Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) has posted a letter at Daily Kos asking Americans who want real health care reform to change the debate and support a real public option - single payer health care.

Healthcare: Change the Debate
Support a Real Public Option

Dear Friends,

In mid-May, in an effort to reach consensus, President Obama secured a deal with the health insurance companies to trim 1.5% of their costs each year for ten years saving a total of $2 trillion dollars, which would be reprogrammed into healthcare. Just two days after the announcement at the White House the insurance companies reneged on the deal which was designed to protect and increase their revenue at least 35%

The insurance companies reneged on the deal because they refuse any restraint on increasing premiums, copays and deductibles - core to their profits. No wonder a recent USA Today poll found that only four percent of Americans trust insurance companies. This is within the margin of error, which means it is possible that NO ONE TRUSTS insurance companies.

Then why does Congress trust the insurance companies? Yesterday HR 3200 "America's Affordable Health Choices Act," a 1000 page bill was delivered to members. The title of the bill raises a question: "Affordable" for whom?

Of $2.4 trillion spent annually for health care in America, fully $800 billion goes for the activities of the for-profit insurer-based system. This means one of every three health care dollars is siphoned off for corporate profits, stock options, executive salaries, advertising, marketing and the cost of paper work, (which can be anywhere between 15 - 35% in the private sector as compared to Medicare, the single payer plan which has only 3% administrative costs).

50 million Americans are uninsured and another 50 million are under insured while for-profit insurance companies divert precious health care dollars to non-health care purposes. Eliminate the for-profit health care system and its extraordinary overhead, put the money into healthcare and everyone will be covered, everyone will be able to afford health care.

Today three committees will begin marking up and amending HR3200. In this, one of the most momentous public policy debates in the past 70 years, single payer, the only viable "public option," the one that makes sound business sense, controls costs and covers everyone was taken off the table.

In contrast to HR3200 ... HR676 calls for a universal single-payer health care system in the United States, Medicare for All. It has over 85 co-sponsors in Congress with the support of millions of Americans and countless physicians and nurses. How does HR-676 control costs and cover everyone? It cuts out the for-profit middle men and delivers care directly to consumers and Medicare acts as the single payer of bills. It also recognizes that under the current system for-profit insurance companies make money NOT providing health care.

This week is the time to break the hold which the insurance companies have on our political process. Tell Congress to stand up to the insurance companies. Ask members to sign on to the only real public option, HR 676, a single-payer healthcare system.

Hundreds of local labor unions, thousands of physicians and millions of Americans are standing behind us. With a draft of HR3200 now circulating, It is up to each and every one of us to organize and rally for the cause of single-payer healthcare. Change the debate. Now is the time.

The time to act is now!

Sincerely Yours,

Dennis Kucinich
United States Congressman

Contact us at feedback@kucinich.us or visit us online at www.kucinich.us

The House Committee on Education and Labor voted 25-19 on Friday to pass Congressman Dennis Kucinich's amendment to the health care reform bill (HR3200), which would allow states to create single payer health care systems if they choose. House Lets States Do Single-Payer Healthcare There was bipartisan support for the bill, from Democrats who favor a single payer system, and from Republicans who believe in states' rights.

Congressman Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), who supports a single payer health care system, voted in favor of the Kucinich amendment.

There are strong campaigns with a good chance of passing single payer health care systems, if Congress permits it, in several states: Pennsylvania, California, Illinois, Ohio, Colorado, and Massachusetts.

The Kucinich amendment will need to survive votes of the full House and Senate and conference committee. Call, write, e-mail -- make it happen.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Harry and Louise are coming back to television screens across the country to talk about overhauling health care. This time, they've switched sides. Harry And Louise Back On TV, Supporting Health Care Reform:

TV ads featuring the fictional couple played a big role in derailing President Bill Clinton's effort to revamp the medical system in the 1990s. Back then, actors Louise Caire Clark and Harry Johnson played a middle-class couple worrying about the changes, and the ads were sponsored by the insurance industry, which was fighting Clinton's plan.

Now, they will appear in a $4 million TV campaign supporting a reshaping of health care, sponsored by Families USA, which champions affordable health care for families, and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. The two groups, often at odds, have joined forces this year to support some general principles behind revamping health care, such as making it more affordable for low-income people.

The ads begin airing this weekend and will run at least three weeks on national cable and network news shows.

* * *

In the new commercial, the characters discuss a need for affordable health coverage that people can keep if they change or lose their jobs. They don't mention some of the issues dividing lawmakers, such as whether there should be optional government-run insurance or requirements that employers cover their workers, or how to pay for it.

* * *

"A little more cooperation, a little less politics and we can get the job done this time," Louise says.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People celebrated its centennial anniversary this week at its NAACP Annual Convention in New York City. Members also celebrated the 45th anniversary of the passage of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241, July 2, 1964).

To mark the 100th anniversary of the NAACP, the organization realized what could have been only a dream when it was established - the convention was addressed by the first African-American president of the United States.

President Barack Obama gave due respect to the achievements of the giants of the civil rights movement who preceded him and made his candidacy and election as president possible. For those of us who have participitated in the civil rights movement at times throughout its long march through history, it was a moving moment. It brought back memories of all those who had gone before to lead the way to this day. President Obama duly acknowledged that he is standing on the shoulders of giants. And he correctly noted that the task is not yet over -- there is still much work to be done for the civil rights movement:

"On the 45th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, discrimination must not stand. Not on account of color or gender; how you worship or who you love. Prejudice has no place in the United States of America."

President Obama heavily emphasised education as the civil rights movement of the 2st Century. For a transcript of his prepared remarks, see Remarks by the President to the NAACP Centennial Convention 07/16/2009

by David Safier
Here's a quote every Democrat playing duck-and-delay games with health care legislation should keep in mind.

Republican Senator Jim DeMint said if they can delay health care legislation until September, they can kill it.

DeMint is probably overstating the case, but if one of Obama's signature issues goes down in flames, it will do serious damage to his presidency.

During the Clinton administration, Gingrich feared a Democratic health care bill. He saw that as a way for Democrats to cement their majority, so he knew he had to pull out all the stops to defeat it.

There are two sides to the DeMint coin. On one side, a defeat for health care legislation is a defeat for Obama and, by extension, for all Dems in Congress. On the other side, passing strong legislation will be a huge victory that will benefit Democrats everywhere. That's a cynical, political way of framing the issue, but maybe that's the kind of framing it will take for some Democrats to get on board.

It makes my heart sink to see a letter like this urging a delay of the legislation. 

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

H/t to Talking Points Memo for its video edit of President Barack Obama bursting into a fiery appeal for health care reform at a rally for New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine.

Read the full transcript here.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Arizona's senators rank among the worst in the nation. They should be grateful to the citizens of Oklahoma and Alabama who keep them from being ranked dead last.

Jon Kyl and John McCain have truly outdone themselves in outrageous comments made on political talk shows and in their press releases over the past several weeks. There have been so many that I can't possibly keep track of them all. And in Jon Kyl's case, he made a complete ass of himself during the Judge Sonia Sotomayor confirmation hearing with his seven minute lecture demonstrating his lack of legal acumen despite being a lawyer. Kyl and McCain are a painful embarrassment to this state.

I have been meaning to get to the "stimulus flap" that flared up this week, but Jed Lewison at Daily Kos has posted a good summary, to which I will add.

On Sunday, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) called on the Obama Administration to cancel the rest of the stimulus plan, saying it was a complete failure.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) blew Kyl's arguments out of the water, reminding Kyl that only $56 billion of the $787 billion had yet been spent and that under Kyl's plan, tax cuts for middle-class Americans would be rescinded and jobs from much-needed infrastructure improvements would be lost.

Durbin's response was good, but what happened next was a thing of beauty.

WASHINGTON - Top Obama administration officials asked Gov. Jan Brewer on Monday whether the state wants to forfeit ongoing federal economic stimulus money after Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., suggested that the program should be nixed.

Agency heads ranging from Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood to housing Secretary Shaun Donovan sent letters to Brewer, pressing her to declare whether she supports the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act or sides with Kyl and is willing to give up some of the money.

Brewer, a Republican, made it clear she wanted the stimulus funds -- but seemed to confuse whose idea it was to cancel the program:

"The governor is hopeful that these federal Cabinet officials are not threatening to deny Arizona citizens the portion of federal stimulus funds to which they are entitled," Brewer spokesman Paul Senseman said. "She believes that would be a tremendous mistake by the administration."

Earth to Governor Brewer: the Obama Administration supports the stimulus. They don't want to cut off funds. It's your Republican U.S. Senator Jon Kyl who proposed cutting off your funds.

Although Brewer was confused, at least she made it clear she supported the stimulus.

John McCain, however, launched into a full-fledged freakout, offering a load of pure, unadulterated hypocrisy:

"I strongly support the comments of Senator Kyl and call on the administration to retract its threat against the citizens of Arizona."

So...John McCain supports Senator Kyl's demand that the Obama administration cancel the stimulus...but when the Obama administration asks state officials whether or not they agree with Senator Kyl's demand, McCain calls it a "threat against the citizens of Arizona."

Put another way, John McCain's message is this: "Don't do what I say I want you to do, because if you do what I say I want you to do, then you're doing nothing but threatening me. AND GET OFF MY LAWN! DAMMIT!"

And they wonder why we think they are a bunch of lunatics.

Speaking of lunatics, this is where the editors of the Arizona Republic come in. The editorial page of this newspaper is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican Party. During the 2008 election, the editors of the newspaper took press releases issued by the McCain for President campaign and simply added a few rhetorical flourishes to recycle them as their own opinion. The Arizona Republic is firmly in the pocket of Kyl and McCain.

So it should come as no surprise that the editors wrote a whiny cry-baby editorial on Wednesday telling the Obama administration to stop pointing out that Arizona's senators are a total embarrassment to their state. Kyl and Brewer should reject D.C. power play:

If the administration wishes to send Kyl a message, we suspect it knows his phone number. It does not need to "send a message" to Kyl via Arizona's governor, 3,000 miles away.

This is the rawest of power politics. And Arizona's senior senator, John McCain, rejects it. "I strongly support the comments of Senator Kyl and call on the administration to retract its threat against the citizens of Arizona," he said.

* * *

We heartily encourage Gov. Brewer to respond posthaste to the secretaries and let them know what they can do with their queries about our tax dollars, which they are so kindly "making available" to our state.

First of all, Arizona receives more federal tax dollars in return from the federal government than it pays out in taxes to the federal government, so it is not our tax dollars that we are talking about but the taxes paid by blue states from which this red state gratuitously benefits. Secondly, defending Arizona's twin embarrasments and our grossly incompetent Accidental Governor demonstrates just how little credibility this yellow rag has.

This stimulus kerfuffle has been picked up nationally by the Washington Post White House turns up heat on Arizona senator, and was the lead-in story on Countdown with Keith Olbermann last night (video below the fold). Kudos to David Shuster for reminding viewers that Republican governors like our own grossly incompetent Accidental Governor spoke out against the federal stimulus bill before she showed up with her hat in hand to beg for federal stimulus dollars to balance the state budget - which Arizona has yet to produce. Grand hypocrisy from Arizona's Republican leaders.

by David Safier
I posted about a Howard Dean interview where he said,

My point was, Giffords, Mitchell, Kirkpatrick and other Reps in swing districts need an Obama success on health care. That means a bill with a strong public option that actually does what it sets out to do.

Robert Creamer on HuffPo agrees.

I've been known to criticize conservatives for acting in their limited self interest -- if it's good for them, they don't give a damn about anyone else. I'm beginning to think the Blue Dogs are indulging in a misguided exercise in limited self interest, where their attempts to hold on to votes back home by "standing up to the President" could result in the voters rejecting them in 2010.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The one organization which has stood as a gatekeeper against any and all reforms of health care in this country since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, The American Medical Association (AMA), surprisingly (shockingly) just endorsed its support for H.R. 3200, the "America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009."

OK, now I'm worried -- if the AMA is supporting this bill, what's hidden in its more than 1000 pages? It merits closer inspection and analysis.

If this is genuine support from the AMA for H.R. 3200, this represents an historic day in American political history. The symbolism of this tectonic shift in the position of the AMA should not go unappreciated.

There do not appear to be any caveats from the AMA for its endorsement. The Seminal » The AMA just endorsed the House health reform bill However, the AMA letter does not expressly endorse the "public option" by reference, although the "public option" is currently an element of the bill. Here's the letter to Rangel, Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee [pdf].

July 16, 2009

The Honorable Charles B. Rangel
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Rangel:

On behalf of the Board of Trustees of the American Medical Association, I am writing to express our appreciation and support for H.R. 3200, the “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009.” This legislation includes a broad range of provisions that are key to effective, comprehensive health system reform. We urge members of the House Education and Labor, Energy and Commerce, and Ways and Means Committees to favorably report H.R. 3200 for consideration by the full House.

In particular, we are pleased that the bill:

• Promises to extend coverage to all Americans through health insurance market reforms;
• Provides consumers with a choice of plans through a health insurance exchange;
• Includes essential health insurance reforms such as eliminating coverage denials based on pre-existing conditions;
• Recognizes that fundamental Medicare reforms, including repeal of the sustainable growth rate formula, are essential to the success of broader health system reforms;
• Encourages chronic disease management and care coordination through additional funding for primary care services, without imposing offsetting payment reductions on specialty care;
• Addresses growing physician workforce concerns;
• Strengthens the Medicaid program;
• Requires individuals to have health insurance, and provides premium assistance to those who cannot afford it;
• Includes prevention and wellness initiatives designed to keep Americans healthy;
• Makes needed improvements to the Physician Quality Reporting Initiative that will enable greater participation by physicians; and
• Initiates significant payment and delivery reforms by encouraging participation in new models such as accountable care organizations and the patient-centered medical home.

The AMA looks forward to further constructive dialogue during the committee mark-up process. We pledge to work with the House committees and leadership to build support for passage of health reform legislation to expand access to high quality, affordable health care for all Americans.

This year, the AMA wants the debate in Washington to conclude with real, long overdue results that will improve the health of America’s patients.

Sincerely,

Michael D. Maves, MD, MBA

If you Google "Arizonans Setting Energy Free," the only link is the piece I just quoted from. I suppose I could put together a group called "Arizonans Making BfA Blogger Rich Beyond His Wildest Dreams of Avarice" and say the group is sponsoring a money drop in a certain Swiss bank account, but that wouldn't mean I'm not behind it.

Unless someone can show me this ad hoc ASEF group is independent of the local Tea Baggers, I'm going to assume it's old tea in new bottles.

And by the way, the Pima Dem group will be meeting at 4pm Friday on the Northeast corner of Pima and Swan. Everyone is invited. It could be an interesting matchup. I won't be surprised to see some media coverage.

UPDATE: A reader tipped me to this post on Sonoran Alliance.

The Arizona chapter of Americans for Prosperity is joining the National Tea Party Protest Day this Friday (July 17) with protests at the offices of key members of Arizona’s Congressional delegation.

[snip]

I think we can take it to the bank. This Friday's demonstration is part of the Tea Party movement. If you have time, read through the comments at the end of the S.A. post about how this "grassroots movement" is bought and paid for by big Republican money. Some very good documentation.

He, Dean Martin, said the fed is stiffing Arizona to get back at Kyl, which will force us to borrow money for schools and pay interest on it we can ill afford.

She, Sandra Abrevaya, spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of Education, said there were concerns Arizona planned to use the money for expenses other than education, which it's not supposed to do.

The other She, the Accidental Guv, isn't talking. She won't take sides. If I'm reading the tea leaves right, Brewer's unwillingness to take a side probably means Martin is trying to score political points and cover his fellow Rs' posteriors at the same time for what is probably a problem within the state, not with the Feds.

Here's an outsider's angle from Education Week, which doesn't need to maintain a pretense at objectivity by treating both sides as if their arguments have equal merit.

Sounds like Arizona was trying to pull a fast one and the Feds caught them at it. Was this a way for the Rs to pay a few bills while they keep trying to pass some kind of budget? ("Mom, dad, I promise, the money will only go to pay for my tuition. Not a penny will go to my bookies or to pay for next Friday's kegger.") It looks to me like the Feds are trying to keep Arizona honest.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Arch-conservative Patrick J. Buchanan was one of the architects and chief purveyors of Richard Nixon's polarizing Southern Strategy to exploit racial animosity among white voters towards "uppity" minorities. Buchanan was an advisor and speech writer to Richard Nixon.

As a candidate for political office (he ran for president twice), and as a political commmentator, Patrick J. Buchanan has a long record of overtly racist and sexist statements. He is an unreformed Southern segregationist.

So it should come as no surprise that with the election of the first African-American president, and now the nomination of the first Hispanic judge to the former all-white boys club of the U.S. Supreme Court, Patrick J. Buchanan is apoplectic. His world of white privilege threatened, he has become the voice of white grievance.

Patrick J. Buchanan is once again exorting Republicans to embrace the Southern Strategy, yearning for the glory days of his youth when his pitchfork brigades waged a war of racial animosity and division in America. The American Conservative » How to Handle Sotomayor:

What they must do is expose Sotomayor, as they did not in the case of Ginsburg, as a political activist whose career bespeaks a lifelong resolve to discriminate against white males to the degree necessary to bring about an equality of rewards in society.

Sonia is, first and foremost, a Latina. She has not hesitated to demand, even in college and law school, ethnic and gender preferences for her own. Her concept of justice is race-based.

Sorry, Pat. It is your view of the world which has always been colored race-based white privilege. This unreformed Southern segregationist is a throwback to the dark days of our past, and is an enbarrassing relic today.

So why does MSNBC employ this racist Patrick J. Buchanan? His commentary on the Sotomayor hearing on Wednesday's edition of Harball, largely based upon his article above, was so over-the-top that I thought Eugene Robinson was about to come out of his seat. Of course, his friend and apologist Chris Matthews, also given to off-color comments bordering on racist and sexist, defended him.

Chris Matthews incessantly goes on and on about Pennsylvania and how he views himself as an expert on blue collar Reagan Democrats in Pennsylvania. (He was proven spectacularly wrong in the last election when he predicted Reagan Democrats would not vote for Obama - they did; they are just Democrats.). It was James Carville who once quipped that "Pennsylvania is Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with Alabama in the middle." I get the distinct impression that Chris Matthews hails from "Alabama in the middle," hence his affinity for his racist friend Patrick J. Buchanan.

Neither man does MSNBC proud. But there is no good reason on God's green Earth why MSNBC continues to employ the overtly racist Patrick J. Buchanan. This is the 21st Century, not 1950's segregated America. I don't care that he is Chris Matthews' friend, MSNBC should fire Patrick J. Buchanan. He is an insult to the intelligence of the network's viewers, and a glaring embarrassment to the network.

Note: Patrick J. Buchanan will be a guest on the Rachel Maddow Show on Thursday evening to defend his comments on Wednesday's edition of Hardball. There is no defense for his sowing the seeds of racial animosity in America today. America has evolved beyond its ignominious past on race. Patrick J. Buchanan has not.

UPDATE: H/t to Daily Kos for this post What would white people do... without Pat Buchanan defending them from the oppression of the minority?

And to remind people why Buchanan has been unhinged about Sotomayor all week:

We’re going to have 135 million Hispanics in the United States by 2050, heavily concentrated in the southwest. The question is whether we’re going to survive as a country.

He sees Sotomayor -- heck, any brown person really -- as a threat to his beloved White America's very survival.

Pat Buchanan is living proof that MSNBC doesn't want Fox News to have a monopoly on racists.

The question is "why?" MSNBC, fire Patrick J. Buchanan.

Posted by AzblueMeanie:

Bipartisanship is healthy to create broad public support for policy decisions. But bipartisanship requires the "loyal opposition" to work in good faith with the majority party to produce such bipartisan policy. The United States has a long and storied history of such bipartisan cooperation.

But in this era of hyper-partisanship made possible by cable TV, talk radio and the internet, the Republicans in Congress have elected to become the "disloyal opposition." Republicans are committed to only one guiding principle: "just say no" to everything proposed by the White House and the majority congressional Democrats. They have publicly declared that their only objective is to see that President Obama fails (and with him, the country). They are the Grand Obstructionist Party. This does not constitute "good faith."

At a time when the country is facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression (brought to you by 30 years of failed Republican economic policies) and is still engaged in two wars overseas, some might argue, correctly, that this attempt to paralyze American government during a time of crisis is un-American and disloyal, bordering on insurrection. Some Republicans (Governor Goodhair of Texas) have, in fact, gone so far as to advocate secession from the United States - an act of treason.

Every modern American president has enjoyed bipartisan support for his agenda from the loyal opposition during their tenure in office, including George W. Bush. Democratic votes provided the margin of victory for much of the Bush agenda, including policies vehemently opposed by the majority of Democrats in Congress and Democratic voters.

We are witnessing the first time in modern American history that a political party has steadfastly refused to bargain in good faith as the loyal opposition and has committed itself to a singular policy of obstruction. We are in uncharted territory. It demonstrates just how radicalized the rump-Republican Party has become now that its numbers have been reduced to its core ideological extremists on the political fringe of the GOP.

One cannot negotiate with extremists intent on killing you (politically speaking).

So it is comforting to learn that President Obama has finally come to this realization after a prolonged courtship of the GOP leadership for their suport, and he is now ready to accept the situation with which he is confronted. Obama Open to Partisan Vote on Health-Care Overhaul, Aides Say:

President Barack Obama may rely only on Democrats to push health-care legislation through the U.S. Congress if Republican opposition doesn’t yield soon, two of the president’s top advisers said.

“Ultimately, this is not about a process, it’s about results,” David Axelrod, Obama’s senior political strategist, said during an interview in his White House office. “If we’re going to get this thing done, obviously time is a-wasting.”

Both Axelrod and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said taking a partisan route to enacting major health-care legislation isn’t the president’s preferred choice. Yet in separate interviews, each man left that option open.

“We’d like to do it with the votes of members of both parties,” Axelrod said. “But the worst result would be to not get health-care reform done.”

* * *

Emanuel, making a theoretical case for a party-line vote, offered a definition of bipartisanship based not on roll-call votes but on whether Democrats have accepted Republican ideas during the process of negotiations.

And he said Democrats already have passed that test, pointing to Republican amendments that the Democratic-controlled Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee has adopted.

“That’s a test of bipartisanship -- whether you took ideas from both parties,” Emanuel said. “At the end of the day, the test isn’t whether they voted for it,” he said, referring to Republicans. “The test is whether the final product represented some of their ideas. And I think it will.”

* * *

In entertaining the possibility of a party-line vote on health care, Emanuel cited “reconciliation,” a parliamentary procedure that a dominant party can use to prevent the other party from blocking legislation.

“It’s not the first priority, or the second priority, or the third priority. We think we can get it done without it,” he said.

* * *

Yet reconciliation “exists as an alternative vehicle, Emanuel said. “That’s what it was created for.”

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

From The White House - Blog Post - Nurses Join the Call for Health Care Reform:

On Wednesday, the President was joined by members of the American Nurses Association in the Rose Garden, where he spoke strongly on the urgent need for health care reform. He explained that the status quo is not an option, and that deferring reform is akin to defending that status quo.

The President praised nurses as an essential component to our health care system, saying without them, many in underserved areas would not receive health care at all. Because they work so closely with patients, nurses know as well as anybody why reform is desperately needed:

And that's why it's safe to say that few understand why we have to pass reform as intimately as our nation's nurses.  They see firsthand the heartbreaking costs of our health care crisis. They hear the same stories that I've heard across this country -- of treatment deferred or coverage denied by insurance companies; of insurance premiums and prescriptions that are so expensive they consume a family's entire budget; of Americans forced to use the emergency room for something as simple as a sore throat just because they can't afford to see a doctor.

And they understand that this is a problem that we can no longer defer. We can't kick the can down the road any longer.  Deferring reform is nothing more than defending the status quo -- and those who would oppose our efforts should take a hard look at just what it is that they're defending. Over the last decade, health insurance premiums have risen three times faster than wages. Deductibles and out-of-pocket costs are skyrocketing. And every single day we wait to act, thousands of Americans lose their insurance, some turning to nurses in emergency rooms as their only recourse.

Rising costs are unsustainable, which is why reform benefits all Americans, whether they are insured or not.  The President assured that those who like their health care can keep it, and reform will save you money by bringing down costs, providing more choices, and keeping insurance companies honest. Inaction is not an option, but real progress is being made. The President commended the hard work being done in Congress as key committees in the House and Senate have put forth their plans:

Yesterday, the House introduced its health reform proposal. Today, thanks to the unyielding passion and inspiration of our friend Ted Kennedy, and to the bold leadership of Senator Chris Dodd, the Senate HELP Committee reached a major milestone by passing a similarly strong proposal for health reform. It's a plan that was debated for more than 50 hours and that, by the way, includes 160 Republican amendments -- a hopeful sign of bipartisan support for the final product, if people are serious about bipartisanship. Both proposals will take what's best about our system today and make it the basis for our system tomorrow -- reducing costs, raising quality, and ensuring fair treatment of consumers by the insurance industry. Both include a health insurance exchange, a marketplace that will allow families and small businesses to compare prices, services, and the quality, so they can choose the plan that best suits their needs. And among the choices available would be a public health insurance option that would make health care more affordable by increasing competition, providing more choices, and keeping insurance companies honest. Both proposals will offer stability and security to Americans who have coverage today, and affordable options to those who don't.

The President emphasized that we will get health care reform done, because Americans need reform to succeed: for the patients, families, businesses, hospitals, doctors and nurses:

America's nurses need us to succeed, not just on behalf of the patients that they sometimes speak for. If we invest in prevention, nurses won't have to treat diseases or complications that could have been avoided. If we modernize health records, we'll streamline the paperwork that can take up more than one-third of the average nurse's day, freeing them to spend more time with their patients. If we make their jobs a little bit easier, we can attract and train the young nurses we need to make up a nursing shortage that's only getting worse. Nurses do their part every time they check another healthy patient out of the hospital.  It's now time for us to do our part.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

President Obama's campaign arm, Organizing for America, has begun running television ads stressing the need for a health care system overhaul across the country, just as the reform debate on Capitol Hill reaches a crucial turning point. The ads will run on national cable channels, and locally in Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, and Washington, D.C. Organizing For America Launches National TV Ad Campaign To Push Health Care

What? Not here in Arizona? Well we can take care of that. This is for you, Blue Dogs.

"Though the ads don't name any politicians, it's pretty clear from the placement that they're directed at conservative Democratic and moderate Republican congressmen and senators." I think we've made that clear.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Now that the dust has settled and bills have been posted, let's take a look at which bills passed, and which did not. You can view a list of the final summary of all legislative bills acted upon by the Accidental Governor at http://www.azgovernor.gov/dms/upload/PR_071309_Final%20Summary%20of%20Enactments_v2.pdf (pdf)

Scorecard: 190 bills signed, one transmitted without a signature, 22 vetos and 2 line-item vetos. New state laws take effect on Sept. 30.

Of particular interest to Tucson, Brewer signs bills for baseball vote, nonpartisan races. City Councilman Steve Leal suggested that the City of Tucson should challenge in court the vindictive law of wannabe tinhorn dictator of Tucson, Sen. Jonathan Paton. "If there's a way to challenge this in court, we should do it," Leal said. The Arizona Daily Star agreed today in an editorial opinion 2 new laws are a mixed bag for Tucsonans:

[The] decision by a Republican-led state government to impose electoral "reforms" on one city's voters is a dreadful precedent.

If it is possible to challenge the new law in court, as Tucson City Councilman Steve Leal has suggested, then a challenge should be filed on behalf of city voters.

Major League Baseball has left Tucson, and it ain't coming back. Give it up. The sports authority TIF tax may never come to a vote.

Of statewide importance, Governor signs bills on guns, abortion:

Abortion restrictions

Arizona becomes the 22nd state to impose a mandatory, 24-hour waiting period for women seeking an abortion, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. It is the 34th to require informed consent in which physicians performing an abortion must inform their patient about risks and alternatives.

With a second anti-abortion bill signed into law, Arizona will impose a fine or two-year prison sentence upon any individual who performs an illegal, late-term abortion procedure known medically as intact dilation and extraction. The procedure is illegal under federal law and is punishable by one year in prison.

Brewer's signature also will give doctors, pharmacists and other medical professionals the right to cite moral or other objections in refusing to participate in an abortion or to prescribe emergency contraception. This provision could be negated, though, in the wake of a federal appeals-court ruling last week. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that pharmacists in Washington state had to dispense Plan B, the so-called morning-after pill, even if they oppose use of the pill for religious reasons. Pharmacists can't refuse Plan B pill, appeals court says - Los Angeles Times

Gun rights expanded

Brewer signed into law a proposal that will allow the state's 125,000 carriers of concealed-weapons permits to bring their firearms into bars and restaurants. The measure allows bar owners to remain gun-free by posting signs prohibiting weapons. Permit-holders would be prohibited from drinking in a bar while carrying their firearms.

* * *

Brewer's approval of a second proposal will prohibit property and business owners from banning guns from parking areas, so long as the weapons are kept locked in privately owned vehicles.

The law exempts parking lots that are fenced or guarded, as well as those that provide secure gun storage.

* * *

Lastly, Brewer OK'd a proposal that allows any individual who feels threatened to indicate that they're carrying a weapon without violating intimidation statutes. The law only applies for instances of self-defense.

I seem to recall reading a statement from a spokesman for the Goldwater Institute awhile back that their legal team was prepared to file a lawsuit to challenge the guns in parking lots bill if it passed to defend the rights of private property owners. A rare instance on which we can agree. Let us know when you file.

Sparklers

The governor vetoed the sparkler bill. Brewer said she was influenced by letters of opposition from rural and urban elected officials as well as the U.S. Forest Service. She didn't mention that the legislation specifically allowed cities to ban the use of sparklers within their urban limits and that the devices remain illegal on federal lands. Brewer OKs bills on guns, abortion, vetoes sparklers

Other bills signed by Brewer include:

• Allowing insurance companies to divert money they owe in state taxes to instead pay for certain students to attend private and parochial schools. [enhanced private school tax credit]

• Patients who want to sue their emergency-room doctors due to medical errors now will have a higher hurdle to clear. It increases the standard of evidence from the "preponderance of the evidence" to the higher standard of "clear and convincing evidence."

• Banning the state from issuing "enhanced" driver's licenses to comply with federal laws. The licenses contain a radio frequency identification chip that can be read at a distance by a scanner.

• Clarified that people who drive while using drugs as prescribed by a medical practitioner are not guilty of driving under the influence, as long as they are not otherwise impaired.

• Expanded the scope of domestic violence to include romantic and sexual relationships. The bill was introduced as Kaity's Law after 17-year-old Kaitlyn Sudberry, who was shot and killed by an ex-boyfriend in January 2008. Sudberry had been unable to obtain a restraining order, because at the time, domestic violence was limited to blood relatives, married couples or those who had children together.

• Expanded the prohibition on dog fighting to include all animals, with the exception of those trained to protect livestock from predators. The bill also makes horse tripping - in which the legs of a galloping horse are roped to cause it to fall - a Class 1 misdemeanor (the most serious). The law excludes horse racing, training, branding or traditional rodeo sports.

• A bill that directly impacts the case of Harold Fish, who was convicted of second-degree murder in the 2004 shooting of a hiker near Payson. Fish claimed the shooting was self-defense. During Fish's 2006 trial, the state changed its self-defense law to shift the burden of proof from the defendant (the person claiming to fire in self-defense) to the prosecution. The new law allows the modified self-defense law to be applied retroactively to Fish's case, as well as to any others filed after April 24, 2006, as long as the defendant did not plead guilty or no contest.

• Established parameters for the Arizona Department of Transportation to enter into "public-private partnerships" for construction, financing, operation and maintenance of transportation projects, including toll roads.

Some bills that Brewer vetoed

• Renewable energy. House Bill 2341 would have given tax credits to qualified producers of renewable energy. In her veto memo, Brewer said she supported the concepts but was concerned that the bill did not include caps on the amount of tax credits large-scale solar energy producers could have garnered.

However, the governor added that she would immediately amend the terms of the special session in order for lawmakers to consider a revised version of this bill.

• License plates. Senate Bill 1017 would have created specialty license plates and funds for Multiple Sclerosis Awareness, the Arizona Masonic Fraternity, Hunger Relief and Children's Cancer Research.

"I share the goals of the bill sponsor to create awareness and a funding source for these important causes," Brewer wrote in her veto. "Unfortunately, this bill as amended contains a flaw that could easily have been fixed, but was not."

• Political signs. Senate Bill 1022 would have prohibited the removal of political signs from public rights-of-way. In her veto, Brewer said that she would leave the decision to regulate signage to local communities.

Gov. Brewer acts on last of 80 bills

The Legislature failed in its prime directive: to pass a balanced state budget before july 1. We're still waiting - tick, tock, tick, tock...

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is concerned that Judge Sonia Sotomayor has a judicial "temperament" problem. Are you friggin' kidding me!

Sen. Graham is the BFF of Senator John McCain (aka McNasty) who is legendary for his lack of temperament, and with his desperate selection of the unqualified Sarah Palin as his running mate, his complete lack of judgment. This is the kind of guy that Sen. Graham pals around with and he thought would make a good president. This speaks to his complete lack of judgment.

Sen. Graham was given kudos by some of the media villagers for his opening day comment that Judge Sotomayor would be confirmed unless she had a complete meltdown. Well, to quote Keith Olbermann, "he must have had a big ol' plate of crazy for lunch" before his turn to question Judge Sotomayor on Tuesday. It was an over-the-top performance by a patronizing, condescending sexist.

Versha Sharma at Talking Points Memo has posted an excellent summary Sen. Lindsey Graham Bullies Sotomayor - While Accusing Her Of Being Bully:

In the most aggressive questioning of Judge Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearing thus far, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) read out a laundry list of complaints about the nominee this afternoon. Graham went through insult after insult from anonymous reviews about Sotomayor's temperament, including ones that called her "nasty," "a terror," "a bit of a bull," and one that said she lacks any "judicial temperament." Graham then asked her directly: "Do you think you have a temperament problem?"

In response to that last question, Sotomayor said, "No, sir, I can only talk about what I know about my relationships...when I ask lawyers tough questions, it's to give them an opportunity to explain their positions on both sides and to persuade me that they're right."

Graham later said, "I never liked appearing in court before a judge I thought was a bully."

What a pussy. Graham thinks he is being bullied when judges ask tough questions that he probably cannot answer because his case is an unjustified load of crap? (see Note below the fold) And how cowardly is he to use anonymous statements from lawyers who probably lost their case before the Second Circuit and used the review as an opportunity to vent their frustrations? So much for the right to confront one's accusers. And has Sen. Graham ever been questioned by Justice Antonin Scalia? Now there's a judge lacking in judicial temperament, let me tell you.

Sen. Graham's most offensive comment followed shortly after this line of insults when he suggested that "maybe these hearings are a time for self-reflection." A little time out in the corner for you to think about your behavior, missy. This patronizing, condescending sexist remark no doubt immediately caught the attention of every woman in the room and in the television audience. "He said what? You ___ (choose your own invective)!"

Note: What I find most galling is that Sen. Lindsey Graham and our own Sen. Jon Kyl are even permitted to sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee and sit in judgment on any judicial nominee. By right, they both should have been sanctioned by the U.S. Supreme Court and disciplined by the D.C. bar for their amicus brief in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. As recounted by John Dean at FindLaw's Writ:

Senators Graham and Kyl not only misled their Senate colleagues, but also shamed their high offices by trying to deliberately mislead the U.S. Supreme Court. Their effort failed. I have not seen so blatant a ploy, or abuse of power, since Nixon's reign.

To understand their ruse, a bit of background information about both the Hamdan case and the Detainee Treatment Act is necessary.

* * *

Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA), and on December 30, 2005, President Bush signed it. Then, on February 13, 2006, the government filed an extraordinary motion before the Supreme Court, calling for the Court to dismiss Hamdan's case on the ground that the DTA had stripped the High Court of jurisdiction of any and all habeas corpus actions emanating from the detainees at Guantanamo.

In support of the government's motion, Senators Kyl and Graham filed an amicus brief. There, they brazenly attempted to hoodwink the Court regarding the actions of Congress in adopting the DTA.

* * *

[S]enator Graham proposed an amendment (to an Defense Department authorization bill) that would deny detainees at Guantanamo the right to file habeas actions in federal courts, and strip the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, of jurisdiction over all the cases then pending, including the Hamdan case.

* * *

[T]the Republican leadership forced a vote on Graham's Amendment, which had its blessing - and surely that of the Administration. It passed, and was made part of the Defense Authorizations Act for Fiscal Year 2006, by a vote of 49 to 42.

* * *

The revised Graham-Levin-Kyl amendment passed 84 to 14.

* * *

When the conference report came back to the Senate on December 21, 2005, the Congressional Record reported a lengthy colloquy between Senators Graham and Kyl, briefly joined by Senator Brownback. (This extended dialogue runs some 12,000 words.)

* * *

Those viewing C-Span's coverage of the Senate, and the Senators on the floor of the Senate, never heard this part, or any of the rest of, this lengthy colloquy between Graham and Kyl. That's because it never happened. No doubt aides of the Senators wrote this bogus and protracted dialogue, and either Graham or Kyl had it inserted in the record.

* * *

In February 2006, Senators Graham and Kyl filed their amicus brief in the Hamdan case, supporting the Government's motion to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction under the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA). If they had been keeping faith with Senator Levin and the rest of their colleagues, they should have filed a brief on precisely the other side - making clear that the DTA, as amended, had had no intention to touch the Supreme Court's pending Hamdan case, and thus opposing the government's motion!

Instead, Graham and Kyl advised the Court they were sponsors of the Graham-Levin-Kyl amendment, and throughout their brief, cited their fictitious colloquy on December 21, 2005. Indeed, that colloquy is the core of their brief and its argument as to why the Court should dismiss the Hamdan case. Their hubris reaches the point of deception when they claim that the "legislative history confirms that Congress intended all pending claims to be governed by the DTA."

* * *

Hamdan's lawyers, however, spotted the hoax. In their opposition to the motion to dismiss the case, they advised the Court that the supposedly conflicting legislative history was entirely invented after the fact, and that it consisted of "a single scripted colloquy that never actually took place, but was instead inserted into the record after the legislation had passed." The brief noted, quite accurately, that this Graham-Kyl colloquy was "simply an effort to achieve after passage of the Act precisely what [they] failed to achieve in the legislative process."

* * *

In footnote 10 of the majority opinion, the Court notes:

While statements attributed to the final bill's two other sponsors, Senators Graham and Kyl, arguably contradict Senator Levin's contention that the final version of the Act preserved jurisdiction over pending habeas cases . . . those statements appear to have been inserted into the Congressional record after the Senate debate. . . . All statements made during the debate itself support Senator Levin's understanding.

Considering that all three of the dissenting Justices agreed with the Kyl/Graham interpretation of the DTA, this is not an insignificant fact. Had the Court not been told (by attorneys for Hamdan) that the floor debate was fake, the Justices in the majority would have had a more difficult time justifying their interpretation of the DTA. Unclaimed Territory - by Glenn Greenwald

* * *

Out of an apparent concern for interbranch comity, the High Court has chosen to ignore the bogus brief filed by Senators Graham and Kyl, rather than reprimanding the Senators. Nevertheless, when Graham and Kyl sought to file the very same brief, a month later, with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columba, Slate's Emily Bazelon reports that court "issued an unusual order rejecting" their amicus brief alone, although they accepted five others.

And what was Sen. Kyl's response to being outed by the Supreme Court for attempting to mislead his Senate colleagues and the high court? “It is no big deal to submit material for the record. It is done every day.” Kyl defends bogus brief

This is the dishonest, unethical and corrupt lawyer/senator who represents the state of Arizona. And Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is no better.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

On Tuesday, the Chairmen of the three Committees with jurisdiction over health policy in the House (Energy & Commerce, Education & Labor, and Ways & Means) introduced America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 to curb out-of-control costs, encourage competition among insurance plans to improve choices for patients, and expand access to quality, affordable health care for all Americans:

For details and analysis of this complex legislation, visit The Gavel » America’s Affordable Health Choices Act. Read the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis here CBO's Analysis of House Health Care Bill | TPM Document Collection.

Here’s what America’s Affordable Health Choices Act means for you:

LOWER COSTS

No more co-pays or deductibles for preventive care

No more rate increases for pre-existing conditions, gender, or occupation

An annual cap on your out-of-pocket expenses

Group rates of a national pool if you buy your own plan

Guaranteed, affordable oral, hearing, and vision care for your kids

GREATER CHOICE

Keep your doctor, and your current plan, if you like them

More choice, with a high quality public health insurance option competing with private insurers

HIGHER QUALITY

You and your doctors make health care decisions — not insurance companies

More family doctors and nurses will enter the workforce, helping guarantee access

Mental health care must be covered

STABILITY & PEACE OF MIND

No more coverage denials for pre-existing conditions

No more lifetime limits on how much insurance companies will pay

No reason to ever make a job or life decision again based on health care coverage

The first:

I wish Democrats in tough districts, like Arizona's Giffords, Mitchell and Kirkpatrick, would understand that their political fortunes rise and fall with Obama's. If in November, 2010, people think Obama is a strong, effective president, Dems will be able to ride the wave to reelection. But if Obama looks like an ineffectual president who can't get his agenda passed, people in the middle will become disillusioned with his abilities and begin leaning toward the idea of "balance," which will mean getting rid of a few Democrats in Congress.

No one needs a strong health care bill, for their own political survival, as much as Dems in Republican districts.

I can't vouch for Dean's history in this quote, but if he's got it right, it's a very interesting take on why we have to settle for a public option even though single payer is preferable.

Sometimes it's easier to build exactly what you want from nothing than when you're remodeling a system that's already in place.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Remember back in February when newly elected RNC Chairman Michael Steele planned an “off the hook” public relations offensive to attract younger voters, especially blacks and Hispanics, by applying the party's principles to “urban-suburban hip-hop settings”? Steele: GOP needs 'hip-hop' makeover “We need messengers to really capture that region - young, Hispanic, black, a cross section ... We want to convey that the modern-day GOP looks like the conservative party that stands on principles. But we want to apply them to urban-surburban hip-hop settings.”

Apparently Senate Republicans never got the memo. The confirmation hearing for Judge Sonia Sotomayor has demonstrated that "the Republican Party will persist in tying its fortunes to an anachronistic claim of white male exceptionalism and privilege," as Eugene Robinson wrote in his opinion today:

Republicans' outrage, both real and feigned, at Sotomayor's musings about how her identity as a "wise Latina" might affect her judicial decisions is based on a flawed assumption: that whiteness and maleness are not themselves facets of a distinct identity. Being white and male is seen instead as a neutral condition, the natural order of things. Any "identity" -- black, brown, female, gay, whatever -- has to be judged against this supposedly "objective" standard.

* * *

The whole point of Sotomayor's much-maligned "wise Latina" speech was that everyone has a unique personal history -- and that this history has to be acknowledged before it can be overcome. Denying the fact of identity makes us vulnerable to its most pernicious effects. This seems self-evident. I don't see how a political party that refuses to accept this basic principle of diversity can hope to prosper, given that soon there will be no racial or ethnic majority in this country.

"[I]f the Republican Party is going to be competitive, it can't be seen as the party of white male grievance."

So it is simply surreal at this moment in history that the face of the Republican Party on the Senate Judiciary Committee is ranking minority member Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama), a throwback Southern white cracker. Sen. Sessions epitomizes "white male exceptionalism and privilege" and "white male grievance."

Jeff Sessions whose own nomination for a federal judgeship could not make it out of the Republican-run Judiciary Committee in 1986 after testimony that he had called the NAACP un-American and communist-inspired, had joked that he thought the Ku Klux Klan was OK until he found out members of the Klan smoked pot, and that he agreed with another lawyer who said a Department of Justice attorney, who was white, was a disgrace to his race because he represented African-Americans.

And those are the things that he admitted to saying and tried to defend. The charges he denied included the allegation that he told a black attorney he should, quote, “Be careful about how he talked to white folks,” and that he called a black attorney “boy.” 'The Rachel Maddow Show' for Monday, July 13

Now Jeff Sessions is leading the charge against Sonia Sotomayor on the grounds that she has a prejudice problem? GOP central casting really blew this one.

Judge Sotomayor has demonstrated exceptional restraint and temperament in responding to the race-baiting and sexist attacks from Republicans on the committee, like Sen. Sessions. I dont' suffer such fools. I would have thrown down and pounded his cracker ass.

Matthew Iglesias provides the Thought of the Day:

I would pay good money to hear Sonia Sotomayor say, “Senator Sessions, I think it’s ironic to be facing these questions from a man whose judicial nomination was rejected by this very committee on the grounds that he’s a huge racist.”

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

It appears that the GOP insane clown posse leadership may be losing control over its caucus.

Republicans held a closed door caucus meeting on Monday for what Majority Leader Chuck Gray (R-Mesa) described as discussions about "how our leadership team is functioning." He said that fit the legal exception for "organizational" meetings to justify gathering in private.

But the full wording of that exception actually is for "organizational meetings to elect officers of the caucus," something that was not done Monday. (Someone should explore filing a complaint for violation of the Open Meetings law.)

The GOP natives are starting to get restless and may be ready to give the Accidental Governor what she demands: referral of a sales tax increase to the ballot in a November special election. GOP may be ready to OK sales tax vote

Some Senate Republicans appear ready to give Gov. Jan Brewer what she wants: Ask voters if they want to hike the state sales tax - and then hope it fails.

[S]enate President Bob Burns, R-Peoria, said Brewer has said the one thing that stands between the state and a budget for the current fiscal year she can sign is putting the issue of a temporary one-cent hike in the 5.6 percent sales tax rate on the November ballot. "We haven't been able to move her off of that."

* * *

Sen. Barbara Leff, R-Paradise Valley, told colleagues enough is enough. She said it's time for Republicans to vote to refer the issue to voters.

"If we do not in fact put that package together, we are going to be causing a property tax increase on everybody," she said. That's because one of the bills Brewer vetoed contained language permanently repealing the state property tax.

It was suspended in 2006 when the state had a surplus. But it returns automatically this fall unless lawmakers vote otherwise and Brewer signs the change into law.

"So we sit here and act really pure that we're not going to refer something to the ballot to allow the voters to decide whether or not they want to do the one-cent sales tax," she chided her colleagues. "Or we can allow everyone to be taxed without any choice."

Other Republicans said they are coming around to the belief they should put the sales tax issue on the ballot.

"The governor is so intransigent on her sales tax referral," said Sen. Al Melvin, R-Tucson. What probably makes the most sense, he said, is for GOP lawmakers to use that as an opportunity to get some of what they want.

What Melvin wants is to put another measure on the same ballot to fully or partially repeal a 1998 constitutional measure that limits the ability of lawmakers to alter any voter-approved mandate. [Governor Brewer supports this as well]

Note: What Cap'n Al is referring to is the Voter Protection Act (Prop. 105 - 1998) which protects dedicated funding sources for programs enacted by citizen initiatives from being "swept" (raided) by the state legislature. Cap'n Al thinks voters were just wrong to enact dedicated funding for programs such as children's health care and education -- because the Republican legislature consistently failed to do so -- so he wants you to admit the error of your ways and allow the state legislature to raid these dedicated funding sources and, coincidentally, effectively terminate these popular programs that you the voters approved by citizen initiative. This Cap'n Al is one arrogant bastard -- he seems to think that only he knows what's best for you. Maybe he will caption this repeal the "Stupid Voter Act."

Sen. John Huppenthal, R-Chandler, said Republican legislators should see Brewer's insistence on a sales tax vote as an opportunity.

"Sometimes you have to take advantage of the energy that's coming against you to achieve victory," he said.

"The likelihood is, it's going to lose," Huppenthal said of a public vote on higher sales taxes. "So if you use this energy to achieve some real reforms, that's a bird in the hand."

But Sen. Ron Gould, R-Lake Havasu City, chided his colleagues for being willing to compromise their beliefs that a higher sales tax rate is a bad idea.

"If you guys need to run other stuff along with it to provide cover for yourself for voting for it, then you're going to do what you're going to do," he said. "But I'm not going to support it, no matter what."

And Gould said they run the risk of being tricked.

"I have no faith that the governor's a woman of her word," he said.

Ah, "Hoop" and Ron, spoken like true ideological extremists. These guys sound like they are one brain cell away from becoming a suicide bomber. "No new taxes!" Boom!

The state education equalization property tax issue will have to be dealt with before August 15 when tax assessments are mailed out. That still leaves the legislature plenty of time after the July 31 "drop dead" deadline for referring any sales tax increase to the November ballot.

I am still inclined to believe that there are not enough votes to refer the sales tax increase to the ballot. It is only possible if the Democrats vote in a block for the sales tax increase with a few Republican votes. But Democrats are opposed to the Accidental Governor's tax proposal, and she has not offered them anything in return for their votes. If the GOP-controlled legislature cannot give a GOP Governor what she wants, why should the Democrats enable her?

This appears to me to be more about a GOP internal civil war than any real progress towards resolving the budget impasse. We'll have to wait and see if hell is about to freeze over when Republicans bring themselves to vote for a referral of a sales tax increase to the November ballot.