Blog For Arizona

Rep. Pete Hoekstra Seems to Act Like Congress is Co-Equal Branch

In what can only be described as a Constitutional officer seeming to think about actually doing his duty, Pete Hoekstra sent a confidential, and thus possibly somewhat candid, letter to President Bush. (Download 20060709hoekstra.pdf) Hoekstra, who is the chair of House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, expressed concern about several issues, but the one burning Bush's nose hairs is that Hoekstra learned through whistleblowers in the CIA that the Administration had carried out at least one major covert program without informing Congress; specifically, without informing Hoekstra. Hoekstra doesn't appriciate it.

The operations referred to are still confidential and undisclosed, but it is not the NSA wiretaps or the financial transaction monitoring; it is something else, and is so secret that apparently the White House didn't want to share even with a reliable ally like Hoekstra, even though legally obligated to do so by the National Security Act.

That's actually a little frightening. Think about that. The White House did brief selected members of Congress about the NSA monitoring program, despite the fact that it clearly violated FISA. Whatever this is, the White House didn't even dare tell the Chairman of the House Committee. And as soon as the Chairman got clued in by a whistleblower (whom many Republicans want to strip of legal protection in national security matters) he said this to the White House:

"I have learned of some alleged Intelligence Community activities about which our committee has not been briefed. In the next few days I will be formally requesting information on these activities. If these allegations are true, they may represent a breach of responsibility by the Administration, a violation of law, and, just as importantly, a direct affront to me and the Members of this committee who have so ardently supported efforts to collect information on our enemies. I strongly encourage you to direct the elements of the Intelligence Community to fulfill their legal responsibility to keep the Intelligence Committees fully briefed on their activities. The U.S. Congress simply should not have to play 'Twenty Questions' to get the information that it deserves under the Constitution."

Oh, snap! Guess who just got himself removed from the White House Christmas card list?

Just to put things in context, Hoekstra earlier in the letter expressed reservations about a CIA nomination by the President because he felt that the nominee may be too closely associated with people in the CIA who worked to discredit Bush's cooked case for Iraqi WMD. Hoestra is concerned about what he calls 'politicization', but he means the opposite of what normal folks mean - bringing to bear political pressure to skew intelligence estimates. Hoekstra is concerned that Bush's pick may not sufficiently toe the line and will act too independendently.

Hoekstra is no enlightened Republican, he's as 'movement conservative' as they get: yet even he's so chessed about this that he put the slap down on Bush. Even given Hoekstra's inclination to follow blindly the Administration's orders, this incident has him invoking Congressional power as a co-equal branch and using the words 'violation of law'. That should make your blood run cold. It does mine.

Drinking Liberally 7/13

It's time once again for all good Liberals to Drink! Come on down to the venerable Shanty on 4th Avenue at the Underpass starting at 6pm, and meet some fine folks for some good conversation and good beer (or whatever libation makes your lips flap). Bill, the proprietor of the Shanty is now catering our events, so now you can have a nosh with your pint.

This week the Nucleus Club of Tucson is hosting a CD 8 candidate forum from 5:30 to 7:30 on the same evening, so some may want to attend that first. I can assure those of you who wish to attend that event that we'll still be at the Shanty drinking and talking when you arrive.

Last week we had a great session with several new friends joining us and many guests. Miguel Ortega, Councilwoman Karin Uhlich's Cheif of Staff, joined us due to a last minute schedule change that kept the Councilwoman in chambers. We were also joined by CD 8 candidates Francine Shacter and Alex Rodriguez, and candidate for State Senate in LD 26 Charlene Pesquiera. This week there are no scheduled guests, but we do expect drops ins.

If you haven't yet signed up for Drinking Liberally Tucson's low volume announcement email list, please do so now.

Some humour for you from Drinking Liberally:

 

Cheers!

Senator Jon Kyl Gets an 'F', as in "Fuck You, Middle Class!"

Jon Kyl gets an F for fairness to the middle class from the Drum Major Institute. Scoring just 13 on a 100 point scale, Kyl clearly demonstrated his contempt for the intelligence of the voters, and the needs of middle class families with his votes.

The bills examined by DMI include major changes to our laws that impact the bottom lines of millions of families across the country and tilt the playing field of our economy heavily toward vested corporate interests at the expense of consumers and tax-payers.

On negotiating Medicare drug prices, Kyl voted to restrict the ability of the government to save taxpayers money, so that drug companies could maintain higher prices. Kyl's vote constitutes a multi-billion dollar subsidy to an industry that is already the most profitable on earth at the expense of American taxpayers and patients.

On the Bankruptcy Act of 2005, Kyl voted to restrict existing bankruptcy law which will result in many families being held hostage to creditors as a result of hard times. Kyl will defend his vote as a needed reform to combat fraud, but that's merely an excuse without factual foundation; his vote was simply a gift to financial services companies at the expense of the average American family who gets into financial trouble and will now find it harder than ever to get back on their feet.

On the Class Action Act, Kyl voted to make it harder for consumers to bring their injuries to court, making them wait longer than ever for justice and compensation. Those harmed by industrial pollution, unfair labor practices, deceptive marketing, and defective products, many of whom have life-long health conditions which must be cared for, will now have a harder time thanks to Kyl's solicitude for big business at the expense of the victims of corporate negligence and greed.

On the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 Kyl voted to slash the funding of Medicare, Medicaid, and student loans, in order to reduce the deficit by just $38.8 billion over five years. It was a major failure to address the budgetary profligacy of this Administration and this GOP Congress that harmed millions of middle class folks rather than shut off the unfair tax bribes given to the ultra-wealthy by the GOP.

Even now. Kyl is demonstrating his real and enduring fealty to serving the wealthiest 1/10,000th of Americans by his ceaseless campaign to repeal the Dynasty Tax. America's handful of wealthiest families seek to eliminate what they term the 'Death Tax' so that they can go on concentrating wealth in the hands of just a few dynastic families. Kyl's main political goal is to help them accomplish this goal and to eliminate billions more in federal revenue, which will have to be made up by average taxpayers, or stripped from vital programs by such sort-sighted measures as the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.

Kyl voted for the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA) which, like NAFTA, lacks protections for American workers and will cause sharp reductions in the living standards of the poor in the partner countries of Central America and the Carribean basin. At the same time as Kyl is voting for a trade agreement that will almost certainly spark a new wave of economic immigrants to this country, Kyl remains committed to a punative and unrealistic immigration policy that fails to address the causes of Mexican immigration, and fails to constructively engage the issue.

Kyl also voted down the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2005, denying American workers a livable wage. The current minimum wage puts a full-time worker under the federal poverty line. Such shamefully low, exploitation wages are truly destructive to American families. Kyl will say that small business can't afford such wages, but states with higher minimum wages than the federal floor grew their small business sectors nearly twice as fast as those without. Kyl only cares about ensuring maximum profits for corporate interests, not about an expanding economy that benefits all Americans.

Finally, Kyl remains committed to privatizing Social Security and slashing benefits. His refusal to vote for the Sense of the Senate in Support of Social Security resolution, which expressed the need for solutions that do not produce large short-term dificts (as privitization would do) or require deep benefit cuts, says all that needs be said about Kyl's determination to put average and most vulnerable Americans last.

Kyl is proven again and again that he is wrong for middle class Arizona, and wrong for middle class America. His voting record is class warfare of the most insidious sort. He's not a leader; he's a political vulture picking off the dying and weak for his corporate masters. He is willing to lie and mislead the public about his record to serve his real masters, the Neo-Con cabal of the GOP and the wealthiest corporate interests able to give him millions in legalized bribes to maintain his power over Arizona. Arizonans should be furious, and should demand a change.

Oh, and in case you were suffering under the delusion that Senator John McCain is any better or any different, he also got an F and scored just 25. Some maverick.

Janet v. Brian: Winning on Progressive Budget Priorities

I love our Governor, but I have been vaguely dissatisfied with the outcome of this year's budget negotiations. I think that even though Janet got some of the spending she wanted, she had to swallow a program Democrats really dislike (diverting millions in tax revenues to private schools), fiscally irresponsible and regressive tax cuts (500 million in income taxes over two years), and a complete failure to put money aside for the stability fund (the Governor asked for 400+ million, she got less than 10 million).

I thought that I was just being ungenerous about Janet's efforts in a politically difficult environment, but now I've seen a real master of progressive politics at work, Gov. Brian Schweitzer of Montana. Facing many of the same political constraints, and the looming threat of a tax revolt from the right also predicated on budget surpluses in a cyclical economy similar to our own, Schweitzer stepped forward to lead the way on tax relief instead of meekly following the GOP into disaster.

The result was a Democratic proposal for a property tax rebate that is fiscally sound, much more attractive to voters than the GOP alternative, much more fair to the average taxpayer, and undercuts the GOP's standing as the 'party of tax relief'. As a result of Gov. Schweitzer's leadership on tax reduction, the GOP is tripping all over itself with impotent rage, the momentum for a disastrous TABOR policy in Montana has been arrested, and Democrats are getting another look from rural middle-income voters.

Why didn't Janet go on the offensive in her budget, anticipating and countering the GOP's tax cut package with a progressive tax cut plan of her own that voters were sure to strongly prefer? Janet did propose tax cuts, but they were so narrowly targeted that they looked much more like laundry list of pet policies than real cuts, and they only amounted to 1/10th of the surplus, thus they couldn't hope to compete with the across-the-board income tax cuts the GOP proposed.

Janet should have made her tax package much more immediately attractive to voters by using a rebate format as Schweitzer did in Montana. In addition, Janet should have focused on the most regressive taxes for rebate, as rolling those back would automatically be progressive. Finally, she should have taken a page from Schweitzer's playbook by making out-of-state interests and large corporations ineligible. Striking the top 1 or 2% of taxpayers saves revenue enormously, expanding greatly the benefits available to middle and low-income taxpayers, and excluding those are aren't in the Democratic base in any case, and likely never will be.

Such a tax cut program, rather than striving to meet narrow policy goals, could have worked to increase Democratic chances in November down-ticket with a simple message of tax fairness and immediate return of some of the surplus to the taxpayers.

Janet could have made the case to split the surplus between her new spending priorities, tax rebates, and fiscal responsibility through funding the stabilization fund. With some 300 million devoted to each aspect of the plan, taxpayers would have been ecstatic at the prospect of 300 million in cash rebates right now, instead of 500 million in little-noticed cuts, going overwhelmingly to the wealthy, over two years. I know I would love any Governor who gave me a few hundred bucks refunded from my property taxes. If we've learned anything from the Bush era, it should be that if you put a check in voter's pockets, you can get away with murder in the details.

The budget process for this year was really a defeat for Democrats; we got fairly minor concessions while the GOP framed the issues and dominated the debate on what to do with the surplus. They got a hugely regressive tax cut and have completely abandoned fiscal prudence by their failure to put money aside in the 'rainy day' fund. Coming years will almost certainly prove the imprudence of multi-year income tax rate cuts, possibly returning us to the budget shortfalls that Janet handled so ably in her first term. If Janet had played the game by Schweizer's rules, we'd be heading into elections with an even stronger Governor, and with improved chances down the ticket. Instead, we got served a big plate of crow by the GOP and they have control of the issue of tax cuts.

Frank Antenori Takes the Oil Free Pledge

I sent a MoveOn.org challenge to all the Democrats (who all took the pledge) and all the Republicans in the race for CD 8 to abstain from taking donations from oil interests. To his credit, the only Republican candidate to even bother responding was Frank Antenori. Frank agreed not to take money from oil interests, though he eschews any association with the notorious bete noir MoveOn.org.

Here's his acceptance letter in full:

Mike,

Although I would not take contributions from oil companies, you'd have to understand that the last thing I would want to do is associate myself in anyway with moveon.org.  I don't think oil companies are evil, but large corporate donations, in my opinion, are corrupting the system and creating the perception that members of Congress are bought off.

Therefore I wouldn't take these large corporate donations, regardless of the industry, out of the logic that I do not want the voters to even perceive I can be bought.

Oil Companies, like Wal-Mart, have become corporate punching bags for the left.  I think it gives people with little understanding of economics something to complain about.  The problem isn't Wal-Mart or the Big Oil, it's the perception by many that the economic deck is stacked against them.

I joined the Army at 18.  Since then, I have not taken a single dime from my parents.  Every thing I own I worked for.  I have strove for and accomplished many things in my life because I decided to get off my ass and do it rather than sit and complain, dream or wish I had something. (Hence the reason for running for Congress)

I put my self through college on nights and weekends so I can land a decent job when I retired from the military.  I did it while serving in one of the most demanding jobs in the Army, in between deployments and often with little sleep.  During those five years, I saw little of my family and had
very little free time.  So my sympathy level for people that complain while sitting at home on the couch drinking beer is very low.

Even after I retired, I continue to work hard to better myself and my family's lifestyle.  I wrote a book, again in my spare time.  I'm also saving money to purchase a small business for my wife.  While the moveon.org crowd is out crying about big oil, I'll be working on the next major project in my life.

There's little time to complain, and all complaining does is make you feel better, it does nothing to improve your lot in life or solve the problem. Like the old saying goes, actions speak louder than words.  While those on the left complain about the problem, I'll be spending countless hours researching and getting smart on ways to reduce our dependency on foreign oil.

Thanks again for the kind words.  The offer for that beer is still open.

Oh, if you ever have the desire to interview a Republican for you blog, let me know.

Frank

Frank Antenori
Candidate for Congress
8th Congressional District of Arizona

Though I obviously disagree with Frank on many of the issues, if I had to choose among the Republican candidates for the office, I would choose a man of principles and common sense like Frank to be my Congressman. If CD 8's Republicans have a lick of sense, they'd choose Antenori as their candidate: lucky for us Democrats, they very likely won't.

Frank makes an interesting proposition that I interview him for this blog. I certainly never contemplated such an interview before, but I think it might be interesting to see the difference between Frank's answers to my 20 questions, and those given by former liberal Republican, Dr. Chat.

The Scamming of the Minutemen

There is a certain irony in the fact that extreme right wing movements tend to end up victimizing the very people they claim to fight for. In the heyday of the KKK, for example, when it was at the appogee of its influence and membership, Stetson Kennedy documented how KKK leaders used the organization to bilk rank and file members, and enrich themselves. That behavior and its exposure, along with the large degree of bunkum at the core of the organization's mystique, arguably led to the fatal decline of the Klan; the story is compellingly told in the popular book Freakonomics.

It may well be the latest populist expression of nativist/racist sentiment may burn out in a similar fashion due to the greed, duplicity, and in-fighting of the movement's leadership. Chris Simcox is being accused from within the Minuteman movement of financial improprieties which may end up discrediting the movement and imploding civil border partol organizations around the country.

ABC affiliate Channel 15 in Phoenix recently ran an investigative report (Real Media) of Simcox's Minuteman Civil Defense, which is required viewing by anyone concerned about the Minuteman militias. In the report, volunteers relate how the hundreds of thousands, or perhaps millions of dollars in donations collected by Simcox have failed to manifest as equipment and support for volunteers, or in substatial progress on the much bruited volunteer construction of a border fence. Simcox refuses to open his organization's books, or provide any financial disclosures, and the organization's legal status (non-profit, PAC, other?) remains in limbo. Essentially, Simcox is personally sitting atop a grassroots fundraising bonanza, and won't tell anybody where the money is going.

Is the fence just a fundraising scam? Is Simcox lining his own pockets with the donations of conerned (though, I believe, misguided) citizens around the country? Will the Minutemen implode into acrimony and criminal charges as right wing organization so often do? My answer is that if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and takes to water like ducks always have in the past, it's likely a duck. The Minuteman movement, having had its short time in the sun, seems likely to implode under the wieght of its founders egos and greed. Ultimately, there's really only one person who put the concerns of Minutemen sympathizers and volunteers to rest, and Simcox isn't talking - likely for a very good reason, like avoiding imprisonment.

When their ducks come home to roost, the political fallout for all those Arizona politicians who have proudly proclaimed themselves supporters, sympathizers, even members of the Minutemen may prove to be truly awesome. I can already hear furious backpedalling and denials of any association with the group - and it's the sound of the Democratic party picking up new Congressional and state legislative seats in November.

Kudos: Senator Paula Aboud Stands On Principle

Hearty kudos to State Senator Paula Aboud for standing up for those in no position to protect themselves, under the hardest of political circumstances. Senator Aboud worked to head off making felons of prostitutes this session. Many would just stay quiet rather than advocate for a widely despised group like prostitutes, an principled stand which might too easily be twisted, but Senator Aboud proved that she's got the courage to do what is right, even when it's hard.

Prostitution is a human rights issue. Our only concern should be the safety, health, and well-being of the women involved and of their customers. Trying to impose the morality of the majority concerning consensual or voluntary behavior upon the rest of society through the coarse instrument of criminal law has frequently caused many more problems than the objectional behavior itself. Prohibition of alcohol, the 'drug war', the criminalization of homosexuality, and prostitution are but a few prime examples. Senator Aboud may or may not share these views, but she fought an important, and frankly rather thankless battle. She, and any others in the state legislature who opposed Senator Chuck Grey's misguided and punative policy, deserve our thanks.