by David Safier

As I posted yesterday, Ann-Eve Pedersen and I have created a new half hour cable TV show, Education: The Rest of the Story. What I neglected to mention yesterday is that the wonderful people at Tucson Cable Access supplied the studio and the technical expertise which allowed the project to go forward. Special credit and thanks to Carolyn Brown who suggested the idea to us and did the title and editing work. The show airs Thursdays at 4:30pm on Cox channel 20 or Comcast channel 74. It's divided into 10 minute segments which I'm posting individually on BfA.

Yesterday I posted a 10 minute segment debunking the myth that our public schools are failing. Today's 10 minute segment is about Arizona's education budget which is still in limbo at this moment, along with the rest of the state budget and the Medicaid expansion. Ann-Eve begins with a 5 minute primer on the state of school financing in education, a subject she knows as well as anyone in the state. She headed the Arizona Education Parent Network that spearheaded Prop 204, which would have guaranteed increased funding for our schools. It was opposed by a well financed negative campaign and lost at the polls.

According to Ann-Eve, the reason we're near the bottom of the states in dollars spent per student isn't lack of funds. "There is a hostility toward funding education in Arizona."

You can watch the video below the fold.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The cracks in the GOP edifice of party unity are now open fissures. Longtime members of Congress who understand that they have an obligation to govern are openly critical of the Tea Party freshmen extremists who only believe in partisan warfare and their radical ideology.

Long-simmering divisions among Republicans burst into public view Tuesday evening, when GOP senators challenged Tea Party senators on the Senate floor over their refusal to proceed to formal negotiations with Democrats over the federal budget. GOP moderates, conservatives feud over stall tactics on budget:

On one side, Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) insisted that the GOP must block any effort to name a conference committee to reconcile differences between the budgets approved by the Democrat-controlled Senate, which proposes nearly $1 trillion in new taxes over the next decade, and the Republican House, which proposes to eliminate the deficit within 10 years entirely through spending cuts.

Their reason: Democrats can’t be trusted not to sneak in an automatic increase in the federal debt limit.

“This fight right now is the fight over the debt ceiling, because what it would mean if we go to a conference committee is that as sure as night follows day, we would find ourselves in a month or two with a debt ceiling increase coming back ... with no conditions whatsoever,” Cruz said.

On the other side, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine.) questioned that argument, noting that Democrats couldn’t do anything in conference without the approval of the House — which, McCain said, “happens to be a majority of our party.”

“So we don’t trust the majority party on the other side of the [Capitol] to come to conference and not hold to the fiscal discipline that we want to see happen? Isn’t that a little bit bizarre?” McCain said.

McCain and Collins also argued that the stall tactics look ridiculous after months of GOP complaints about the refusal by Senate Democrats to adopt a budget. The first Senate budget in three years won approval 59 days ago, and Republicans have been dragging their feet every since.

“What are we on my side of the aisle doing?” demanded McCain. "We don't want a budget unless -- unless -- we put requirements on the conferees that are absolutely out of line and unprecedented."

“We have called repeatedly for a return to regular order in this body,” added Collins. “Well, regular order is going to conference.”

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) has said he views the debt limit deadline as critical to forcing an agreement. But that deadline has now been pushed to well after Labor Day.

In recent conversations with reporters, Collins has called the stall tactics “absurd;” McCain called them “insane” and “incomprehensible.”

Steve Benen adds this salient point:

Taking the other side was a familiar right-wing trio -- Republican Sens. Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Mike Lee -- which presented an argument that was truly amazing, even for them.

Dave Weigel reported yesterday:

What Ted Cruz and Rand Paul and Mike Lee want -- and have wanted -- is a guarantee that a debt limit increase cannot be included in the budget agreement that comes out of the House and Senate conference. It only takes 51 votes to pass a budget. Cruz, on the floor, has asked the Senate to preserve the "traditional 60-vote threshold" for raising the debt limit.

This is a strange definition of "tradition."

It is, indeed. Between 1939 and 2010, the debt ceiling was raised 89 times. How many of those increases were subjected to the "60-vote threshold"? Zero. Even earlier this year, a debt-ceiling increase was approved with 52 votes, not 60.

It's possible Cruz doesn't understand what "traditional" means, so let's make this clear: the word generally refers to established or customary patterns of thought, action, or behavior. In this case, the established, customary pattern is for the Senate to vote up or down on debt-ceiling increases, often as part of the budget conference committee process.

Sen. Ted "Calgary" Cruz apparently suffers from delusions of grandeur that he is King of Capitol Hill. Ted Cruz: ‘I Don’t Trust The Republicans’:

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) on Wednesday defended his objection to initiating House-Senate budget negotiations unless Democrats take a debt limit increase off the table, saying he doesn't trust his party to hold the line.

"The senior senator from Arizona urged this body to trust the Republicans. Let me be clear, I don't trust the Republicans," Cruz said. "And I don't trust the Democrats."

Your Senate colleagues don't trust you either, senator. They think you're a dangerous demagogue. They are right.

By Karl Reiner

Many ardent conservatives believe the country is spiraling downward, the future bleak.  They urge buying gold, stocking up on food and arms, getting ready for the collapse of society.  The gloomy mindset may be a reaction to the fact that the recession was partly caused by the banking deregulation they advocated.

Their sense of unease is not completely misplaced.  The government reaction to the 2008 financial collapse sent budget deficits soaring and held interest rates to near zero.  Although the actions prevented the Great Recession from turning into a depression, the economic hit was hard, a consequence of the misallocation of resources to the housing sector.

Before the crisis, the growth of the financial sector provided some benefits.  It helped world trade increase from 22% to 33% of global GDP during the years before the housing crash.  New ways of financing homes led to lower borrowing costs and increased home ownership.  Unfortunately, the availability of easy credit also promoted poor lending practices and a rise in private sector debt.

Too many homes were bought by people who had no hope or intention of repaying the loan.  Speculators engaged in home flipping, crafty innovations allowed banks to avoid regulation and take on more risk.  In 2005, about a third of homes sold were second homes or investments, not primary homes.  Appraisers stretched valuations.  Mortgage lenders accepted phony income declarations for a variety of devious mortgage plans.

Mortgage debt ballooned from $6 trillion in 1999 to $12 trillion in 2008.  In many areas, the boom in residential real estate raised housing prices 30% in three years.  Buyer attitudes changed.  Houses became an investment, not a place to live.  The size of houses expanded, growing 30% in 25 years.

The old rule of not spending more than 25% of disposable income on a mortgage was abandoned.  By 2005, people were spending 50% of their income on house payments.  Bankers, home buyers, investors, rating agencies and regulators share responsibility for the housing bust.  In 2007, 1.7 million homes went into foreclosure.  Over $30 trillion had evaporated from the economy by 2008.

The enormous economic downturn and slow recovery made many people fearful.  They now tend to view things in a gloomy context.  China is the rising power, the U.S. is slumping.  The current dollar is worth 5 cents when compared to the value of the 1913 dollar.  The U.S. has moved from being the world's largest creditor to being the world's biggest debtor.  The dollar was fixed to gold at $35 per ounce between 1945 and 1971. Gold now sells at around $1,446 per ounce.  The dollar is becoming worthless.

Tea Party conservatives should acknowledge that the recession caused massive economic dislocations.  The ability of the economy to generate economic growth has sputtered.  Real wages have stagnated.  The growing income inequality threatens stability.  In the U.S., around 28 million households (about 37% of the total) do not have a retirement account of any kind.  They are solely dependent on Social Security.

Tea Party obstruction in Congress hinders the entrepreneurial sprit that the Tea Party says is needed to revive the economy.  It is stifling the job-creating investment the recovery needs. It prevents Congress from committing to reducing federal budget deficits over the medium-term through a combination of gradual tax hikes and spending cuts.                 

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Scandal Mongering 101

1. Facts don't matter -- just make up the facts (state your case as a "what if" proposition if necessary, or go to the FAUX News classic, "some people say . . .").

2. Logical consistency does not matter -- two diametrically opposed theories can be "true" at the same time. If one theory is not working for you, switch to the diametrically opposed theory.

3. When all else fails, throw shit against the wall and hope that something sticks.

Keep this in mind when reading Steve Benen's breakdown of the IRS "scandal" today. 'The opposite of a cover-up':

When it comes to the IRS controversy, I'm starting to get the impression that the goalposts have moved rather quickly.

The initial allegation raised by the right and other administration critics is that President Obama's White House, if not the president himself, may have been directly involved. As this story goes, Team Obama sent word to an IRS office in Cincinnati to apply extra scrutiny to conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status.

When every shred of evidence suggested this allegation is baseless, the charges shifted from "Obama did too much!" to "Obama did too little!"

For example, ABC's Jonathan Karl, who's had a rough go of it lately, said yesterday of the IRS's missteps: "How was this allowed to go on? ... There were public reports that this stuff was going on almost a year before the presidential election.... Is there any responsibility from the administration of saying, 'Hey, IRS, we don't treat groups differently based on politics [instead of waiting] for the report after the election to make a comment?'"

In other words, we've reached the point in the controversy at which critics are raising the opposite of their original charges. "Why did the White House intervene?" has become "Why didn't the White House intervene?"

Jeffrey Toobin's take yesterday rings true.

When you can't prove that the White House did anything wrong, and you can't prove that the White House knew that someone else was doing something wrong, what do you try to prove? That the White House knew there was an investigation into whether someone else was doing something wrong! That may sound scandalous, but, in fact, it's perfectly appropriate. [...]

White House officials seem to have engaged in the opposite of a cover-up. They let the investigation proceed, and let the Inspector General do his job. They let the process play out. They played by the rules, which is what lawyers are supposed to do.

I'd note that congressional Republicans learned about the IG's inquiry last summer [The Treasury inspector general for tax administration sent a letter to Rep. Darrell Issa in July 2012 saying it would audit the agency] -- to use Karl's words, they knew "this stuff was going on almost a year before the presidential election" -- and they too let the process play out, as they should have.

Dave Weigel added, "What started as a question of whether the White House ordered 'Tea Party targeting' has become a Byzantine investigation of on what day which staffers were informed that the inspector general was digging into this."

Ryan Grim reported at the Huffington Post last week, Darrell Issa: 'You Don't Accuse The IRS Until You've Had A Nonpartisan, Deep Look':

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said earlier this week in a little-noticed interview that he knew "approximately" what the IRS inspector general would report about selective targeting of conservative groups, but that it wasn't appropriate to "accuse the IRS until you've had a nonpartisan, deep look."

The comments back up the White House argument that administration officials did not know enough about the investigation to condemn the IRS until the IG completed his work recently. A Treasury Department official, Neal Wolin, was informed that the IG was looking into the situation this past summer, a revelation the media and GOP have seized on to suggest the White House may have covered up the scandal in the midst of a campaign.

Issa is chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

"I know approximately what's in it," Issa told Bloomberg Businessweek on Monday when asked if he knew what would be in the report. "I knew what was approximately in it when we made the allegations about a year ago. This is one of those things where it's been, in a sense, an open secret, but you don't accuse the IRS until you've had a nonpartisan, deep look. That's what the IG has done. That's why the IGs in fact exist within government, is to find this kind of waste and fraud and abuse of power."

Jeffrey Toobin's post at The New Yorker When You Shouldn’t Tell the President adds:

At Monday’s press briefing, Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, said Kathryn Ruemmler, the President’s counsel, was told of the investigation on April 24th. She shared that information with Denis McDonough, the chief of staff, and a handful of other officials. None of them told the President.

Is there anything wrong with what Ruemmler and the other officials did? I asked Glenn Fine, who served as the Inspector General of the Department of Justice from 2000 to 2011. 

* * *

Fine pointed out that the existence of inspector-general investigations is “not secret”: “The people you are auditing know they are being audited. And the list of pending audits is generally public as well.” Indeed, Darrell Issa, the Republican congressman leading the inquiries of the White House, knew that the audit was in process. In any event, the report wasn’t even final until May 12th, by which time its existence was already widely publicized. “A draft report is never final until it’s final. Sometimes drafts are changed,” Fine said. The affected Department leadership is always allowed a chance to comment on or protest draft reports.

But shouldn’t Ruemmler et al. have told the President about the audit? Actually, that would have been just about the worst thing they could have done. “The thing you most want to avoid is that the White House, or anyone else, tells the I.G. what to do or contacts individuals who are being questioned in the audit and tries to influence their responses as well,” Fine said. By not telling the President, Ruemmler made sure that Obama could not be accused of influencing the audit.

In other words, White House officials seem to have engaged in the opposite of a coverup. They let the investigation proceed, and let the Inspector General do his job. They let the process play out. They played by the rules, which is what lawyers are supposed to do.

So attempts by the Beltway media villagers in thrall of "scandal mania" to conflate the date on which the IG report became known to the White House into some Nixonesque "What did you know and when did you know it?" analogy is without merit, and has no basis in reality.

Nixon expressly directed the IRS to use audits to attack his political enemies. There is no evidence that this occurred in this case. There are no "audits" to speak of. As Ed Kilgore explained 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).

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. The only groups actually denied special tax status were progressive groups, not conservative groups. The New York Times reported, 3 Groups Denied Break by I.R.S. Are Named: "The I.R.S. denied tax exemption to the groups — Emerge Nevada, Emerge Maine and Emerge Massachusetts — because, the agency wrote in denial letters, they were set up specifically to cultivate Democratic candidates."

As Glenn Fine pointed out, the existence of an Inspector General audit is a public record,  so there is no "cover up." This investigation was identifed in the Annual Audit Plan - Fiscal Year 2013 (pdf) for the Treasury inspector General for Tax Administration.

See Page 18:

And Page 22:

As Rep. Darrell Issa said, it was an "open secret." The fact that the media only recently discovered the IG audit speaks more to the incompetence of the media than it does to any "cover up."

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

It has often been said that people do not want to see the "sausage making" process of legislation, and nowhere is that a truer statement than with the "Gang of Eight" immigration reform bill.

After multiple attempts by Tea Party senators to add "poison pill" amendments to kill the bill -- all defeated -- there was a death-defying friendly amendment offered yesterday by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) to treat gay partners equally under federal law for immigration purposes. Tea-Publicans howled that this was a deal breaker, and Sen. Leahy eventually withdrew his amendment.

Of course, Advocates were outraged at lack of LGBT protection in immigration bill. This is a timing problem. This bill needs to move forward in the Senate now. The U.S. Supreme Court is not expected to rule on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) until June. Should the Court strike down DOMA, as most court observers anticipate, it would remove the obstacle to treating gay partners equally under federal law. The immigration bill will still be going through the "sausage making" process, and may be amended to respond to any Supreme Court ruling. Patience and perseverance are virtues in the "sausage making" process.

So it is good news that the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday approved its final mark-up of the comprehensive immigration reform bill on a vote of 13 to 5. Senate panel approves sweeping immigration reform bill:

After five days of debate over dozens of amendments, the Judiciary Committee voted 13 to 5 in support of the bill, with three Republicans joining the committee’s 10 Democrats. The legislation emerged with its core provisions largely intact, including new visa programs for high-tech and low-skilled workers and new investments in strengthening border control.

“The dysfunction in our current immigration system affects all of us and it is long past time for reform. I hope that our history, our values, and our decency can inspire us finally to take action,” committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) said. “We need an immigration system that lives up to American values and helps write the next great chapter in American history by reinvigorating our economy and enriching our communities.”

President Obama, who has made immigration reform his top second-term priority, issued a statement praising the committee for approving a bill that is “largely consistent” with the principles he had outlined.

“None of the committee members got everything they wanted, and neither did I,” Obama said, “but in the end, we all owe it to the American people to get the best possible result over the finish line.”

The comprehensive bill is now headed to the full Senate, where Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) urged fellow Republicans on Tuesday not to block the bill from a floor vote. The Congressional Budget Office will take two weeks to issue an assessment of the fiscal cost of the bill, so Democratic aides said the floor debate could begin around June 10.

[The U.S. Supreme Court will issue its final decisions and orders of the 2013 term on June 17 and June 24 (subject to change). The Senate may still be debating this bill.]

Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) succeeded in obtaining an amendment to relax some restrictions on high-tech companies that seek to hire foreign engineers and computer programmers. The compromise amendment lifts the requirement that companies first offer tech jobs to Americans for all firms except those that depend on foreigners for more than 15 percent of their workforce and relaxes the formula for determining the annual number of foreign high-tech workers. The Hatch amendment is opposed by organized labor on the left.

On the right, the Tea Party is still trying to kill the immigration reform bill. Can Tea Party conservatives kill immigration reform?:

[A]nti-immigration conservatives haven’t given up the fight. This morning, a coalition of 150 conservatives — which includes Rich Lowry of the National Review, Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum, Redstate.com editor Eric Erickson, and former Florida Representative Alan West — issued a letter declaring their absolute opposition to the comprehensive immigration bill, and urging Senate Republicans to scrap the entire project.

“No matter how well-intentioned, the Schumer-Rubio bill suffers from fundamental design flaws that make it unsalvageable,” the letter says. “Many of us support various parts of the legislation, but the overall package is so unsatisfactory that the Senate would do better to start over from scratch.”

Their main complaints echo the line introduced by the Heritage Foundation [in its discredited report.]

* * *

Of course, the factual claims of the letter are irrelevant. What matters is that a key part of the Republican Party has announced its categorical opposition to comprehensive immigration reform, which diminishes its chance for passage. Unless supporters can get overwhelming support in the Senate — enough to break a filibuster, and then some — then it’s unlikely they’ll force John Boehner to act. And if he does, he’ll still have to deal with the consequences of an unhappy conservative opposition.

The Washington Post has a Summary of the provisions in the bill approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

h/t for graphic www.thesacredpage.com

Posted by Bob Lord

This one has to be short -- billable work to do. But I just stumbled on to a must read, How America Became a Third World Country, by Mattea Kramer and Jo Comerford. They take us out ten years from today, after ten years under sequestration. It's an ugly picture and, scarily enough, quite plausible.

Here's the first paragraph, as a teaser:

The streets are so much darker now, since money for streetlights is rarely available to municipal governments. The national parks began closing down years ago. Some are already being subdivided and sold to the highest bidder. Reports on bridges crumbling or even collapsing are commonplace. The air in city after city hangs brown and heavy (and rates of childhood asthma and other lung diseases have shot up), because funding that would allow the enforcement of clean air standards by the Environmental Protection Agency is a distant memory. Public education has been cut to the bone, making good schools a luxury and, according to the Department of Education, two of every five students won’t graduate from high school.

Welcome to Austerity America! Enjoy.

by Will Greene

For five years supporters of President Obama who also support decisive action on climate change have been forced to wait patiently for leadership from the 44^th President of the United States. 

In 2008 and 2009 the prospects of federal climate action seemed imminent and inevitable.  A new clean energy economy was on the horizon.  Republican standard-bearers such as Newt Gingrich and John McCain were on the bandwagon and even leading the charge (watch video). 

It seems finally, momentum is swinging back towards action.  In a significant move and possibly an indicator of impending leadership from the White House, President Obama’s grassroots group “Organizing for Action” is ramping up activities around the nation to call out congressional climate change deniers and bring the issue to the forefront.  If the President holds true to his bold words on climate in January’s inauguration address and February’s State of the Union, then the painful wait for climate-concerned citizens may be coming to an end.

OFA climate action events in your area (click here for events nationwide)

Tucson

Phoenix

Phoenix

by David Safier

Tim Steller creates a dramatic illustration of the failings of Arizona's school grading system and the inherent unfairness of the proposed Performance Funding for schools in a column in today's Star.

On the one hand, we have BASIS, with its thrice-selected student body composed of the most able and motivated students in the area. It receives an A grade from the state and no end of praise locally and nationally. If Performance Funding ever kicks in, it will also get extra state funding to give more assistance to its already top performing students.

On the other hand, and the main focus of Steller's column, we have Edge High School in Tucson.

Edge High School in Tucson takes in students from difficult backgrounds - about one out of 10 is homeless, many are parents or pregnant, some are sixth- or seventh-year seniors - and helps them graduate.

Last year the state recognized each of Edge's three charter high schools - with a D grade. Two more years of D's and the schools will be on the road toward a failing status.

This is the first I've heard of Edge High, but it sounds like it's performing the important mission of trying to help students who are the most likely to be cast aside by schools and end up underemployed, unemployed or residents of our prison system. It's part of what one of my ed profs called the U.S. education system's policy of infinite second chances, where anyone can decide to get serious about education at any time and find a school willing to lend a helping hand. And yet, for its efforts, it's in jeopardy of being labeled a failing school. If it survives and we get Performance Funding, it will have some of its state funds taken away, funds which will then go into the coffers of "successful" schools like BASIS.

Edge could "play it smart" and stop accepting the most at-risk students, see if it can pick up some other students to help it boost its score on the AIMS test. It might just raise its state grade that way. Or it can continue serving its chosen community and perform the difficult task of moving students' low academic achievement to a somewhat higher level while it grants high school diplomas to students who otherwise would be classified as dropouts.

A BUT-I-THOUGHT-YOU-HATE-CHARTER-SCHOOLS NOTE: When I tear into charter schools, I'm pointing out specifc charters or Charter Management Organizations that are doing a terrible job. When I appear to go after charter schools in general, what I'm doing is pointing out the undeserved overpraise of charter schools by the conservative/corporate "education reform" movement whose mission is to make privatization of education appear to be more successful than our traditional public schools. A good school is a good school, traditional public, charter or private. I support good schools. If Edge High School is doing right by its students, I applaud it for its work.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Time once again for The Farley Report from Senator Steve Farley (D-LD 9):

t's five days later, and I still feel high from our unprecedented demonstration of bipartisan moderation on the State Senate floor on Thursday.  

As I shared with you on that magical evening, Republicans stood with Democrats in the face of relentless ideological attacks over the course of nearly twelve hours and stood strong through vote after vote and reconsideration after reconsideration to approve the Governor's Medicaid restoration plan and a humane budget that invests in K-12 and Higher Education, Child Protective Services, State Parks and Arts Commission grants, Economic Development policies, and Adult Education and Literacy, all while not raising taxes and ensuring a budget surplus over the next three years.  

This is exactly what Arizona voters have been telling us we want, and much credit goes to Governor Brewer for proposing in January that we do what is right for all Arizonans and leverage more than $8 billion in federal funds over the next four years to restore AHCCCS coverage to more than 300,000 people in poverty.  

Credit also goes to Majority Leader John McComish who had the guts to withstand the slings and arrows of some in his caucus who called him a traitor for standing up for his Governor's policy when he introduced and led floor debate for the Medicaid restoration amendment. 

Credit goes to President Andy Biggs for deciding not to use his power to stop the process when it was clear that his views were not prevailing. No one will ever question his passion, especially on the Medicaid issue, and -- because he refrained from using tools at his disposal to thwart the will of the majority -- no one will question his integrity either.  

Credit goes to the 13 Democrats and five Republicans who held together to pass Medicaid and the budget for the greater good of all, even though not one of us liked every single thing we voted for.  

But most of all, credit goes to the voters like you who decided to elect people of integrity to the State Senate this last election -- Republicans and Democrats alike. Your thoughtful approach at the ballot box made all the difference and could signal a sea change in how politics work in Arizona.  

Now we must preserve these victories as the package of bills travels to the House, where Speaker Andy Tobin has not yet indicated his next moves. There are eight solid Republican House votes to preserve the Senate budget as amended, which is enough to do many things along with the 24 Democrats.  

I have hope that the Speaker will either be persuaded of the importance of moving this budget to the Governor's desk unamended for her signature, or be willing to demonstrate his leadership by respecting the will of the House majority.  

First order of business is to get those bills heard and passed unamended in the House Appropriations Committee. If you can, please contact the House Approps members and politely request that they support the Governor, put partisanship aside, and hear and pass those budget bills unamended. If you are a Republican, it is even more important that you contact the Republican members. If you can convince two Republicans, the people of Arizona win. Here are their contacts: 

Your efforts could make all the difference right now. 

Thanks for your continuing faith in me as your Senator. 

Steve Farley

Posted by Bob Lord

Some political bloggers treat commenters from the opposing viewpoint with disdain. I get why they do so, but I try to refrain from that practice. I like a spirited debate. I think my fellow bloggers do as well. But we don't care much for mindless talking point repetition. 

Here's a case in point. I wrote a recent post regarding a Fed Board Governor's recent epiphany on inequality. One of our conservative friends wrote a lengthy dissertation on how lower tax rates were the way to address inequality. In other words, supply side economics would shrink the gap between the few and the many by putting more dollars in the pockets of the few. 

Really? How can that possibly be? The whole point of supply side economics is to justify inequality as necessary for the greater good. That's why it also is referred to as "trickle-down" economics. The theory is that if you allow those at the top to increase their wealth and income, some of it will trickle-down to the rest of us. Thus, supply siders argue, we need to allow the "job creator" class to be very wealthy in order to grow the economy.

Essentially, this commenter's reflexive reliance on supply-sider talking points made it appear that he thought proponents of supply-side / trickle-down economics have advanced it as a means of remedying inequality, when the reality is they've used supply-side economics to defend and justify inequality and, in fact, argue for increased inequality.  

So what happened here? If the commenter had thought about what he was saying for a few minutes he likely would not have mindlessly spewed out conservative talking points, or at least would have spewed different ones. But it seemed from the comment that inequality triggered thoughts of poverty, which in turn was correlated to joblessness, which then induced a lengthy dissertation on the wonder of supply-side economics for job creation. The problem is that even if supply-side economics actually works to create jobs, it never was designed to reduce inequality. I don't think it ever dawned on the commenter that he was taking the absurd position that the way to reduce the gap between rich and the rest of us is to make the rich even richer.

So, by all means, argue with me. Just try to make sense when you do.  

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Arizona Republic has an editorial opinion today giving their direction to the Arizona House of Representatives on Governor Jan Brewer's Medicaid (AHCCCS) restoration plan, which could have just as easily been summed up in three words with a Nike ad: "Just do it." Our View: No time to punt on Medicaid.

This editorial opinion is entirely devoid of any discussion of the legitimate legal questions raised by Republic columnist Robert Robb in his column on Sunday. Senate passes Medicaid expansion. Or did it? Do you people not speak to one another?

The author's attitude appears to be "don't bother me with the facts," Governor Brewer says her lawyers say this will stand up in court, so that's good enough for me.

Only Governor Brewer and her lawyers have a miserable track record in court. She just lost again today in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Arizona's 20-week abortion ban bill. Ariz.'s 20-week abortion ban struck down.

The Arizona Republic might want to rethink this strategy.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Walter Pincus, the National Security reporter for the Washington Post, is a consummate professional, one of a diminishing class of reporters whom I respect and admire for his body of work.

Any time the media is at the center of a controversy, they can do no wrong in their view. They posssess an absolutist view of the First Amendment right of a free press. No limitations should ever apply to the media. But as we all know, the rights secured by the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment right of a free press, come with limitations. Nothing is absolute. Especially when it endangers national security, methods and sources, and puts people's lives at risk.

Walter Pincus offers his words of wisdom on national security leaks to the media today. Will his media colleagues listen? Fine Print: The press and national security :

Whoever provided the initial leak to the Associated Press in April 2012 not only broke the law but caused the abrupt end to a secret, joint U.S./Saudi/British operation in Yemen that offered valuable intelligence against al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

One goal was to get AQAP’s operational head, Fahd Mohammed Ahmed al-Quso. That happened one day before the AP story appeared.

A second goal was to find and possibly kill AQAP bombmaker Ibrahim Hassan al-Asiri . . .

The drone attack that killed Quso hadn’t occurred when AP reporters were checking out the leak and contacting government officials. Acting responsibly, the AP withheld its story for several days at the government’s request. Lives were at stake, officials said.

What happened afterward illustrates a sad state of affairs — within government (which can’t control critical secrets), the White House (which offered more information to shield itself from a wrong impression created by the AP story), politics (where every event during a presidential race becomes political fodder) and the press (which screams First Amendment at any attempt to investigate it).

There is a natural tension between journalists and the government over national security. There are many examples of administrations misusing secrecy to hide failures or promote successes. And there may be as many times when bad stories hurt clandestine operations.

Hitting targets in the United States is one of AQAP’s goals. In association with Saudi intelligence, the CIA inserted a Saudi who convinced AQAP that he wanted to be a suicide bomber. Eventually he was outfitted with Asiri’s newest device, which he was to use on a U.S. aircraft. After the device was delivered to U.S. officials, someone or several people leaked the information to the AP.

As journalists and politicians focus on what they say are too-broad subpoenas for records of 21 phone lines for AP offices and individuals, what’s lost is the damaging and criminal leak.

* * *

The AP was working on a story where lives really could be at risk. Also at risk were the relationships between U.S., Saudi and British intelligence.

The AP responsibly held its story for five days when informed of national security issues. Although the news organization was informed about only part of the operation, the reality was that intelligence officials believed it had to be closed down immediately.

The AP story, when it first appeared, made no mention of how the United States obtained the new type of bomb. But by describing the event as the CIA halting an AQAP suicide-bombing plot, the story turned a clever clandestine operation into a negative political issue for the White House during the presidential campaign.

How? The AP story tied the foiling of an AQAP plot to White House press secretary Jay Carney’s statement the week before that assured “the American public that [the administration] knew of no al-Qaeda plots against the U.S. around the anniversary of bin Laden’s death.” The AP story implied that Carney’s statement was untrue. But Carney was right. This was a CIA ruse, not a terrorist-initiated plot.

Even during a “Face the Nation” appearance Sunday, AP President Gary Pruitt described the AP story as the United States thwarting “an al-Qaeda plot to place a bomb on an airliner” and Carney as being “misleading to the American public.”

From the start, the AP had placed the plot in the wrong context.

[And it is the AP and First Amendment absolutists who are misleading the public.]

* * *

It was inevitable that the leak to the AP would generate an FBI probe. Given past leak investigations in the Bush and Obama administrations, journalists at the AP and elsewhere know they could face scrutiny. Like it or not, they are part of a crime. The leaker or leakers had taken an oath under the threat of prosecution to protect the information.

The current probe, after almost a year of exhausting other avenues, followed Justice Department guidelines and issued grand jury subpoenas for AP phone records. Did they overreach? There were five reporters and one editor listed on the initial story working out of different AP offices.

Should the AP have been told in advance so it could try to quash the subpoenas? It could delay the inquiry possibly for years if the AP went to court.

Having found my phone records caught up in criminal and civil case probes, such actions from government officials should not be a surprise.

But how many times can the media claim such an action is “chilling sources?” That was a claim during the Valerie Plame case under the Bush administration and repeatedly invoked as the Obama Justice Department has pursued leakers.

The risk of breaking the law apparently didn’t chill those who leaked the information to the AP. That’s what should be considered chilling.

The reality is that this is not a whistleblowing case. There are no heroes here, and the press in this instance was not protecting individuals trying to expose government malfeasance.

The reporters were trying to be first to report a story, which is not a legitimate goal unto itself, and they undermined methods and sources in this clandestine operation. People's lives were put at risk.

With great power comes great responsibility. The media today all too often is reckless and irresponsible.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

It looks like the "Mayor" of Washington, D.C., Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), has a bit of a problem with his plan to take his anti-abortion crusade nationwide. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Arizona's 20-week abortion ban law today. Doh! Court Strikes Down Arizona 20-Week Abortion Ban:

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the law violated a woman's constitutionally protected right to terminate a pregnancy before a fetus is able to survive outside the womb. "Viability" of a fetus is generally considered to start at 24 weeks. Normal pregnancies run about 40 weeks.

Nine other states have enacted similar bans starting at 20 weeks or even earlier. Several of those bans had previously been placed on hold or struck down by other courts.

Judge Marsha Berzon, writing for the unanimous three-judge panel on the San Francisco-based court, said such bans before viability violate a long string of U.S. Supreme Court rulings starting with the seminal Roe v. Wade decision in 1973.

The judge wrote that "a woman has a constitutional right to choose to terminate her pregnancy before the fetus is viable."

Gov. Jan Brewer signed the ban into law in April 2012 after it was approved by the Republican-led Legislature. Supporters said the law was meant to protect the mother's health and prevent fetuses from feeling pain. U.S. District Judge James Teilborg ruled it was constitutional, partly because of those concerns, but the 9th Circuit blocked the ban from going into effect until it ruled.

Lawyers representing Arizona argued that the ban wasn't technically a law but rather a medical regulation because it allowed for doctors to perform abortions in medical emergencies. Berzon rejected that reasoning and deemed the legislation a law banning abortions before a fetus is viable.

"The challenged Arizona statute's medical emergency exception does not transform the law from a prohibition on abortion into a regulation of abortion procedure," Berzon wrote. "Allowing a physician to decide if abortion is medically necessary is not the same as allowing a woman to decide whether to carry her own pregnancy to term."

Berzon was joined by judges Mary Schroeder and Andrew Kleinfeld.

Cathi Herrod, the head of a Christian social conservative group that championed the 2012 legislation, said the ruling overlooks the state's interest in protecting maternal health," but that the outcome wasn't surprising because of the court's reputation as siding with politically liberal causes.

"We look forward to an appeal to the United States Supreme Court," said Herrod, president of the Phoenix-based Center for Arizona Policy. The group filed a legal brief in support of the Arizona law.

The 9th Circuit's ruling is binding only in the nine Western states under the court's jurisdiction, and Idaho is the only other state in the region with a similar ban. A federal judge earlier declared Idaho's ban unconstitutional.

Janet Creppe, a lawyer who argued against the ban in court for the Center for Reproductive Rights, said the ruling Tuesday affirmed a woman's right to an abortion before viability.

"These laws are all unconstitutional," she said. "This is not a close legal question at all. These laws are unconstitutional."

Yes, they are, and that's really the whole point. These anti-abortion crusaders are trying to get a case in front of the conservative activist Roberts' Supreme Court in the hope that the conservative activists of the Court will overturn 40 years of judicial precedents after Roe v. Wade.

UPDATE: The ruling is online here (pdf).

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Presidential Commission on Election Administration is now up and running. Check out its new web site here.

I have low expectations for any meaningful election law reforms to come from this commission, mostly because the Republican Party's go-to lawyer for voter suppression, Ben Ginsburg, is co-chair of the commission. In my view, Ginsburg there to ensure nothing happens.

White House press release. President Obama Announces His Intent to Appoint Individuals to the Presidential Commission on Election Administration:

President Obama Announces His Intent to Appoint Individuals to the Presidential Commission on Election Administration

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, President Barack Obama announced his intent to appoint ten individuals to the Presidential Commission on Election Administration.  The Presidential Commission on Election Administration was created following President Obama’s State of the Union pledge to identify non-partisan ways to shorten lines at polling places, promote the efficient conduct of elections, and provide better access to the polls for all voters.

• Robert F. Bauer  –  Co-Chair, Presidential Commission on Election Administration
• Benjamin L. Ginsberg  – Co-Chair, Presidential Commission on Election Administration
• Brian Britton – Member, Presidential Commission on Election Administration
• Joe Echevarria – Member, Presidential Commission on Election Administration
• Trey Grayson – Member, Presidential Commission on Election Administration
• Larry Lomax – Member, Presidential Commission on Election Administration
• Michele Coleman Mayes – Member, Presidential Commission on Election Administration
• Ann McGeehan – Member, Presidential Commission on Election Administration
• Tammy Patrick – Member, Presidential Commission on Election Administration
• Christopher Thomas – Member, Presidential Commission on Election Administration

President Obama said, “The right to vote is one of the most essential rights provided by the Constitution.  As I said in my State of the Union Address, when any American, no matter where they live or what their party, is denied that right simply because too many obstacles stand in their way, we are betraying our ideals.  We have an obligation to ensure that all eligible voters have the opportunity to cast their ballots without unwarranted obstructions or unnecessary delay. I am pleased that these committed individuals have agreed to offer their expertise to the Presidential Commission on Election Administration and I look forward to working with them in the coming months.”

President Obama announced his intent to appoint the following individuals to the Presidential Commission on Election Administration:

Robert F. Bauer, Appointee for Co-Chair, Presidential Commission on Election Administration
Robert F. Bauer is currently a partner at Perkins Coie LLP and General Counsel to the Democratic National Committee.  He previously served as General Counsel to Obama for America and served as White House Counsel from 2009 to 2011.  In his 30 years of practice, Mr. Bauer has provided counseling and representation on matters involving regulation of political activity before courts and administrative agencies for national party committees, candidates, political committees, individuals, Federal officeholders, corporations and trade associations, and tax-exempt groups.  He received a B.A. from Harvard University and a J.D. from the University of Virginia School of Law.

Benjamin L. Ginsberg, Appointee for Co-Chair, Presidential Commission on Election Administration
Benjamin L. Ginsberg is currently a partner at Patton Boggs LLP where he represents campaigns, candidates, members of Congress and state legislatures, Governors, corporations, trade associations and individuals participating in the political process.  He was formerly General Counsel to the Republican National Committee, and currently represents the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee.  He also serves as Counsel to the Republican Governors Association.  Mr. Ginsberg recently served as National Counsel to the Romney for President campaign and previously served as National Counsel to the Bush-Cheney presidential campaign in 2000 and 2004.  He received an A.B. from the University of Pennsylvania and a J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center.

Brian Britton, Appointee for Member, Presidential Commission on Election Administration
Brian Britton is currently the Vice President of Global Park Operations and Initiatives at Walt Disney World Company.  He joined Disney in 1999 and was previously the Vice President of Labor Operations, Operations Strategy, and Operations Support.  He is a board member of Community Based Care of Central Florida, a non-profit organization that manages Central Florida's foster care program, and a board member for the Florida Attractions Association, a tourism industry trade association.  Mr. Britton is a Navy veteran and a former Naval Aviator.  He received a B.S. in Systems Engineering from the U.S. Naval Academy, a Master's degree equivalent in the theory and operation of avionic systems in Naval Flight Officer School, and an M.B.A. from Harvard Business School.

Joe Echevarria, Appointee for Member, Presidential Commission on Election Administration
Joe Echevarria has served as Chief Executive Officer of Deloitte LLP since June 2011.  Mr. Echevarria joined Deloitte in 1978 and became an audit partner in 1988.  Since that time, he has held a wide range of leadership positions, most recently as U.S. Managing Partner for Operations.  As part of his current role, Mr. Echevarria chairs the U.S. Executive Committee, and is a member of the U.S. Board of Directors, the Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited Board, and the Americas Executive Committee.  Mr. Echevarria serves on the Board of Trustees and chairs the University of Miami School of Business’s Board of Overseers.  He received a B.A. in Business Administration from the University of Miami.

Trey Grayson, Appointee for Member, Presidential Commission on Election Administration
Trey Grayson is currently the Director of the Institute of Politics at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.  Mr. Grayson previously served as Secretary of State for Kentucky, elected in 2003 and re-elected in 2007.  Prior to his election, Mr. Grayson practiced law at the law firms of Greenebaum Doll & McDonald and Keating Muething & Klekamp.  Mr. Grayson has served as the president of the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS), chair of the NASS Elections Committee, and vice chair of the NASS Committee on Voter Participation.  He received an A.B. from Harvard College, and a J.D. and M.B.A. from the University of Kentucky.

Larry Lomax, Appointee for Member, Presidential Commission on Election Administration
Larry Lomax is currently the Clark County Registrar in Nevada, a position he has held since 1999.  Mr. Lomax serves as Nevada’s representative to the Election Assistance Commission’s Standards Board, was elected by the board’s members to the Standards Board Executive Board, and served on a Pew Foundation Committee focused on modernizing our nation’s system of registering voters.  He previously served as Assistant Registrar in Clark County from 1998 to 1999.  Prior to working in Clark County, Mr. Lomax was a Professor of Leadership and Ethics at the Air War College.  As a former Air Force pilot, he accumulated over 4,000 hours of flying time in a 30-year career.  He served two tours on the Joint Staff in Washington D.C. and was chosen to serve as the Air Force Colonel on the staff group supporting the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  Mr. Lomax received a B.A. from Stanford University and an M.B.A. from the University of North Dakota.  He is a Distinguished Graduate from the U.S. Air Force Officer Training School.

Michele Coleman Mayes, Appointee for Member, Presidential Commission on Election Administration
Michele Coleman Mayes is currently Vice President, General Counsel, and Secretary for the New York Public Library (NYPL).  Ms. Mayes joined NYPL in August 2012 after serving as Executive Vice President and General Counsel for Allstate Insurance Company since 2007.  She served as a Senior Vice President and the General Counsel of Pitney Bowes Inc. from 2003 to 2007 and in several legal capacities at Colgate-Palmolive from 1992 to 2003.  In 1982, Ms. Mayes entered the corporate sector as managing attorney of Burroughs Corporation.  After Burroughs and Sperry Corporation merged, creating Unisys Corporation, she was appointed Staff Vice President and Associate General Counsel for Worldwide Litigation.  From 1976 through 1982, she served in the U.S. Department of Justice as an Assistant United States Attorney in Detroit and Brooklyn, eventually assuming the role of Chief of the Civil Division in Detroit.  Ms. Mayes received a B.A. from the University of Michigan and a J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School.

Ann McGeehan, Appointee for Member, Presidential Commission on Election Administration
Ann McGeehan is currently the Assistant General Counsel of the Texas County and District Retirement System.  Previously, she served 22 years in the Elections Division of the Texas Secretary of State’s Office, including as the Director of Elections from 1995 to 2011 and the Director of the Elections Legal Section from 1991 to 1995.  Ms. McGeehan is a past president of the National Association of State Election Directors, and a former member of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission Standards Board and Technical Guidelines Development Committee.  Ms. McGeehan also served on an advisory group to the Pew Center on the States’ Election Initiative.  She received a B.A. from the University of Texas and a J.D. from the University of Texas School of Law.

Tammy Patrick, Appointee for Member, Presidential Commission on Election Administration
Tammy Patrick is currently a Federal Compliance Officer for the Maricopa County Elections Department in Arizona.  In 2013, she became a voting member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers’ working group on developing standards for a universal format for election results reporting.  She is also a representative on the Mailer’s Technical Advisory Committee to the U.S. Post Office and serves as the co-chair of the Postal Task Force for the Election Center.  She has previously served as a member of the Election Assistance Commission’s working group on Language Assistance for Unwritten Language, as an organizer of the 2007 Native American Voter Outreach Summit, and as a member of the Election Center’s National Task Force on Education and Training.  Ms. Patrick received her B.A. from Purdue University.

Christopher Thomas, Appointee for Member, Presidential Commission on Election Administration
Christopher Thomas is the Director of Elections in the Michigan Department of State, a position he has held since 1981.  Mr. Thomas also teaches election law as an Adjunct Professor at the Thomas M. Cooley Law School in Lansing, Michigan.  From 1977 to 1981, Mr. Thomas served as Director of Campaign Finance Information and Director of Campaign Finance Operations for the State of Michigan.  Mr. Thomas served as the Director of Public Communications at the Federal Election Commission from 1975 to 1977.  He began his election administration career in 1974 in Washington, D.C. where he was a Staff Assistant responsible for managing campaign finance filings in the Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives.  Mr. Thomas is a founding member of the National Association of State Election Directors and currently serves as President.  Mr. Thomas has served on the Board of Advisors to the Election Assistance Commission since 2005.  He received a B.A. from Michigan State University, an M.A. from St. Louis University, and a J.D. from the Thomas M. Cooley Law School.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

This guy, again . . . last month I posted about Rep. Trent Franks still fancies himself 'Mayor' of Washington, D.C.:

When Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) is not channeling Joe McCarthy with his Islamophobia conspiracy theories about how the Council on American Islamic Relations tried to plant "spies" in the national security apparatus, House Republicans accuse Muslim group of trying to plant spies, or claiming that African-Americans were better off under slavery than they are today (why? Because "abortion!"), or declaring that President Obama is one of the most dangerous enemies facing America today and "an enemy of humanity", or threatening to impeach President Obama over his refusal to defend the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act, this Christian Right anti-gay, anti-abortion zealot fancies himself the "Mayor" of Washington, D.C., proposing to outlaw the constitutional right to a safe abortion in the District.

Apparently "Mayor" of Washington, D.C. is no longer good enough for Franks. Not content with attempting to impose his anti-abortion crusade upon the women who live in the nation’s capital, Rep. Trent Franks  now intends to take his anti-abortion crusade nationwide with a bill to criminalize abortions after 20 weeks. Arizona Congressman Wants To Expand His DC Abortion Ban To Restrict Reproductive Rights Nationwide:

Franks, who invoked the illegal abortion provider Kermit Gosnell to justify his decision to re-introduce a 20-week abortion ban in DC, now says that Gosnell’s crimes have compelled him to amend his bill so it applies to women across the country.

The Arizona congressmember announced his decision to expand his bill on Friday.

Steve Benen points out that that Franks does not necessarily have the support of his colleagues. House GOP eyes major new anti-abortion measure:

Franks now wants to pursue this as a national policy, imposed on all states, constitutional concerns be damned. And while random members of Congress routinely introduce all kinds of bills that will never pass, this one seems to have put House GOP leaders in an awkward position.

If the bill gets a markup and a vote on the House floor, it would surely satisfy conservative members of the rank and file who want the chamber to take a firm stance on the Gosnell conviction and against abortion practices generally.

By this time in the 112th Congress, House Republicans had already made an unequivocal statement that they stand against the practice with the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, which passed on a 251-175 vote.

The House's silence on the issue is notable because of the high-profile nature of the Gosnell trial and also given last week's vote to repeal Obamacare. GOP leaders argued that the vote was scheduled for the benefit of freshmen who had campaigned on overturning the 2010 health care law and wanted to go on the record against it. In theory, the same argument could apply to abortion.

This is the natural extension of the post-policy thesis we've been talking about lately -- these House Republicans know Franks' bill won't pass, won't become law, and probably couldn't withstand court scrutiny anyway, but want a floor vote because they see value in making a "statement." They could try governing and legislating for a change, but that's less important than sending "signals" to the party's far-right activist base.

Of course, there's also the small matter of the Republicans' rebranding initiative, and Franks' bill wouldn't do that effort any favors, either. For the American mainstream, there's quite a bit Congress should be working on right now, and legally dubious anti-abortion measures that can't pass isn't high on the list.

Indeed, as GOP leaders may recall, the preoccupation with the culture war among House Republicans cost the party dearly in 2012, and made the gender gap even worse.

There's also the inconvenient issue of dividing a House GOP caucus that's already splintering.

Republican leaders might want to spare some members the unsavory prospect of taking a vote -- and having a lengthy debate on a controversial policy position that has no chance of getting signed into law in this Congress. As members of the party that by and large opposes abortion rights, some moderate GOP lawmakers could be torn between not wanting to alienate influential outside groups that "score" votes on abortion-related bills and their constituents who might see such bills as overreaching.

This could especially be true for Franks' bill, which would seek to institute in all jurisdictions a ban that has already been instituted in nine states.

What will Boehner and Cantor do about all of this?

The "Worst. Speaker. Ever." has no control over his caucus. The lunatics are running the asylum, so it is almost certain that this bill will come up for a vote in the House.

by David Safier

Ann-Eve Pedersen and I have created a new half hour cable TV show, Education: The Rest of the Story (apologies to Paul Harvey). Our goal is to look deeper into education issues than what you usually see and hear in the mainstream media, correcting misimpressions and adding information to the discussion. The first episode hasn't aired yet, but we've put it on youtube, divided into three 10 minute segments. I'll be putting them up one by one.

A regular segment will be Myth Busting (apologies again, this time to those wonderful Myth Busters on the Discovery Channel). The first segment explores the myth, Our Public Schools are Failing. While are schools aren't everything we want them to be and have lots of room for improvement, the myth of Failing Schools suggests our schools are worse than they once were and are far worse than schools in the rest of the world. Both suggestions are false.

You can watch the 10 minute video below the fold, but here's a little cheat sheet to give you some of the facts explored in the segment.

• The average I.Q. of children today is 10 points higher than it was 30 years ago. They've had to adjust the scores downward to keep the average score at 100 points. If the scoring were the same as 30 years ago, today's average would be 110.
• According to the NAEP test (National Assessment of Educational Progress) which has been administered since the 1970s, the average math score of today's 9 year olds is equivalent to the average scores for 11 year olds 30 years ago. While the other NAEP scores haven't gone up as dramatically, they've held their own or improved slightly.
• The achievement of African American and Hispanic students has increased more quickly than the achievement of Anglo students, narrowing the racial/ethnic gap.
• On the 2011 international test, TIMSS, the U.S. scored 6th in reading, 10th in math and 9th in science, surpassing most European countries. Massachusetts, which has the same population as many European countries, was 2nd in the world in science.

You can watch the video below the fold.

Posted by Bob Lord

I always see it as a breath of intellectual honesty when a progressive takes on a tax policy position adopted by progressive politicians.

Along those lines, Polly Cleveland has an interesting post at inequaity.org, Grover Norquist Is Right to Oppose Internet Sales Taxes, in which she takes on the conventional progressive wisdom that we should tax internet sales. I'm not sure I agree with her. The essence of her argument is that sales taxes are so insidious that we should put aside concerns regarding fairness and oppose any proposal to increase sales taxes. She argues that the effect of taxing internet sales could be to make state legislators more brazen in increasing sales tax rates across the board. She may very well be right.

But whether she's right or not, her analysis is stellar. She explains how sales taxes not only are regressive in their impact on consumers, but also unfair in their impact on small businesses, and why taxing internest sales could open the floodgates to further sales tax increases:

As most of us know, sales taxes are “regressive.” That is, when sales taxes are “passed on,” they fall harder on poorer customers than on richer ones. That’s why many states exempt food and medicine, as does New York, except for restaurant food. But sales taxes are also “passed back” onto retailers and service providers. In fact, sales taxes are shared between customers and retailers in inverse proportion to their ability to shop or sell elsewhere.

It’s the “passed back” portion of sales taxes that do the most damage, because — unlike profit taxes — they take a bite from gross revenues before expenses. Moreover, a uniform tax rate does not mean uniform impact. As Anatole France wrote, “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.” Sales (and VAT) taxes fall hardest on small, labor-intensive retailers, with high volume and low profit margins.

Consider two New York City businesses: One is a furniture store; the other is a Sabrett’s hot dog cart. Assume for simplicity the “passed back” portion of the 8 ½ percent sales tax is 5 percent. The furniture store invests $9,000 a year in an inventory of sofas, which it sells for $10,000, earning a $1,000 before-tax profit. A 5 percent sales tax is $500, half of profit, and 5.5 percent of the $9,000 investment.

The hot dog cart invests $200 a day in buns, dogs, and labor. It earns $210 a day, or $76,650 a year in sales and $3,650 in profit. A 5 percent sales tax collects $3,833, wiping out profit and amounting to 1916 percent of the $200 investment! Moreover since most of the cost of the cart is labor, the tax adds 5 percent to the 18 percent or so in payroll taxes!

In short, sales taxes kill small businesses — precisely the kind of businesses that provide the most jobs per dollar invested. And by killing competition, sales taxes may drive prices up by more than the tax rate.

Sales taxes are also insidious — it’s always so tempting to politicians to raise them another quarter cent, and hope no one notices. Up to now, the threat of tax competition from neighboring states and localities has kept those politicians in check. That is, as long as customers can easily shop elsewhere, most of the tax will be “passed back” onto merchants —whose complaints will make politicians think twice about increases. The European VAT has crept so high precisely because shoppers can’t avoid it by crossing borders.(Tennis ball smuggling isn’t cost-effective).

In recent years, the rise of effectively untaxed internet sales has helped check increases of state and local sales taxes. If the Marketplace Fairness Act passes the House, it will release that check on sales taxes and lubricate our way towards European-style VAT taxes! “Fairness” shouldn’t mean raising sales taxes on internet merchants, but reducing them on local businesses. For once, though for the wrong reason, Grover Norquist is right.

You can disagree with her conclusion, because, after all, fairness is important. But you have to respect her reasoning. It's at a level you rarely see in the political world, whether on the progressive side or the conservative.

Once upon a time, a man was arrested for a string of brutal bank robberies. He said

"You know that bank on Elm Street? I never robbed that. I swear! I've never been anywhere near that place!! What's your problem???"

That was beside the point, because he wasn't charged with robbing that particular bank. In fact, that was the only bank for miles around that he hadn't robbed.

I mention this because on Monday May 20th Congressman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) published an opinion piece in the Washington Post:  "Overheated Rhetoric on Climate Change Hurts the Economy"  It uses the same bank-robber logic.

Mr. Smith's piece came out on the same day that an exceptionally violent storm struck Moore, Oklahoma; preliminary reports indicate at least 24 killed and hundreds injured.

He goes on to say

"the resulting increase in carbon dioxide emissions would be a mere 12 one-thousandths of 1 percent (0.0012 percent)."

That just cracks me up. That's typical climate-denier arithmetic. He cites an authoritative government source for that number, namely a statement that he himself made during a congressional hearing a week ago. He got the arithmetic wrong back then, too. (I'm pretty sure that back here in the real world, 12 divided by 1000 is 0.012.)

The fact remains that no matter how you do the arithmetic, tar-sands oil releases disproportionately more greenhouse gases than other forms of petroleum, out of proportion to the net energy obtained.

His statements about the number of jobs created are similarly dishonest. The pipeline will last for a long time, whereas the construction jobs will not. The fact remains that the long-term damage is far out of proportion to the number of long-term jobs. His jobs number is fanciful -- even if you take it as an estimate of peak jobs -- and even if it were true it would be beside the point. Any proper business-case analysis would consider the alternatives, such as renewable-energy projects ... which create jobs, too.

This guy is not just a Member of Congress ... he is the Chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. He's obviously not lazy or stupid; it takes effort and ingenuity to pack so much dishonesty and deception into a short article.

Posted by Bob Lord

I rarely miss Chris Hedges' Monday columns at Truthdig. They're always informative and Hedges' skills as a writer are awesome. 

Once in a while, though, he spins out a column that rises above even Hedges' own great work. Such was the case yesterday with Rise Up or Die. On our blind faith in free markets:

There is nothing in 5,000 years of economic history to justify the belief that human societies should structure their behavior around the demands of the marketplace. This is an absurd, utopian ideology. The airy promises of the market economy have, by now, all been exposed as lies. The ability of corporations to migrate overseas has decimated our manufacturing base. It has driven down wages, impoverishing our working class and ravaging our middle class. It has forced huge segments of the population—including those burdened by student loans—into decades of debt peonage. It has also opened the way to massive tax shelters that allow companies such as General Electric to pay no income tax. Corporations employ virtual slave labor in Bangladesh and China, making obscene profits. As corporations suck the last resources from communities and the natural world, they leave behind, as Joe Sacco and I saw in the sacrifice zones we wrote about, horrific human suffering and dead landscapes. The greater the destruction, the greater the apparatus crushes dissent.

And what we must do:

It is time to build radical mass movements that defy all formal centers of power and make concessions to none. It is time to employ the harsh language of open rebellion and class warfare. It is time to march to the beat of our own drum. The law historically has been a very imperfect tool for justice, as African-Americans know, but now it is exclusively the handmaiden of our corporate oppressors; now it is a mechanism ofinjustice. It was our corporate overlords who launched this war. Not us. Revolt will see us branded as criminals. Revolt will push us into the shadows. And yet, if we do not revolt we can no longer use the word “hope.” 

Herman Melville’s “Moby-Dick” grasps the dark soul of global capitalism. We are all aboard the doomed ship Pequod, a name connected to an Indian tribe eradicated by genocide, and Ahab is in charge. “All my means are sane,” Ahab says, “my motive and my object mad.” We are sailing on a maniacal voyage of self-destruction, and no one in a position of authority, even if he or she sees what lies ahead, is willing or able to stop it. Those on the Pequod who had a conscience, including Starbuck, did not have the courage to defy Ahab. The ship and its crew were doomed by habit, cowardice and hubris. Melville’s warning must become ours. Rise up or die.

My selected quotes of course don't capture the greatness of Hedges' post. Read the whole post here.

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?