes? Several factors appear to have overcome historical resistance to transparency, including widespread laws requiring disclosure to patients and confidentiality protections for internal discussions of error. Hospitals have also found that disclosing errors to patients and offering early settlements reduces the costs and frequency of litigation.

My study also shows that malpractice suits are playing an unexpected role in patient safety efforts, as a source of valuable information about medical error. Over 95 percent of the hospitals in my study integrate information from lawsuits into patient safety efforts. And risk managers and patient-safety personnel overwhelmingly report that lawsuit data have proved useful in efforts to identify and address error.

My knowledge on this issue is minimal. When I have questions, my usual go-to guy is Barry Kirschner, a friend and local lawyer. He sent me an email expanding on the op ed.

One of many reasons people have an incentive to drive more carefully is the cost of insurance and the threat of accountability should they be responsible for an accident. There is less irresponsible drinking and driving and risky conduct because of this civil liability.

Doctors have many pressures on them on and off the job. The surgeon who is on call and not supposed to have a drink because of the possibility of working, has extra incentive to do the right thing because of the possibility of civil litigation. It also applies to the surgeon who is on his or her feet for 8-10 hours a day and cannot maintain the type of focus a patient should have when the patients' eyes or spine are at issue. Civil litigation as a possibility also affects the Radiologist, influencing the MD to be that much more certain that all nuances of the image are considered properly and with sufficient time and energy.

I have had no personal involvement in a malpractice case for over 10 years. My very limited experience suggests that the bias against patients who bring suits against doctors overwhelms the fairness of the system.  There are many problems with how things are done. The right wing has long had as a goal the elimination of malpractice suits.  This has the two fold advantage to them of currying favor with insurance companies and doctors, and dealing a financial blow to trial lawyers, generally funders of more progressive causes. But the consumer/patient will suffer with worse outcomes, including quite a few which are catastrophic, if the providers have less concern about civil liability.

Posted by Bob Lord

Imagine that? Huff Po reports that a Fed Board Governor, Sarah Bloom Raskin, has "raised the possibility that rising inequality may restrain economic growth for several years."

I suppose we should be encouraged that someone in a position of modest power is starting to see inequality as a negative. But at the same time, it's stunning how cautious and late to the party she is, and she's supposedly a step ahead of her fellow Fed Board Governors.

Did it really take her this long to start worrying that if wealth and income flow out of the hands of people who buy stuff and into the hands of those who chase speculative investments, the economy might suffer?

“In my view, the large and increasing amount of inequality in income and wealth, which has been an ongoing development for decades, may have exacerbated the crisis,” Fed governor Sarah Bloom Raskin said Thursday in a speech delivered in Washington. “More research is required to determine whether it may also pose a significant headwind to the recovery from the crisis for years to come.”

More research is required? No, Sarah, it really isn't. Call Joseph Stiglitz. He'll tell you all you need to know.

But we have to keep telling ourselves: "This is a good development." Heck, in another decade or so, they might even conclude we perhaps ought to do something about inequality.

Posted by AZBlueMeanie:

Remember back around 2004 the attempt to create a "Buy Blue" list of businesses that are progressive? There was hesitation by many businesses to participate, because they feared the knee-jerk reaction of wingnuts who would boycott their business if they were identified as progressive.

During the Sandra Fluke advertising boycott of the drug adled Rush Limbaugh, I would get requests for a list of his advertisers to boycott. (This boycott is still going strong, by the way, and Rush may be losing his contract with at least one radio network over the loss of advertising dollars).

Rejoice progressive shoppers! Now "there's an app for that." New App Lets You Boycott Koch Brothers, Monsanto And More By Scanning Your Shopping Cart - Forbes:

In her keynote speech at last year’s annual Netroots Nation gathering, Darcy Burner pitched a seemingly simple idea to the thousands of bloggers and web developers in the audience. The former Microsoft programmer and congressional candidate proposed a smartphone app allowing shoppers to swipe barcodes to check whether conservative billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch were behind a product on the shelves.

Burner figured the average supermarket shopper had no idea that buying Brawny paper towels, Angel Soft toilet paper or Dixie cups meant contributing cash to Koch Industries through its subsidiary Georgia-Pacific. Similarly, purchasing a pair of yoga pants containing Lycra or a Stainmaster carpet meant indirectly handing the Kochs your money (Koch Industries bought Invista, one of the world’s largest fiber and textiles companies, in 2004 from DuPont).

At the time, Burner created a mock interface for her app, but that’s as far as she got. She was waiting to find the right team to build out the back end, which could be complicated given often murky corporate ownership structures.

She wasn’t aware that as she delivered her Netroots speech, a group of developers was hard at work on Buycott, an even more sophisticated version of the app she proposed.

“I remember reading Forbes’ story on the proposed app to help boycott Koch Industries and wishing that we were ready to launch our product,” said Buycott’s marketing director Maceo Martinez.

The app itself is the work of one Los Angeles-based 26-year-old freelance programmer, Ivan Pardo, who has devoted the last 16 months to Buycott. “It’s been completely bootstrapped up to this point,” he said. Martinez and another friend have pitched in to promote the app.

Pardo’s handiwork is available for download on iPhone or Android, making its debut in iTunes and Google Play in early May. You can scan the barcode on any product and the free app will trace its ownership all the way to its top corporate parent company, including conglomerates like Koch Industries. Once you’ve scanned an item, Buycott will show you its corporate family tree on your phone screen. Scan a box of Splenda sweetener, for instance, and you’ll see its parent, McNeil Nutritionals, is a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson.

Even more impressively, you can join user-created campaigns to boycott business practices that violate your principles rather than single companies. One of these campaigns, Demand GMO Labeling, will scan your box of cereal and tell you if it was made by one of the 36 corporations that donated more than $150,000 to oppose the mandatory labeling of genetically modified food.

* * *

Buycott is still working on adding new data to its back end and fine-tuning its information on corporate ownership structures. Most companies in the current database actually own more brands than Buycott has on record. The developers are asking shoppers to help improve their technology by inputting names of products they scan that the app doesn’t already recognize.

* * *

There are Buycott campaigns encouraging shoppers to support brands that have, say, openly backed LGBT rights. You can scan a bottle of Absolut vodka or a bag of Starbucks coffee beans and learn that both companies have come out for equal marriage.

“I don’t want to push any single point of view with the app,” said Pardo. “For me, it was critical to allow users to create campaigns because I don’t think it’s Buycott’s role to tell people what to buy. We simply want to provide a platform that empowers consumers to make well-informed purchasing decisions.”

Note: The story reports that there has been such high demand for the app that the servers are having problems keeping up. They are working on the problem, so keep trying.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

This morning I posted:

The worst purveyors of this "Benghazi! Benghazi!! Benghazi!!!" faux scandal have been the new Three Stooges, Sens. John McCain, his puppet boy Little Lindsey Graham, and Kelly Ayotte as "Shemp." They have perpetrated a fraud for purely partisan political retaliation. They besmirched the reputation of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, who has been vindicated by the emails released this week.

The new Three Stooges owe Susan Rice and the American people an apology. They have demonstrated their utter lack of character and judgment to serve in the U.S. Senate. If they had any honor, they would submit their resignations from the U.S. Senate for their indefensible actions.

Others are making the same point. Steve Benen writes today in Rice's rehabilitated reputation:

When Time's Michael Crowley reported this week on what we learned from the disclosure of internal administration emails on Benghazi, it noted three larger takeaways, one of which was "Susan Rice got hosed."

That was true before, but it's even more obvious now. Republicans, led by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), set out to destroy the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations last November, blaming her for Benghazi talking points. The campaign against Rice worked -- she was not nominated for Secretary of State -- but it's now painfully clear she "played no role in crafting the talking points," and simply shared with the public the best information available at the time.

Indeed, our friends at Politics Nation are asking a good question: "Where's the apology for Susan Rice?" The Rev. Al Sharpton added, "The GOP smear campaign against Ambassador Rice was vicious, personal, and wrong. That's why she deserves an apology, but I won't hold my breath."

Susan Rice apparently will receive a consolation in prize.

Insiders with ties to the Obama administration tell The Cable that U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice has become the heir apparent to National Security Advisor Tom Donilon -- a post at the epicenter of foreign-policy decision making and arguably more influential than secretary of state, a job for which she withdrew her candidacy last fall amid severe political pressure.

"It's definitely happening," a source who recently spoke with Rice told The Cable. "She is sure she is coming and so too her husband and closest friends."

"Susan is a very likely candidate to replace him whenever he would choose to leave," agreed Dennis Ross, a former special assistant to President Obama and counselor at the Washington Institute. "She is close to the president, has the credentials, and has a breadth of experience."

by David Safier

A new ad about Jeff Flake's vote against background checks will be playing in Arizona through May 30. It's Caren Teves talking about her son and his fiance who were killed in the Aurora, Colorado, shooting, then showing the letter from Flake saying he supported background checks, which he went on to vote against.

Jeff "Both Ways" Flake continues to try and wriggle his way out of the bad publicity, saying he did vote to strengthen background checks, it's just that . . . (Fill in the incomprehensible blank).

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

It looks like Tucson will have a city council election after all. I was starting to wonder with the filing deadline of May 29 fast approaching. Republican candidates only need a ridiculously low number of signatures to qualify for the ballot (because there are so few Republicans in Tucson):

WARD 3  minimum 123  maximum 245

WARD 5  minimum   69  maximum 137

WARD 6  minimum 183  maximum 365

The Democratic incumbents all filed to run for reelection.

Karin Uhlich (D-WARD 3) was the first candidate to collect the maximum number of petition signatures and has filed to qualify for the City of Tucson's Clean Elections matching funds.

Uhlich will face a rematch with her opponent from four years ago, Ben Buehler-Garcia, who filed this week. Buehler-Garcia tries again to take Uhlich's Ward 3 Tucson City Council seat. Buehler-Garcia turned in the maximum 245 signatures for a Republican candidate in Ward 3. I assume he will be funded by the usual suspect GOP bagmen such as Jim Click and Bruce Ash, and of course, lobbyists from the Rosemont Mine. I'll bet most of his money will come from outside of the city.

Richard Fimbres (D-WARD 5) has his maximum number of signatures, but i am infomed that he is working on the last few Clean Elections contributions he needs to qualify for the City of Tucson's Clean Elections matching funds. If you haven't already contributed, it's time to pony up.

Fimbres will face an unknown political newcomer. Challenger files for Ward 5 council seat:

Michael Polak, who is seeking office for the first time, needed 69 signatures to qualify for the primary ballot. He turned in 131.

Polak, 45, is a Marine Corps veteran and California native who moved to Tucson four years ago while employed by Boeing.

He owns Desert Armory Gun Parts and Accessories.

Ahhh, so he's the NRA guy I've heard about. Funny, isn't he running against the wrong incumbent? Aren't the gun worshipers and fetishists all bent out of shape over Councilman Steve Kozachik and his gun buy-back earlier this year?

It looks like none of them had the cajones to take on Steve Kozachik (D-WARD 6), who has the maximum number of signatures, and has filed to qualify for the City of Tucson's Clean Elections matching funds.

The Tucson City Clerk's office does not indicate any Republican took out papers to run against Kozachik in Ward 6.

So far, there are currently no contested primaries. There is an election contest in only two out of the three wards up for election this year, in two heavily Democratic wards (although the general election vote in November is city-wide). Ho-hum.

This will only benefit Democratic candidates in a Democratic city. There's not much for Republicans to get excited about. Even the "Debbie Downer" Arizona Daily Star has grudgingly had nice things to say about the Tucson City Council of late. Downtown shows promising signs of resurgence, and Cranes, cones, construction workers - downtown Tucson is coming back to life. I am sure they will find something to complain about, however, to keep the advertising dollars from Jim Click rolling in.

The deadline for nominations other than by primary election is also Wednesday, May 29.

The deadline for write-in candidates in a primary election is Thursday, July 18.

The "deadbeat deadline" for write-in candidates for the general election is Thursday, September 26. If you haven't engaged before then, don't even bother.

by Pamela Powers Hannley

The Downtown Tucson Partnership-- like other business groups before them-- has designs on the Ronstadt Transit Center (RTC). Since the early Feb. 5 City Council vote approving a 60-90 day public comment period before throwing the RTC to the dogs... er ... developers,  the Tucson Bus Riders Union held a public forum at the Rialto, compiled and organized hundreds written comments collected at the forum, met with City Councilwoman Karin Uhlich, and participated in collecting 2800 surveys from bus riders. 

When the Ronstadt Transit Center was constructed in 1991, it was billed as a community gathering place. Dance and music performances at the RTC were featured during Downtown Saturday Nights (pre-cursor to Second Saturdays but twice per month in its heyday). At the April public forum, dozens of speakers talked about improving the transit center, making it a focal point for community activities (as it once was), and building community-- not commercial develop-- at the site.

The big question is: in making its decision regarding the fate of the Ronstadt Transit Center, will the City Council listen to the 41-member Downtown Tucson Partnership or the thousands of Tucsonans who have voiced their opinion on this issue?

Today, May 17, a group of transit activists, downtown residents, and members of the Tucson Bus Riders Union will gather at the Ronstadt Transit Center in a community-building exercise. Wear white, bring your musical instruments, signs, and your community spirit to the RTC at 5 p.m. and let's see what happens. Meet under the clock, and don't disrupt the buses. This is a bus-friendly, community event-- not a protest.

For background on the most recent Ronstadt Transit Center struggle, check out stakeholder opinions after the jump.

Downtown for Everyone, Part 1: What Business Wants

Downtown for Everyone, Part 2: What Downtown Neighborhoods Want

Downtown for Everyone, Part 3: What Bus Riders Want

Downtown for Everyone, Part 4: What Tucson Citizens Want

Tucsonans have pushed back unwise development in the past. The proposed downtown Tucson hotel-- financed by the taxpayers-- is a perfect example of the people rising up and telling the City Council what to do... loudly and clearly. The people won that battle in 2010.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Last year, Rep. Michelle Ugenti (R-Scottsdale) sponsored HB 2826 (consolidated election dates; political subdivisions), a bill providing for the consolidation of elections in the fall of even numbered years only. The law will apply to elections in 2014 and thereafter.

The City of Tucson filed its special action for declaratory and injunctive relief on October 10, 2013 in the Pima County Superior Court, City of Tucson v. State of Arizona et al. (Case No. C20126272). The City of Phoenix Intervened as a plaintiff. The case is assigned to Judge James E. Marner.

On Monday, Judge Marner ruled on the motions for summary judgment. (For some reason I am unable to access the case documents online today, so the ruling is not attached).

I have tried to interest our local newspapers The Arizona Dail Star and the Tucson Weekly in reporting on this case, but apparently they no longer have an interest in court reporting. The Arizona Republic today has a report, from a Phoenix-centric perspective, naturally. Phoenix, Tucson fight change in election calendar:

City leaders had sought a decision on the law’s validity and an injunction to prevent it from taking effect while they argue the issue in court. They said the law interferes with a matter of purely local concern: their authority to determine how to conduct elections.

Cities and towns across Arizona have objected to the law and cite a long list of potential consequences, including that local elections would become fiercely partisan or draw little attention at the bottom of a more crowded ballot. The law, signed by Gov. Jan Brewer in 2012, will impact roughly half of the state’s 70 municipalities.

Supporters of the move have said it will increase voter turnout and help some cities and towns save money because they could utilize county elections resources, instead of paying the cost of printing ballots and staffing elections on their own.

In Phoenix, Stanton and four council members — Bill Gates, Thelda Williams, Michael Nowakowski and Daniel Valenzuela — could potentially serve a year beyond their elected terms, which expire in 2015, assuming they stay in office for that long. Each council member represents about 180,000 residents who would have to wait longer to elect their representative.

Tucson filed its lawsuit against the state in October after several months of cities grappling over how they might respond. A few months later, Phoenix joined the case as an intervenor, meaning the city can argue the case, which will impact all Arizona charter municipalities.

Phoenix City Clerk Cris Meyer said the law would require sweeping changes to the city’s election system and do away with the city-focused process voters have requested over the years, particularly the emphasis on a nonpartisan election cycle.

“Commingling of the state’s and Phoenix’s processes, including potentially commingled ballots, diminishes Phoenix’s ability to ensure a pristine process, free of party politics and state or federal issues typically associated with party platforms,” attorneys for Phoenix argued in court documents.

* * *

The city would likely have to abandon its voting-center system, which allows residents to cast an in-person ballot at more than 20 locations starting several days before the election. Arizona holds elections on a single day, and voters have assigned precincts.

* * *

The state Attorney General’s Office contends election alignment has led to a massive increase in voter turnout in Chandler, Scottsdale and Gilbert, which moved their elections from the spring to fall of even-numbered years. For example, 14 percent of Scottsdale registered voters turned out for the city’s March 2006 election, compared with 85 percent in fall 2008, according to court documents.

“The record is clear that election alignment causes dramatic increases in voter turnout and dramatic reductions in overall election costs and cost per vote,” the Attorney General’s Office wrote.

Pima County Superior Court Judge James Marner also denied a motion by the state for a summary judgment to dismiss the case. But Marner said conflicting evidence presented by the state and cities regarding voter turnout and cost savings needs to be heard in court.

Maybe one of our local tee-vee news reporters will find this case worth the trouble of reporting. How about you Bud Foster? How about you Barbara Grijalva? Someone? Anyone? Hello?

by David Safier

The national PAC Democrats for Education Reform (DFER) recently set up shop in Arizona. DFER is a pro "education reform" group funded primarily by hedge fund money that favors school choice, charter schools and vouchers with a bit of teacher union bashing on the side. It has clear connections to conservative groups pushing a nearly identical privatization agenda. By giving campaign cash and support to Democratic candidates and sitting legislators in exchange for them playing nice with conservatives on education legislation, DFER can pull in those few extra votes needed to pass legislation that moves funds toward charters and private schools and away from school districts. The California Democratic Party is concerned enough about the PAC's influence, it passed a formal resolution condemning DFER. For more information about DFER and relevant links, read my earlier post.

DFER Arizona has a State Director and six people sitting on its Board of Advisors. It's an interesting group. Most of them lean toward the moderate to conservative end of the Democratic Party but, so far as I can tell, they're genuine Democrats. The most suspect to me is the State Director, Christina María Martínez. Her connections with the conservative "education reform" movement appear to go beyond what you would expect from a Democrat, including serving as a lobbyist in Arizona for the very conservative American Federation for Children. Martinez and most of the others, no matter their Democratic credentials, have drunk the conservative privatization Kool Aid and want to spread the gospel amongst their fellow Democrats. This makes it even more important to make the group's agenda clear and to let people know who the Director and Board members are since they're often people working alongside us and voting with the rest of us on other issues.

DFER's Arizona State Director is Christina María Martínez. The Board Members, along with their thumbnail descriptions on the DFER website, are:

• Rhonda Cagle, Senior Vice President of Communications, Imagine Schools
• Victor Contreras, South Phoenix Community Leader, Arizona Licensed Realtor
• Mark Cardenas, Arizona State Representatives, LD-13 [Cardenas is actually in LD-19. The website has it wrong.]
• Julie Erfle, Writer and Speaker for Politics Uncuffed
• Mel Hannah, Chairman of Arizona African American Leadership and Legislative Council (AAALLC)
• Jaime Casap, Global Education Evangelist

Below the fold you'll find more details about the players that I've gleaned from Arizonans who know them and from the internet. The descriptions are incomplete, but they're a start.

DFER is closely connected to its conservative counterpart, the American Federation for Children (AFC). In 2011, Martínez was a registered lobbyist for AFC in Arizona. In February, 2012, Martínez spoke in favor of private school tuition tax credits and the Empowerment Scholarship Accounts, Arizona's version of school vouchers, during a State House Ways and Means Committee Meeting.

In October, 2012, at an HCREO Legislative Summit, Martínez moderated a panel discussion, "Public Policy, Parental Choice, and the Landscape for Educational Options," whose panel consisted of an advisor for AFC and a state director for DFER. In a column she wrote on Huffington Post about how important the issue of education is to Hispanic voters, Martínez discussed a poll created jointly by HCREO and the AFC. One of the main points she drew from the poll was, "91% of Latino voters support distributing vouchers and tax credit scholarships should be available in some form."

Rhonda Cagle, Board of Advisors. Cagle is currently a Senior Vice President of Communications for Imagine Schools, a national Charter Management Organization which is, in my opinion, among the worst in the country and one I've written about extensively. Cagle is married to Lorenzo Sierra, a Democrat who ran unsuccessfully in the 2012 Democratic primary in LD-19. Sierra was one of four Democrats running for the two House seats. He and one of the winning candidates, Mark Cardenas, were endorsed by the American Federation for Children (AFC), which gives most of its endorsements and campaign contributions to Republican candidates. The Democrats AFC endorses are in Democrat-majority districts where there are no viable Republican candidates.

Cagle has written that she used to be registered as an Independent and voted for both Democrats and Republicans but has registered as a Democrat since she married Sierra.

Mark Cardenas, Board of Advisors: Cardenas is a first term state representative from LD-19. Like Lorenzo Sierra who lost in the primary, Cardenas was endorsed by the American Federation for Children (AFC), which gives most of its endorsements and campaign contributions to Republican candidates. The Democrats AFC endorses are in Democrat-majority districts where there are no viable Republican candidates.

Victor Contreras, Board of Advisors: Contreras is a realtor who ran for State Senate as a Democrat in 2010 and 2012. In his 2010 race, he received $6,188 in campaign contributions from the American Federation for Children. (In 2010, AFC also gave $12,235 to Al Melvin and $63,153 to John Huppenthal.)

In an Arizona Republic Q&A, Contreras stated, "I support school vouchers because they give parents another option and create more opportunities for students." He attended the February, 2012, House Ways and Means Committee meeting also attended by Christina María Martínez and, like her, supported private school tuition tax credits and the Empowerment Scholarship Accounts, Arizona's version of school vouchers.

On his Facebook page, Contreras stated in January, "Proud to support School Choice and the kickoff to School Choice Week here in PHX and across the country!" Also on FB, he told people they should see the film, "Won't Back Down," a film pushing parent triggers, the conservative legislation that allows parents to convert school district schools into charters.

Julie Erfle, Board of Advisors: Erfle's background doesn't fit neatly with the other board members. She became known when her husband, Phoenix Police Officer Nick Erfle, was killed by an ex-con who was in the country illegally. Officer Erfle's name was invoked by anti-immigration activists in support of SB1070, but Julie opposed SB1070 and is a supporter of comprehensive immigration reform. Other than a post on her blog, Uncuffed, supporting some aspects of performance funding, she has not said or written anything I can find that would put her in the choice/education reform camp. In fact, in another blog post, she comments that charters don't produce better results than traditional public schools, there's no reason to think vouchers will result in better student achievement, and decreased regulation in education can create problems. I haven't found anything she has said or done that would make her a supporter of DFER.

Mel Hannah, Board of Advisors: Mel Hannah has a long list of accomplishments, including being the first African American to serve on the Flagstaff City Council. He has been connected with a wide variety of civic organizations including, in the area of education, Chair of the African American Advisory Council of the Arizona Department of Education and Chair of the Tempe Union High School District Diversity Committee. He is the current chair of the African American Legislative and Leadership Conference (AALLC), an organization founded by State Senator Leah Landrum Taylor. I found no information about Hannah's stances on conservative "education reform" issues.

Jaime Casap, Board of Advisors: Casap is a Google executive working on business development related to K-12 education. He is a fervent advocate of digital learning, which would make him a likely supporter of online learning and blended learning, both approaches advocated by the conservative "education reform" movement. He's a member of the Digital Learning Council founded by Jeb Bush and Bob Wise. He's also a faculty associate at ASU and serves on Arizona’s STEM Education Advisory Board.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Major Garrett, who used to work for FAUX News Fraudcasting for years, left the GOPropaganda machine to go to work for CBS News. Last night on CBS Evening News, Major Garrett put a definitive end to the conservative media entertainment complex cult's "Benghazi! Benghazi!! Benghazi!!!" faux scandal, with this report (transcript by) Josh Marshall: CBS Calls Out GOP For Doctoring Benghazi Emails:

MAJOR GARRETT: Scott, Republicans have claimed that the State Department under Hillary Clinton was trying to protect itself from criticism. The White House released the real e-mails late yesterday and here’s what we found when we compared them to the quotes that had been provided by Republicans. One e-mail was written by Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes. On Friday, Republicans leaked what they said was a quote from Rhodes. “We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation.” But it turns out, in the actual e-mail Rhodes did not mention the State Department. It read “We need to resolve this in a way that respects all the relevant equities, particularly the investigation.” Republicans also provided what they said was a quote from an e-mail written by State Department Spokesman Victoria Nuland. The Republican version notes Nuland discussing: “The penultimate point is a paragraph talking about all the previous warnings provided by the Agency (CIA) about al-Qaeda’s presence and activities of al-Qaeda.” The actual e-mail from Nuland says: the “…penultimate point could be abused by Members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings…” The C.I.A. agreed with the concerns raised by the State Department and revised the talking points to make them less specific than the C.I.A.’s original version, eliminating references to al-Qaeda and affiliates and earlier security warnings. There is no evidence, Scott, the White House orchestrated these changes.

Video below the fold.

Of course, FAUX News Fraudcasting and hate radio will continue to push this faux scandal to its ignorant listeners, but stick a fork in it, it's done.

The worst purveyors of this "Benghazi! Benghazi!! Benghazi!!!" faux scandal have been the new Three Stooges, Sens. John McCain, his puppet boy Little Lindsey Graham, and Kelly Ayotte as "Shemp." They have perpetrated a fraud for purely partisan political retaliation. They besmirched the reputation of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, who has been vindicated by the emails released this week.

The new Three Stooges owe Susan Rice and the American people an apology. They have demonstrated their utter lack of character and judgment to serve in the U.S. Senate. If they had any honor, they would submit their resignations from the U.S. Senate for their indefensible actions.

The corporate "lamestream" media -- in particular ABC News and The Weekly Standard -- which hyped the fabricated GOP summaries of emails last week, also owe the American people an apology. At least CBS News has made its mea culpa.

by Pamela Powers Hannley

"Amid a discussion of the Bible and the Promised Land, the state House voted Tuesday to let Arizonans vote next year on whether they want to be able to challenge the federal government," reported the Capitol Media Services in the Arizona Daily Star.

Both Craig McDermott and the AZ Blue Meanie have written about the SCR1016 vote which would insert a strict constructionist passage to the Arizona Constitution thus setting up the Legislature for future court battles with the feds (their favorite way to waste OUR money) if US government dares to do something not specifically listed in the Constitution by the founding fathers-- like providing universal healthcare, food stamps, Social Security, etc. You know what they're up to.

I would like to point out to the Lege that separation of church and state IS in the US Constitution.

What the heck are you doing discussing the "Bible and the Promised Land" while you are in session? These topics are irrelevant to the conduct of government. Period. Get back to work.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Senator Steve Farley (D-LD 9) provides a special budget edition of The Farley Report UPDATE: Medicaid, Budget Pass Senate:

Here's the brief update I promised you during the last Farley Report:

I have served seven sessions in the Legislature. I have never before experienced a day like today. Together with five brave Republicans -- Majority Leader John McComish, Majority Whip Adam Driggs, Rich Crandall, Steve Pierce, and Bob Worsley, we 13 Senate Democrats amended and passed budget bills to invest in Child Protective Services, K-12 and Higher Education, State Parks and Arts Commission grants, Adult Education and Literacy, and above all, the Governor's Medicaid restoration plan to cover 300,000 more people in poverty, save our hospitals and boost our economy. The bills now move to the House for consideration.

The drama was immense, as this coalition proved our strength in vote after vote and reconsideration after reconsideration as we held firm together, across party lines. Through it all, we stood tall for all our constituents.

This is why I got into public service in the first place -- to create bipartisan, common-sense solutions to make Arizona a better place. Tonight, we actually accomplished that on the floor of the Arizona Senate. After seven years in the minority, losing vote after vote, it was a revelation to be part of a bipartisan moderate majority adopting good amendments, and voting for good budget bills that pass.

This is the type of work the people of Arizona have been waiting for -- we put the partisan games aside to do what is right. I hope and believe that this is a glimpse of a better political future for our state.

Have a wonderful evening. I'm heading back home to Tucson.

Thanks for your faith in me as your Senator. 

Steve Farley

Posted by Bob Lord

Inequality and climate change, two of our three most critical challenges (American imperialism being the third), have one thing in common:

Each report is more stunning (and more depressing) than the previous one. 

The following is an excerpt from Welcome to the Guilded City of New York, an article that appeared in a recent issue of The Nation:

Here is New York in 2013: a city of dazzling resurrection and official neglect, remarkable wealth and even more remarkable inequality. Despite the popular narrative of a city reborn—after the fiscal crisis of the ’70s, the crack epidemic of the ’80s, the terrorist attack of 2001, the superstorm of 2012—the extraordinary triumph of New York’s existence is tempered by the outrage of that inequality. Here, one of the country’s poorest congressional districts, primarily in the South Bronx, sits less than a mile from one of its wealthiest, which includes Manhattan’s Upper East Side. And here, a billionaire mayor presides over a homelessness crisis so massive that 50,000 men, women and children sleep in shelters each night. More New Yorkers are homeless these days than at any time since the Great Depression.

The numbers tell the story. Between 2000 and 2010, the median income of the city’s eight wealthiest neighborhoods jumped 55 percent, according to the Fiscal Policy Institute. Meanwhile, as the cushy precincts got even cushier, median income dipped 3 percent in middle-income areas and 0.2 percent in the poorest neighborhoods.

New York, of course, has always been a city of striking contrasts, but its wealth gap is growing ever more extreme. The richest 1 percent of New Yorkers claimed almost 39 percent of the city’s income share in 2012—up from 12 percent in 1980. The money pouring in at the top of the income brackets has simply pooled there, without trickling down to the bottom or even the middle. This great pooling has occurred as median wages have fallen, the cost of living has increased, and the poverty rate has risen to 21 percent—as high as it was in 1980. As a result, America’s most iconic city now has the same inequality index as Swaziland.

Consider the highlighted passage for a second. Almost 40% of the income in New York flows to the top 1%. The average top one percenter has an income about 66 times that of the average 99 percenter. Before long, half the income in New York will flow to the top 1%. And the rest of the country won't be that far behind. 

So what will come first, an uprising of the masses or a planet on fire?

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

In 2004, a handful of Republican senators joined with Democratic senators to wrest control of the Arizona Senate chamber from an obstructionist Senate President. It hasn't happened since -- until today.

A bipartisan Senate coalition, led by the Republican majority leader John McComish no less, gave tentative approval Thursday to Gov. Jan Brewer’s proposal to restore and expand Medicaid (AHCCCS). Ariz. moves closer to Medicaid expansion:

[The coalition beat back more than a dozen hostile GOP amendments sponsored by Senate President Andy Biggs and Sen. Kelli Ward, in a failed attempt to weaken the measure.]

The measure awaits a formal vote of the full Senate, which is expected to come later today. If it passes, as expected, it’s likely to run up against a buzzsaw in the House, where the fate of Medicaid expansion, and the budget it’s attached to, remain uncertain.

Senate President Andy Biggs, R-Gilbert, a steadfast opponent of the governor’s proposal, fought unsuccessfully to kill it with a slew of amendments, including requiring a two-thirds vote for approval, eliminating a hospital tax that will help pay for expansion, converting all state employee health insurance to Medicaid and repealing expansion if even one Medicaid patient is found to be an undocumented citizen.

* * *

But again and again, two members of Biggs’ leadership team and three other GOP senators stood with the chamber’s 13 Democrats to defeat Biggs’ amendment. Majority Leader John McComish, Majority Whip Adam Driggs and Sens. Rich Crandall, Steve Pierce and Bob Worsley joined Democrats to approve the Medicaid amendment on an 18-12 vote.

“We’re faced with two unpleasant choices,” said McComish, who sponsored the Medicaid amendment. “If we don’t do Medicaid expansion, our rainy-day fund will be totally wiped out.”

One of Biggs amendments was successful, requiring a three-year “sunset” review by the Legislature of the expanded health-care program. That provision also is contained by a package of bills unveiled this week by House Speaker Andy Tobin, R-Paulden.

The Arizona Capitol Times (subscription required) adds, Senate gives preliminary approval to Medicaid expansion:

Whether that wave of momentum carries over into the House next week, when representatives are likely to begin debating the $8.8 billion budget and the expansion of the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment system, remains unclear.

The votes for Brewer’s expansion plan in the House are far less certain than they were in the Senate.

* * *

McComish, R-Phoenix, supported one of Biggs’ amendments: a sunset measure that would repeal Medicaid expansion on Jan. 1, 2017, essentially requiring the Legislature to vote again in four years and decide if the state still wants to continue the program.

* * *

“The only thing we know for sure about the state of Arizona over the next three years is we’re going to lose money if we don’t pass Medicaid expansion. And with the Biggs floor amendment, we know that in three years, we get another crack at it,” he said.

House leaders will likely huddle next week to see what support there is in the chamber for the Senate budget and Medicaid expansion.

* * *

Earlier in the day, Senate Republicans briefly entertained the possibility of blowing up the budget and starting from scratch next week, but budget deals reached by Senate Democrats and a few Republican dissenters forged ahead in approving the $8.8 billion budget – to the dismay of the majority of Republicans.

One by one, Democrats’ amendments were offered, initially rejected, but then approved on division votes in the Senate Committee of the Whole. That was despite the objections of a majority of the Republican caucus, who watched helplessly as Crandall, Pierce and Worsley joined with the minority party to approve most of their wishes.

House Republicans crossed over from their chamber to watch the voting take place, getting a glimpse of what could transpire in their chamber next week.

* * *

Meanwhile, the Democrats succeeded in adopted amendments including $9 million for Child Protective Services, $875,000 for Navajo Technical College and funding for the Arizona State Parks Board and Arizona Arts Commission.

A plea came Ward during the morning caucus for Republicans to unite.

“I would like to see our caucus come together as a caucus,” Ward said. “I’m tired of seeing Republicans picked off to vote for a Democrat budget.”

But Hobbs said Republicans were finally getting a taste of their own medicine. Democratic amendments are routinely shot down by majority vote in the Senate.

“We’ve also been able to show how tenuous their majority is. That’s a win right there,” Hobbs said.

Today was a good day. It was a well-deserved humiliating defeat for Tea-Publican obstructionist Andy Biggs. Enjoy it. And then start calling your Tea-Publican House members to pressure them to vote for this Medicaid (AHCCCS) restoration and expansion bill. Tell them to show the same courage to do the right thing as these five senators showed today.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I have posted about this topic from time to time whenever a member of Congress introduces a bill for a constitutional amendment that would make the right to vote a fundamental constitutional right. This is important, because fundamental constitutional rights are subject to the strict scrutiny standard of review by the federal courts. Currently the right to vote, which is not expressly guaranteed in the Constitution, is generally reviewed under the rational basis standard of review.

Under the strict scrutiny standard of review, most of the attempts to restrict voting rights that we have seen in recent years would not pass constitutional muster.

John Nichols writes at The Nation, Congressmen Seek Constitutional Guarantee of the Right to Vote:

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia made a point of emphasizing during the Bush v. Gore arguments in December 2000 that there is no federal constitutional guarantee of a right to vote for president. Scalia was right. Indeed, as the reform group FairVote reminds us, “Because there is no right to vote in the U.S. Constitution, individual states set their own electoral policies and procedures. This leads to confusing and sometimes contradictory policies regarding ballot design, polling hours, voting equipment, voter registration requirements, and ex-felon voting rights. As a result, our electoral system is divided into 50 states, more than 3,000 counties and approximately 13,000 voting districts, all separate and unequal.”

Mark Pocan and Keith Ellison want to do something about that.

The two congressmen, both former state legislators with long histories of engagement with voting-rights issues, on Monday unveiled a proposal to explicitly guarantee the right to vote in the Constitution.

“The right to vote is too important to be left unprotected,” explained Pocan, who announced the initiative at the state capitol in Madison, Wisconsin, where the Republican state assembly speaker recently announced plans to enact restrictive “voter ID” legislation before the 2014 election. “At a time when there are far too many efforts to disenfranchise Americans, a voting rights amendment would positively affirm our founding principle that our country is at its strongest when everyone participates. As the world’s leading democracy, we must demand of ourselves what we demand of others—a guaranteed right to vote for all.”

Without that clear guarantee, argues Ellison, politicians continue to propose and enact legislation that impedes voting rights. Noting recent wrangling over voter identification laws, burdensome registration requirements and reduced early voting opportunities in various states, as well as a challenge to the Voting Rights Act that is now under consideration by the US Supreme Court, the Minnesota Democrat, who co-chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus, says, “Even though the right to vote is the most-mentioned right in the Constitution, legislatures across the country have been trying to deny that right to millions of Americans, including in my home state of Minnesota. It’s time we made it clear once and for all: every citizen in the United States has a fundamental right to vote.”

If approved by the Congress and then ratified by three-fourths of the states, it would add to the founding document this declaration:

SECTION 1: Every citizen of the United States, who is of legal voting age, shall have the fundamental right to vote in any public election held in the jurisdiction in which the citizen resides.

SECTION 2: Congress shall have the power to enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation.

There is nothing radical about that language. It outlines a basic premise of the American experiment, and a concept that the United States has proudly exported. Indeed, when the US has had a hand in shaping the destinies of other lands, as well as international agreements, the primacy of the right to vote has been well understood and explicitly stated.

* * *

Americans have considered right-to-vote amendments in the past. But the frequency with which contentious debates are erupting nationwide—just this year, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, more than eighty bills to restrict voting have been introduced in more than thirty states—has already inspired significant activism on behalf of constitutional reform.

“The right to vote is the foundation of any democracy,” says FairVote executive director Rob Richie. “Adding an affirmative right to vote to the US Constitution is the best way to guarantee that the government, whether at the federal, state, or local level, cannot infringe upon our individual right to vote. Building support for this amendment offers an opportunity to inspire a twenty-first-century suffrage movement where Americans come together to protect voting rights, promote voter participation and debate suffrage expansion.”

Republicans, of course, will oppose this amendment on the specious grounds of "states rights." They also understand that it will result in the strict scrutiny standard of review, which would bring a halt to their multi-faceted attempts to limit the right to vote, and to make it as difficult as possible,

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

It turns out that the conservative Tea Party and Patriot organizations who applied for 501(c)(4) tax exempt status did so because they were concerned that their activities violated the tax exempt status. They knew that their political activities skirted the legalities for a tax exempt status, so they sought the IRS "seal of approval" (the real IRS scandal).

You see, you do not have to apply for a 501(c)(4) tax exempt status. Steven Benen explains, How to apply (or not) for tax-exempt status:

Noam Scheiber raised an interesting point I hadn't seen elsewhere.

It turns out that the applications the conservative groups submitted to the IRS -- the ones the agency subsequently combed over, provoking nonstop howling -- were unnecessary. The IRS doesn't require so-called 501c4 organizations to apply for tax-exempt status. If anyone wants to start a social welfare group, they can just do it, then submit the corresponding tax return (form 990) at the end of the year. To be sure, the IRS certainly allows groups to apply for tax-exempt status if they want to make their status official. But the application is completely voluntary, making it a strange basis for an alleged witch hunt.

So why would so many Tea Party groups subject themselves to a lengthy and needless application process? Mostly it had to do with anxiety -- the fear that they could run afoul of the law once they started raising and spending money. "Our business experience was that we had to pay taxes once there was money coming through here," says Tom Zawistowski, the recent president of the Ohio Liberty Coalition, which tangled with the IRS over its tax status. "We felt we were under a microscope. ... We were on pins and needles at all times." In other words, the groups submitted their applications because they perceived themselves to be persecuted, not because they actually were. 

Jamelle Bouie added, "This helps explain why the IRS decided to apply scrutiny at all. Applications are unusual, and when you receive a large number of them from a particular set of right-leaning groups, it's bound to raise suspicion. As Scheiber notes, 'The IRS was unexpectedly flooded by dodgy 501(c)4 applications and was at a loss over how to manage them.'"

I have a little background covering tax law as it relates to non-profits, and I'll confess this is new to me. But it turns out, it's true -- 501(c)4 don't have to apply to the IRS; they can simply claim the status and proceed accordingly.

* * *

This seems important rather important. All of these groups sent in applications, overwhelming confused IRS bureaucrats who struggled, not only to deal with the paperwork, but with the ambiguities of tax law as it relates to political groups seeking tax-exempt status.

So, it would appear that the overwhelmed officials, seeing tons of Tea Party groups filing for (c)4 status, started wondering if perhaps these political entities didn't really deserve it. As we know, some liberal groups ran into trouble, too.

The angle I don't understand, though, is why these groups would send in unnecessary applications in the first place. Scheiber's report says the groups were worried about adverse tax consequences down the road, but why would that stop them? If they hoped to influence the elections, by the time they faced after-the-fact scrutiny, the elections would be over.

* * *

Regardless, these details seem to cast the story in a different light. More from Scheiber:

So the crime here had nothing to do with "targeting" conservatives. The targeting was effectively done by the conservative groups themselves, when they filed their gratuitous applications. The crime, such as it is, was twofold. First, in the course of legitimately vetting questionable applications, the IRS appears to have been more intrusive than justified, asking for information about donors whose privacy it should have respected. This is unfortunate and intolerable, but not quite a threat to democracy.

Second, the IRS was tone deaf to how its scrutiny would look to the people being scrutinized, given that they all subscribed to the same worldview, and that they were already nursing a healthy persecution complex. Which is to say, the IRS didn't go about its otherwise legitimate vetting in a very politically-correct way.

Just to clarify, I'm not endorsing a "nothing to see here" argument, and I'd like to see more information about all of this. But these additional details do cast the story in a different light, and raise questions about just how "scandalous" the actions were.

It was the desire of these conservative groups to get the IRS "seal of approval" for their tax evasion, er, tax exempt status that led them to submit an unnecessary application, an unusual event, that the IRS was required by law to review. So the IRS "scandal" was self-inflicted by these conservative groups seeking to evade taxes 'legally."

BY THE WAY: Since an application is not needed and one can operate as a tax exempt non-profit during the application process, any delays in application processing that these organizations are complaining about did not result in any actual harm -- they were still operating as a tax exempt non-profit.

The most you can say is that extra scrutiny from the IRS in trying to do its job thoroughly may have constituted "harassment," but then that would be a matter of perspective. Of course a paranoid anti-government, anti-tax organization is going to perceive that it was harassed by the big bad "guvmint." That's its whole purpose for existence.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Former New York Times reporter and Pulitzer Prize winner David Cay Johnston, a columnist for Tax Analysts, and who teaches tax and regulatory law at Syracuse University Law School, explains The other IRS scandal : Columbia Journalism Review:

The burgeoning “scandal” over how the IRS chose for review 75 applicants for tax-exempt status puts on full display an unfortunate tendency in journalism—to quote people accurately without explaining the underlying context. Yes, it is as wrong for IRS employees to select groups to scrutinize based on their names as it is for police to stop and frisk young people based on the color of their skin. Still, the facts here are not so black-and-white as with racial profiling.

There is a scandal in all of this—several, actually, and some are more significant than the one that is getting all the attention. As the story unfolds, here are some important points to keep in mind:

• Missing from much coverage is the relevant recent history—the role of the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision and how it prompted a deluge of requests from new organizations seeking tax-exempt status under tax code Section 501(c)(4) as “social welfare” organizations—despite the fact that many of these are blatantly political operations.

• Congress requires the IRS to review every application for tax-exempt status to weed out organizations that are partisan, political, or that generate private gain. Congress has imposed this requirement on the IRS, and its predecessor agencies, since 1913.

• When it comes to 501(c)(4) organizations, what the IRS is supposed to do is draw a distinction between groups that are “primarily engaged” in politics and groups that really are primarily engaged in “social welfare”—somehow “promoting the common good and social welfare of the community.” It’s kind of mushy. Brad Plumer has a good explainer about this on The Washington Post’s Wonkblog.

• The first scandal here, meanwhile, is that the social welfare tax exemption is being used by existing 501(c)(4) organizations, including some very large ones, to promote partisan political interests—the very activity Congress has explicitly prohibited for a century. The New York Times, after a weak political piece on Saturday, had a clear and useful explainer about this on Tuesday.

• Also worth pointing out: None of the [Tea Party] organizations that the IRS scrutinized as a result of the ill-considered screening-by-name regime was denied tax exempt status.

• The second—and widely ignored—scandal in this unfolding story is that the IRS is drowning. Congress is demanding that the agency do more and more with less and less, as we have reported here and elsewhere. As David Levinthal reported Tuesday at the Center for Public Integrity:

The IRS’ Exempt Organizations Division, which finds itself at the scandal’s epicenter, processed significantly more tax exemption applications in fiscal year 2012 by so-called 501(c)(4) “social welfare” organizations — 2,774 — than it has since at least the late 1990s.

That compares to 1,777 applications in 2011 and 1,741 in 2010, he reported.

Meanwhile, in real terms the IRS budget has been cut 17 percent per capita since 2002, even as Congress has piled on other new duties, such as hunting for offshore accounts, dealing with the complexities of the Affordable Care Act, and other expanded obligations.

To hear the IRS’s bureaucrats tell it, it is this combination of a flood of new work and the challenge of reduced manpower that prompted what an inspector general’s draft report on this problem[.]

* * *

Meanwhile, maybe reporters could investigate this: Karl Rove, the Republican strategist, initiated the use of the tax exemption for 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations to promote candidates and causes when he formed American Crossroads in 2010. He in turn inspired a Democratic operative—Bill Burton, former deputy press secretary to President Obama—to do the same, starting Priorities USA in 2011.

Are these organizations primarily political? Here is how Open Secrets described Rove’s 501(c)(4) operation and its political influence and ties:

American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS, both formed in 2010, are the heavy hitters of the multicandidate outside spending groups. They were started and continue to operate in consultation with GOP operatives Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie. American Crossroads, a super PAC, and GPS, a 501(c)(4) that isn’t required to disclose its donors, spent more than $70 million that year, according to one of its officials, though they only reported spending a little more than half that to the Federal Election Commission. Steven Law, former general counsel of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and chief of staff to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, is president of both groups. The groups raised $51 million in 2011, and have said they plan to spend much more than that in the 2012 elections.

Consider that in the context of a 1963 federal appeals court, which ruled that to qualify for tax exemption under 501(c)(4), “the organization must be a community movement designed to accomplish community ends.”

A couple of smaller points: Many news organizations also reported that the IRS wanted the names of donors, indicating (or quoting organizations as saying) that this is improper. Actually, disclosing donors to the IRS is required of most tax exempt organizations on Form 990 Schedule B, as Lerner told reporters Friday. However, Schedule B is not made public by the IRS, while Form 990 is. (The IRS did, improperly, release some donor information to ProPublica, as it reported here and here.)

After the publication of this post, the Inspector General's report disclosed that liberal groups were also subjected to extra scrutiny, and at least one group, Emerge America, was denied tax exempt status. Report: The IRS also targeted at least three liberal groups. This tends to undercut the crybaby persecution and victimhood meme from the conservative media entertainment complex cult.

Posted by Bob Lord

What I guessed would be an obscure blog post last week regarding the Phoenix CD8 campaign became far more serious when Stewart's general consultant, Mario Diaz, acknowledged it in three separate tweets last Thursday. Remarkably, Diaz thought it a good idea to raise awareness of blatantly disparaging remarks Marie Rose Wilcox, a Warren Stewart supporter, made about Kate Gallego, one of Stewart's opponents. Then, after I responded to his tweets in a second post, Diaz acknowledged that post in yet a fourth tweet.

Now, one of Arizona's premier bloggers, Donna at Democratic Diva, has posted on the subject:

As for Pastor Stewart, he is known for having a very traditional view of marriage, judging from statements he made condemning same-sex marriage in the strongest possible terms last fall (they’ve been scrubbed from his church’s website but can still be found elsewhere). A woman in a straight marriage taking her husband’s last name is about as traditional as it gets. I should think Stewart, of all people, would approve of that.

At any rate, Stewart cannot claim ignorance of Wilcox’s inflammatory remarks since he was present at the telephone town hall when she said them and his consultant then doubled down on supporting both him and Wilcox in response to Lord’s posts. I get that tempers flare in campaigns and sometimes people involved in them blurt out inappropriate things. The thing for Stewart, Wilcox, and Diaz to do right now is to apologize to Kate Gallego for that defamatory accusation against her. The longer they remain silent on it the more it looks like a deliberate tactic, once shouted at a town hall and now muted to a whisper campaign.

Diaz's acknowledgment of my posts makes a big difference.

Nor can Stewart remain silent, for if he does, his silence will speak volumes about his character or, more precisely, lack of character.

This is no longer about Marie Rose. Nor is it about Mario Diaz, although his tweeted statement that he "stands with the Pastors, Marie Rose Wilcox and Warren Stewart based on their collective investment in the commuinty" is ludicrous. Investment in the community, Mario, does not place one beyond reproach. If any politician or public figure acts or speaks inappropriately, he is to be called out for it. There are no exemptions in politics. 

At this point, it's about Warren Stewart, and his seeming refusal to address clearly outrageous remarks by someone closely affiliated with his campaign. How outrageous? Eighty-six percent of married women take their husbands' last names. Marie Rose herself took her husband's last name. Yet Marie Rose had the temerity to label Kate Gallego's taking of her husband's name as a dishonest act intended to deceive voters. 

Stewart's silence is deafening, and deplorable. And let's not forget, he is a member of the clergy. You would think that as a pastor he would have a zero tolerance policy for this type of nonsense. Unfortunately, that appaars not to be the case.  By all appearances he has consciously chosen to remain silent. Certainly, with his general consultant repeatedly tweeting about the matter, he no longer can claim to be unaware. 

It is time for Warren Stewart to state, loudly and clearly, that he does not condone baseless character assassination and won't tolerate it from anyone affiliated with his campaign. And if Marie Rose Wilcox continues to hold back on an apology, he needs to cut her loose. If he doesn't have the character to take those steps, he's not qualified to serve on the City Council or, for that matter, in any other elected position.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I explained the other day "The real scandal with the IRS review of applications for 501(c)(4) tax exempt status from political organizations is that political organizations do not qualify -- and should not recieve 501(c)(4) tax exempt status. Period." The real IRS scandal: the ease with which political organizations have been abusing the 501(c)(4) tax exempt status.

There has actually been some very good reporting on the real scandal (just Google "the real IRS scandal"), but you would never know this if you rely on the Arizona political media or the cable tee-vee.

The New York Times op-ed page has two good pieces today. Sheila Krumholz and Robert Weinberger from the Center for Responsive Politics write, The Real I.R.S. Scandal:

Yes, the I.R.S. may have been worse than clumsy in considering an avalanche of applications for nonprofit status under the tax code, and that deserves scrutiny whether or not the agency’s employees were spurred by partisan motives. After all, some of these “tea party” groups are most likely not innocent nonprofit organizations devoted to the cultural significance of hot beverages — or to other, more civic, virtues. Rather, they and others are groups that may be illegally spending a majority of their resources on political activity while manipulating the tax code to hide their donors and evade taxes (the unwritten rule being that no more than 49 percent of a group’s resources can be used for political purposes).

The near vertical ascent in political spending by these “dark money” groups was prompted by the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in the Citizens United case, among others, freeing them to be more active in this realm.

And it’s a bipartisan scandal, though it’s hard to tell that judging by the names some groups have adopted — as the I.R.S. should know. Can you tell which of these lean left and which ones right? Patriot Majority USA, Crossroads GPS, American Future Fund and the Citizens for Strength and Security Fund. (Nos. 1 and 4 are liberal, 2 and 3 are conservative.)

The majority of the organizations that appear to be most politically active — from groups that run their own ads, like American Action Network and Americans for Prosperity, to the mysterious Center to Protect Patient Rights [the Phoenix-based "Kochtopus" organization headed by GOP consultant Sean Noble, currently under investigation for money laundering by the state of California], which distributes [launders] money to other political groups — already have exempt status. There’s little evidence that the I.R.S. is looking into these groups.

The latest news will make that job more difficult. . .

* * *

[E]ven more regrettable is the long-term damage to the credibility of the I.R.S. as an impartial arbiter of whether organizations merit tax-exempt status. This will be difficult to undo, particularly because of the secrecy required for the agency to effectively examine organizations without generating doubts about them, as well as to prevent other organizations from coming up with strategies to evade scrutiny in the future.

* * *

With the surge of dark money into politics, we need to ensure that the I.R.S. is capable of rigorously enforcing the law in a nonpartisan, but also more effective, way. While we focus on the rickety raft of minor Tea Party groups targeted by the I.R.S., there is an entire fleet of big spenders that are operating with apparent impunity.

Congress has already announced hearings and investigations, and the service’s leadership will be grilled, as it should be. But it would be a travesty if the misdeeds here undermined the important work that must now be done to foster greater transparency, and to bolster confidence that the I.R.S. is in fact scrutinizing politically active groups across the board, regardless of their ideological bent.

The Times editorialzes today, Take Politics Away From the I.R.S.:

What is more important is Mr. Obama’s promise to clarify the extremely vague tax laws, which are the root cause of the problems in both the I.R.S. and the political system.

The report issued Tuesday by the Treasury Department’s inspector general said no one outside the I.R.S. had pressured staff members to look more closely at Tea Party groups. The agency’s mistake was made in-house, and the report uncovered no evidence that it was the result of political pressure from the White House, as many Republicans are charging.

Instead, it was a group of midlevel employees who decided to search for the phrase “Tea Party” and other key words used by conservative groups in identifying and evaluating applications to become tax-exempt “social welfare” groups.

* * *

The practice was inexcusable, because social-welfare groups of all political stripes, known in the tax code as 501(c)(4) organizations, had for years abused their tax exemptions through excessive political activity, and the I.R.S. should have cracked down on them without regard to ideology.

* * *

Nonetheless, there is a clear reason this problem kept arising at the I.R.S., and it is the same reason that social welfare groups were allowed to overrun the political process with secret cash in the last three elections. There are no clear standards for how much political activity a 501(c)(4) group can undertake, or even a clear definition of what political activity is.

For years, the I.R.S. ignored the activities of these groups; when it finally decided to crack down, it did so in a dangerous way.

The tax code says these groups must engage only in social welfare work, but decades ago the I.R.S. began allowing them to dabble in politics, working for or against candidates, as long that was not their primary activity.

Some groups carefully spend only 49 percent of their money on politics, while others, including the one founded by Karl Rove, do nothing but politics while claiming they are engaged in social welfare work. The I.R.S. employees didn’t understand the rules, the inspector general said, largely because the rules barely exist.

Given the confusion, and the years of abuse, it’s time for the I.R.S. to return to the original language of the statute and require these groups to operate “exclusively for the promotion of social welfare,” and not engage in politics. But since even that definition can be squishy, Congress also needs to require that all these groups disclose their donors. Most want the 501(c)(4) designation precisely because it allows secrecy for their donors; otherwise they would take the far easier step of becoming standard political organizations, known as 527 groups, which have to reveal their contributors.

The best way to prevent abuse is to reform this vague statute and eliminate the agency’s discretion. Republicans and Democrats should be joining forces in taking this important step.

Can I get an Amen and a Hallelujah!

Michael Hiltzik at the Los Angeles Times makes the same case. The real IRS scandal - Los Angeles Times:

It's strange how "scandal" gets defined these days in Washington. At the moment, everyone is screaming about the "scandal" of the Internal Revenue Service scrutinizing conservative nonprofits before granting them tax-exempt status.

Here are the genuine scandals in this affair: Political organizations are being allowed to masquerade as charities to avoid taxes and keep their donors secret, and the IRS has allowed them to do this for years.

The bottom line first: The IRS hasn't done nearly enough over the years to rein in the subversion of the tax law by political groups claiming a tax exemption that is not legally permitted for campaign activity. Nor has it enforced rules requiring that donors to those groups pay gift tax on their donations.

The organizations at issue are known as 501(c)4 groups (call them C4s for short) after the section of the tax code that applies to them. They're nonprofit "social welfare" organizations that by law must be devoted primarily to programs broadly serving their communities, not private groups . . . In recent years, however, overtly political groups have been claiming C4 status, which allows them to keep their donor lists secret and to avoid paying taxes on certain income.

Our lunatic campaign finance system is what turned the typical C4 from a volunteer fire department into a conduit of anonymous political cash. Big donors were given the green light to spend freely on elections by the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision. That wasn't good enough for some; they wanted to distribute their largess secretly.

C4s were there for the exploitation, and the result has been a wholesale decline of donor disclosure on the national level: As recently as 1998, nearly 100% of all donors to federal campaigns were publicly identified, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a campaign finance watchdog group. By the 2012 presidential election, that was down to 40%.

The beneficiaries of the C4 tax break, understandably, will employ any subterfuge to keep it. That's what's behind the current firestorm over disclosures that in 2010 and 2011, IRS personnel screened requests for C4 status by applicant organizations with "tea party," "patriot" or "9/12" in their names.

* * *

[By January 2012 the IRS] had substituted a screen designed to capture "political action type organizations involved in limiting/expanding government, educating on the constitution and bill of rights, [and] social  economic reform/movement."

Conservatives contend that this is still an anti-conservative screen. It sounds perfectly neutral to me, unless someone knows of a conservative organization devoted to "expanding government," or unless right-wing groups are supposed to have a monopoly on "social economic reform." In any case, the inspector general found that most of the 298 selected applications indeed showed indications of "significant" political activity that might have made them ineligible for the tax exemption.

So while these political organizations are crying crocodile tears that they were mistreated and subjected to extra scrutiny when they applied for 501(c)(4) tax exempt status (see this insane piece of reporting in the Washington Post today, For some groups, a ‘horror story’ dealing with IRS), the fact of the matter is that these political organizations are engaged in the systematic abuse of tax law to gain a tax exempt status to which they are not entitled. This constitutes tax evasion. And tax exempt really means a "tax subsidy" from other taxpayers who are subsidizing their political activites. This is insane, and it must end.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Announcmeent from the Fred DuVal for Governor 2014 campaign:

by Pamela Powers Hannley

Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) members visited roughly 200 Congressional offices nationwide on May 15 with an urgent message for their representatives: "Austerity is not an option." In addition, 2,000 PDA members called their Congressional representatives yesterday, and Robin Hood Tax supporters held demonstrations in San Francisco and Fresno. Over the past year, PDA's monthly letter drop campaign has mushroomed from a handful of offices visited to nearly half of Congress.

Once again, here in Tucson, PDA  visited the office of Representative Ron Barber. Once again, we asked him to back the Financial Speculation Tax (AKA the Robin Hood Tax) which would charge a tiny fee for every Wall Street transaction, stop speculative minute-by-minute computerized trading, bring stability to the financial markets, and generate billions of dollars for our economy. Once again, we asked him to protect the middle class, the veterans, and the poor by protecting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. 

Mr. Barber, aren't there more regular folks in CD 2 than bankers? Why would you protect Wall Street-- and not your constituents?

The only thing I can say to you is, "We're not giving up, and we're not going away." 

More about yesterday's actions after the jump.

From PDA...

They fanned out across the country from Los Angeles to Phoenix, Chicago, south to Atlanta and Miami, to the towns of Western Massachusetts, in New York City and beyond, and they entered offices on Capitol Hill in a national “Educate Congress” letter-drop campaign.  Roughly 200 members of Congress were delivered this urgent message, a reminder that the country’s deteriorating condition needs to be addressed with meaningful policies that bring prosperity to Main Street.   Austerity is not an option.    

The message in the letter delivered today read, “We are voters… writing to urge you to oppose cuts to essential programs, as well as support common sense tax policies and job creation, as well as expanded, improved healthcare.”

In San Francisco, letter-drops culminated in a march from the offices of Rep. Nancy Pelosi to Sen. Diane Feinstein.  Elsewhere, visits transformed to rallies, as well. 

Workers and students, concerned citizens, all activists against austerity, banded together in this national outreach effort with profound results:  reaching nearly half the Congress.  They were members of Progressive Democrats of America (PDA), joined by National Nurses United, Labor for Single Payer and others, in support of the Robin Hood Tax, now before Congress in the reintroduced Inclusive Prosperity Act, H.R. 1579.  Today’s letter-drop campaign and national call-in effort also urged passage of Medicare for All legislation and an end to cuts to Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid.

“We reached more than 200 congressional offices in district offices today, demanding “Prosperity Not Austerity,” said PDA National Director Tim Carpenter.  “We  also  made hundreds of phone calls into district offices, demanding our elected officials join Rep. Grayson, Rep. Takano, and dozens of other House members drawing a line in the sand against any cuts to Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid.”

Carpenter added, “We also turned up the volume on the need to pass H.R. 1579, also known as the Financial Speculation Tax (FST) and Robin Hood Tax, that would generate hundreds of billions of dollars a year to fund job creation and help the economy, as well as protect the social safety net.  This measure would save lives and save taxpayers’ money, increase revenues and decrease financial speculation that directly causes highly-destructive fiscal bubbles. We launched this Educate Congress campaign three years ago—before the Tea Party, and before the Occupy movement.” 

A follow up national call-in effort is continuing.  Next Tuesday, PDA and others meet with Rep. Ellison and Rep. Grayson to talk about next steps to obtain co-sponsors for H.R. 1579 and signatories on a Grayson-Takano letter pledging support for social services. 

Posted by Bob Lord

I have the third post in my series up at inequality.org, Tax-Free Municipals: An Unnecessary Giveaway.

I'm having second thoughts about the title. Did I imply that some giveaways are necessary? 

The purpose of this series is to shine a light on the giant pools of assets producing income that is not subject to current taxation. The foregone tax revenue associated with these asset pools is enormous. And the lion's share of the tax benefits is flowing to the very rich. In the case of tax-free municipal bonds, putting aside the benefits flowing to states and their subdivisions, the benefit to wealthy individuals, developers, and large corporate interests exceeds $100 Billion over the next ten years. 

But tax-free municipal bonds are only a part of the pool of tax-exempt assets benefitting the wealthy. 

Here are the two prior posts in the series:

Retirement Vehicle or Giveaway to the Rich?

Looting the Treasury to Benefit Big Insurance

By Craig McDermott, cross-posted from Random Musings

...'cuz some of them seem to be killing off their brain cells at an alarming rate...

On Tuesday, the House gave its approval, by an almost-completely party-line vote, to SCR1016.

That SCR places a proposed amendment to the Arizona Constitution on the ballot in 2014.  If passed by the voters, it would add a clause to that document stating that Arizona could "nullify", or ignore, any federal action, law or rule.  AZBlueMeanie at Blog for Arizona has a great rundown of that here.

This post is merely about a little over 40 seconds of the House debate on the measure, specifically Rep. Steve Smith's "explanation" of his vote.  He used his "explanation" of his vote to respond to the previous speaker, Democratic Rep. Albert Hale, the only Democrat to vote in favor of the measure.  Hale felt that such a measure would prevent the federal government from taking land and sovereignty from Native peoples and nations.

Note: There's no actual debate during final votes on measures at the lege, just legislators "explaining" their votes.  Some of the explanations get a little long-winded and even bombastic.  Smith was neither long-winded nor bombastic, but after watching his quiet certitude on the historical rightness of unbridled imperialism, I considered adding a third descriptor to the previous sentence - "drug-addled".  However, lacking the results of an independently administered and analyzed drug test, I chose not to go there.

The text of his "explanation" (emphasis added) -

Mr. Speaker, I think just since we're talking a little bit about history, I think it would be fair to point out that history of virtually every nation on the earth has come about from one people taking from another.  Going back to biblical times.  If we stand on this argument, then God's people never should have occupied God's land. 'Cause they took it from people, too.  I guess I wanted to say that some people look at the United States as a taking nation.  I look at it as the most benevolent and the most giving nation, certainly in our time and frankly, ever.  I vote yes.

The scariest part isn't that he said what he said.  It was in how he said it, with the same matter-of-fact tone that former legislator Sylvia Allen proclaimed that strip mining uranium was OK because the Earth was 6000 years old and doing just fine.

by David Safier

I write a monthly column for The Explorer. My latest column is about BASIS, an appropriate topic for a paper whose distribution area spans BASIS Oro Valley and the new/old BASIS Tucson North (a new building that houses students from the original BASIS).

I start with a hypothetical:

Let’s say you decide to start a school for sixth through 12th graders that gives students a rigorous, world class education: demanding courses, lots of homework, sky-high expectations.

Then I follow the students as they move from the 6th grade to the 12th and the inevitable attrition that has to occur in any school with a preset standard of excellence.

Student attrition continues in high school until by senior year, only 33 [of the original 100] students remain. Those left standing are testament to the strength of the school’s curriculum, but what about the 67 who left before they graduated? It might be too harsh to say the school failed them, but there’s no question the school didn’t succeed at raising them to its high standards.

What I’ve just described is the way things work at BASIS charter schools. The standards are high, the workload is daunting and two out of three students don’t make it to their senior year. The schools work fine for a select group of students, but they certainly don’t provide a model that can be used in schools that educate all students who come their way.

Another attempt to get The Facts, not The BASIS Legend, out to the community.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The self-important pompous assholes of the Beltway media elite have their noses in a snit. Ed Kilgore at the Political Animal blog sets it up, D.C. To Obama: Don’t Mess With “This Town”:

Well, it doesn’t get much more official than this: an VandeHei/Allen “Behind the Curtain” column announcing that D.C. (“the town”) is “turning on” Barack Obama, and there will be nothing but venom coming from any direction for the foreseeable future[.]

* * *

Too bad, voters, and all those who have an interest in their federal government doing something constructive; Obama has to have his spanking from “D.C. stakeholders,” so enjoy it or look the other way.

What amazes me the most about this column is the forthright announcement that the MSM are going to make explicit common cause with the GOP[.]

Wait, they don't do that already? POLITICO is part of the right-wing noise machine.

This open partisanship is excused by the fact that in “this town” (among the “Establishment Democrats” who are a “D.C. Stakeholder”) Democrats aren’t bothering to defend Obama. Which Democrats are we talking about here?

* * *

Yes, MoDo is your representative Democrat. When you’ve lost her, you’ve clearly lost the Blue States altogether.

The perpetual teenager from the Mean Girls clique stopped being relevant over a decade ago. Who the hell even reads Maureen Dowd anymore?

On this particular occasion, Harris and VandeHei come so close to self-parody that every sentence is like a pinata you could hit from any direction. But make no mistake: this is a declaration of war by elements of the Beltway Media who are determined to show us all they still have the power to “bring down a president,” as they arrogantly used to say about Watergate, and that not only the GOP but the Breitbartian wingnuts have a new ally in the “Vetting” of Barack Obama.

Time to bring in the closer for all things POLITICO, Charles Pierce at Esquire. Things In Politico That Make Me Want To Guzzle Antifreeze, Part The Infinity:

And not out of delicate demitasse cups, either. But straight out of the big square can with both hands.

The two presiding geniuses behind Tiger Beat On The Potomac has had all they can stands from this president, and they...can't,...stands...no...more. So they have declared themselves in rebellion today. Juiceboxes will be flung in anger. Paste will be thoroughly chewed. Breath will be held until everyone is blue. Nap time will be bravely resisted — non-violently, of course — and the insurgents boldly declare that they will be in control of the classroom by lunch time. Aux armes, citoyens! You have nothing to lose but your crayons.

Not to minimize the inherent political savvy of Chris Lehane, one anonymous former Obama aide, one anonymous "longtime Washingtonian," or Vernon Jordan — who, I admit, I'd thought had long gone off to peddle influence in the Beyond — but I think they're pretty much camouflage here for the fiery tantrum summoned up by the authors.

(And, not for nothing, but "longtime Washingtonian" may well be the beau ideal of TBOTP sourcing. They should make it the company motto. And the two presiding geniuses are going to be shocked one morning when they look in the mirror and see Sally Quinn staring back at them.)

Obama's aloof mien and holier-than-thou rhetoric have left him with little reservoir of good will, even among Democrats. And the press, after years of being accused of being soft on Obama while being berated by West Wing aides on matters big and small, now has every incentive to be as ruthless as can be. This White House's instinctive petulance, arrogance and defensiveness have all worked to isolate Obama at a time when he most needs a support system. "It feel like they don't know what they're here to do," a former senior Obama administration official said. "When there's no narrative, stuff like this consumes you."

First of all, does it make any difference any more if I point out that it's the authors who are asserting that the president lacks good will "even among Democrats," and that the supporting quote doesn't have fk-all to do with the president's "mien" — Those Word-a-Day desk calendars are paying off, boys! — and rhetoric? I didn't think so. (Examples of both would have been helpful, too.) More significant to me is the assertion by the two president geniuses that the entire elite political press corps is about to engage in a mass abandonment of any kind of journalistic standards.

Let me give the two presiding geniuses a tip from my days covering the wonderful wide world of sports. The people you cover do not have to like you. The people you cover are under no obligation to be nice to you, or to make your job easier, or not to call you a "fucking maggot" when they don't like what you've written, which is pretty much always. The people you cover can and will throw jockstraps at your head  — and do infinitely worse — if they so choose. That does not free you from your obligation to cover what they do for a living fairly, and to present that information to your readers accurately.

* * *

Quite simply, any political journalist who decides to be "as ruthless as can be" chasing the current crop of phony and/or demi-scandals, and does so based on the deep philosophical principle of "Nyah, nyah. You think you're so smart. I'll get you at recess," should be looking for a new job by nightfall. And it is beyond even TBOTP's limitless capacity for shamelessness to suggest otherwise.

And for these two rodeo clowns to criticize anyone for "petulance," "arrogance," and "defensiveness" is so petulant, arrogant and defensive as to beggar imagination. Do these people think the Republicans wouldn't have done the same damn thing to President Hillary Clinton? Or President Joe Biden? Or President Insert Name Of Democrat Here? For going on six years now, one of our two political parties has deliberately chosen not to help govern the nation, and to make the attempt to govern the nation as hard as possible. Now, they have some more interesting excuses. Period. Bill Clinton is now the perfect example of the kind of Democrat that the authors say this president should be. How'd the Republicans — and the Beltway pre-school — treat him when he was president? Somebody stop these two before they bring my whole profession down around their ears.

* * *

Oh, shut up [Ron Fournier - AP]. Please. I realize life was easier when you were slipping Karl Rove mash notes during study hall — Funny how your concern over White House ratfkery was not in evidence then — but get over yourself, OK? Of course, because of their deep concern for The People's Right To Know, I expect to see in the not-too-distant-future a long treatise by the presiding geniuses in defense of Bradley Manning, and a flaming jeremiad by Ron Fournier on behalf of Julian Assange. Otherwise, I might think this whole business is an exercise in angry butthurt by performing circus egos. Of course, I could be wrong about that.

As i said the other day, the GOP has dusted off its "Big Book of Scandal Mongering" from The Hunting of the President in the 1990s. I recall that the media said it learned its lesson and that it would not fall for this again. Yet here we are, with the two presiding geniuses behind Tiger Beat On The Potomac essentially saying that the self-important pompous assholes of the Beltway media elite have decided that it's the 1990s again, and they are declaring The Hunting of the President is back on.

If anyone should be hunted, it is the feckless Beltway media villagers. Just round them all up and march them into the Potomac River.

UPDATE: Greg Sargent weighs in: Politico reports that "the town" has turned on Obama. We should take that seriously. When the Village turns on a President.

Posted by Bob Lord

No surprise here. The OECD reports that income inequality increased as much in the past three years as it did in the preceding twelve years.

And the OECD countries with the largest income gap between rich and poor: Turkey, Chile, Mexico, Israel and the old US of A.

I've previously noted that we're living through a great experiment: How much wealth and how much income can we cram into the top 1% before the bottom 90% explodes? Still no answer, but the experiment still is moving along.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Arizona Republic(an)'s columnist Robert Robb had a column yesterday about the IRS "scandal" that left me wondering, "Where the hell did that come from?"

The real scandal with the IRS review of applications for 501(c)(4) tax exempt status from political organizations is that political organizations do not qualify -- and should not recieve 501(c)(4) tax exempt status. Period. The real IRS scandal: the ease with which political organizations have been abusing the 501(c)(4) tax exempt status.

The thousands of political organizations that have wrongly recieved this tax exempt status should lose it, and Congress should enact new legislation to make certain of this. While Congress is at it, the law should require transparency -- no anonymous donors, their identities and the amount of their contributions made publicly available in a financial disclosure statement. Problem solved.

But Robert Robb uses the IRS "scandal" to argue for a consumption or flat-income tax as a means of eliminating the IRS all together, asserting that there is a "liberty dimension at stake." How to keep IRS out of politics. This "scandal" is seen as an opportunity to argue for more income redistribution upwards to the über-rich plutocratic elites for whom Robb has spent his life as a lackey.

This idea did not originate with Robb. It is part of the latest talking points from the right-wing noise machine. Ed Kilgore at the Political Animal blog explains. The Coming Flat Tax Resurgence:

Whatever else comes out of the “scandal” over IRS scrutiny of 501(c)(4) applicants (and it’s already clear it will be harnessed to the GOP’s Great White Whale obsession with repealing Obamacare, on which the House will hold its 37th vote this week), one byproduct is certain. Sooner probably than later, we will see a resurgence of “flat tax” proposals, which have always advertised the abolition of the IRS as their most attractive feature.

Indeed, the conservative “base” may be ahead of the pols and bloviators on this one. If you Google “IRS Scandal Flat Tax” right now, you mostly turn up letters-to-the-editor and Freeper commentary (though the Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s conservative columnist Kyle Wingfield briefly mentioned it). But it’s going to be a bottomless crack pipe for talk radio types (who have always been the bedrock of support for flat-tax schemes, and will probably continue to be so now that Herman Cain is among their ranks) who view progressive income taxation as the ultimate enemy.

* * *

The peril with “flat tax” schemes (or for the closely related “consumption tax” schemes), of course, is that they typically rely on significantly higher taxes for the poor and the middle class. They are ultimately not that different from the state-level GOP “tax reform initiatives” involving higher sales taxes combined with much lower or abolished income taxes that have gotten Bobby Jindal (and to some extent, Sam Brownback) in political hot water.

So federal-level conservatives may regret re-embracing “flat taxes” generally or some version of the “Fair Tax” specifically. But they probably won’t be able to help themselves in the current environment.

Robert Robb, just another cog in the right-wing noise nachine.