Blog For Arizona

Melvin does not play well with others.

by David Safier

It seems our Cap'n Al put his fellow Republicans in a bit of a jam the other day. They were forced to vote for a bill they wanted to change, but Al put it up for a vote without consulting them. (Information is from Arizona Capitol Reports, a subscription only service.)

The bill, SB1274, allows people to contribute tuition tax credits all the way up to April 15 and get the credit for the previous year. In other words, people can send in the contribution and file their taxes, including the tax credit refund, on the same day.

(Al, aren't you still making this a little difficult on the folks who want to give back door vouchers to their rich friends for their children's private school tuition? Why don't you make it so they can just order the state to give $1000 in their name to the STO of their choice and cut out the middle man?)

Other Republicans thought the bill was a bit too blatant. They wanted the bill changed so that, if you gave money after December 31, you couldn't give the full $500 per person or $1000 per couple.

And maybe the same kind of leeway could be granted to people who wanted to give tax credit money to public schools and charters.

Melvin would have none of it. The other Republicans hemmed and hawed, then finally went along.

The thing that amuses me is, the others wanted to give at least the impression they were being reasonable and responsible, but Cap'n Al said, No way.

Some Rs made it sound like Melvin will pay a price in the future for putting them in a bind. But he doesn't mind. He commented,

“That’s a small price to pay to get the bill passed in my view.”

Yes indeed. Help private schools. Do nothing for public schools. That's our Al.

Legislative District 29 Townhall Saturday

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Late political calendar update:

What: Legislative District 29 Townhall

Where: Santa Rosa Learning Library, 1075 South 10th Avenue, Tucson

When: Saturday, April 3, 2010 from 2 to 4 p.m.

This event is free and open to the public.

Sen. Linda Lopez, Rep. Matt Heinz and Rep. Daniel Patterson invite the public to a town hall this Saturday to answer your constituent questions.

"It's a rally not a roast!"

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

No matter what Sarah Palin says about John McCain, she can't help but make him look bad.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Lady and the Gramps
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Reform

Leather and Steele

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

RNC Chairman Michael Steele has put the Par-tay back in the Republican Party with questionable expenditures at a West Hollywood nightclub featuring faux-lesbians in a bondage theme.

Sarah Waldman, director of special events at Voyeur, complained about media depictions of her establishment.  Quoting Ms. Waldman, “we are most certainly not a strip club.  We cater to a high-end, A-list clientele, with live art installations with a voyeuristic theme.” Tuesday, March 30th - Countdown with Keith Olbermann

"Live art installations"? Is that what the kids are calling it nowadays? H/t to crooksandliars.com for the newly updated RNC logo.

On MSNBC this morning, Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) said RNC Chairman Michael Steele has a lot of esplainin' to do about committee expenses if he wants to keep his job. Shadegg: Steele Has A Lot To Explain If He Wants To Keep His Job:

"At this point, I'm not calling for [Steele's] resignation, but I think there has been excessive spending and I don't think it's defensible," Shadegg said. "The Republican party and its donors need to be doing their best to raise money and spend that money to advance our philosophy and elect our candidates, not for frivolous wastes of money."

Steele, he said, needs to make amends to the rest of his party.

Happily, this story broke just as The Daily Show returned from its hiatus. This segment is entitlesd "2 Girls,1 GOP."

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
2 Girls 1 GOP
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Reform

DCCC Video: "Health Care Reform: A Historic Victory"

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

This video has a convention film feel to it.

GOP and Tea Party Agree: Abolish Social Security

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

We have already told you about GOP budget guru, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), and his "GOP Road to America's Future (Ruin)" here The GOP Road to Ruin and here Update: The GOP Road to Ruin. Ryan's plan is to privatize social security as George W. Bush proposed, and to ration Medicare until it also is privatized into a voucher program. The pirates of Wall Street stand ready to steal your retirement security. Remember this is what you are voting for when you vote for a Republican.

Now the leaders of the so-called Tea Party movement (corporate sponsored Astroturf campaign) agree: abolish social security. Jed Lewison reports that Tea party leaders declared they want to abolish social security during an interview on Larry King Live. Tea Party Leaders: Abolish Social Security:

Here's a Larry King interview that took a surprising turn: in the middle of discussion about whether it was appropriate to accuse President Obama of "terrorism," St. Louis tea party leader Dana Loesch admitted that she wanted to abolish Social Security -- and her tea party leader compatriot Wayne Allyn Root [the 2008 vice presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party] joined her in calling for its elimination.

Watch:

(h/t: Think Progress)

Asked about a video clip of a tea partier who had accused President Obama of being a terrorist, Loesch said that while she thinks it is "a little bit egregious" to call him a terrorist, those who do so have "valid concerns" that Obama is trying to destroy the U.S. Constitution with programs like health care reform. King pressed Loesch, asking her if she would abolish Social Security. Loesch said she "absolutely" would. Root echoed her, saying he "certainly would like to...do away with" Social Security.

Now I don't know about you, but I attended several of the healthcare townhalls last year, and many of the teabaggers were clearly senior citizens receiving social security and Medicare and in some cases, VA benefits -- all "socialist" federal programs. Several of these seniors shouted "don't touch my Medicare!" I suspect if you told them to turn in their social security card and Medicare card and to reject these "socialist" benefits (you do not have to accept the benefits, you can decline) you would not have had any takers.

So it seems an odd choice that Republicans and the Tea Party have settled upon an election strategy of abolishing social security and Medicare. They think this is a winning issue? As Jed Lewison says, "I'll bet there will be an unlimited supply of Democrats willing to take them up on that bet."

A rare consensus that our Accidental Governor is a political opportunist

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I was cautiously optimistic this morning when I saw this headline in the Arizona Daily Star, Anti-government groups grow in number, fueled by economic, racial 'stressors', that someone had finally decided to do an exposé on our John Birch Society, Tenther, states' rights nullification, secessionist radical GOP Taliban in the Arizona Legislature who are fomenting revolution against the federal government. Arizona Capitol Times » Arizona poised to sue feds over health care:

["Tenther'"] Sen. Russell Pearce, a Republican from Mesa, cited the 10th Amendment, which dictates that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved for the states or for the people.

* * *

[Senate Majority Leader Chuck] Gray, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, likened the situation to petitions made by the colonies to King George III to detail their grievances against England.

“Our founding fathers petitioned the king over and over and over again… And they petitioned and they petitioned and they petitioned and then they finally went to war,” he said.

Sadly, no. The Star story was a generic story about the right-wing militia movement that offends the senses and good Americans by calling themselves "patriots." Please, insurrectionists and secessionists are not patriots.

But I digress. It is a cold day in hell when uber-conservative columnist Robert Robb from the Arizona Republic and I agree on something, so I had to check out the window this morning to see if it had snowed overnight. Robb and I have reached a rare consensus that our Accidental Governor is a political opportunist. And the GOP Taliban legislature is committing legal malpractice. Despite his best efforts to remain a conservative tool, Robb still managed to make some cogent legal points. State's health-care challenge premature:

[I] don't have a quarrel with Attorney General Terry Goddard's decision not to join other states in challenging the constitutionality of this and other provisions of the new federal health-care bill.

For one thing, the state lacks standing to challenge the individual mandate. That provision doesn't apply to it.

And where the state does have standing, it doesn't have a case.

* * *

Arizona has much broader Medicaid eligibility than most other states. Brewer and Republican legislators wanted to move Arizona's eligibility closer to that of other states to reduce the state's massive budget deficit. The new federal mandate pre-empts that option.

That's not fair. That's not right. But it's not unconstitutional. The federal government can pretty much attach whatever strings it wants to federal funds.

Nor is there really a mandate under the new federal legislation that states set up insurance exchanges, at least as a matter of law. States can decline to do so and the feds will step in. No state will want that, but it's a legal option.

* * *

The only issue on which Arizona might have a unique claim, getting trapped with more generous Medicaid eligibility, is a loser, not worth pursuing.

There are reasons, political and substantive, for Arizona Republicans not to join the litigation frenzy.

To obtain standing, Republican legislators have to pass a state policy - no individual health-insurance mandate - voters rejected last election. [Prop. 101 in 2008]. Republicans already have referred a cleaned-up version back to voters this fall.

* * *

[T]here is some political risk in the Legislature enacting directly something voters so recently rejected.

The individual mandate doesn't take effect until 2014 (a severe ripeness problem).

* * *

There's no need for Arizona to rush to the courtroom.

The reason to do so is political.

* * *

The reason not to rush to the courtroom is financial.

The state's broke.

It shouldn't be frittering away money on superfluous lawsuits.

Robb couldn't bring himself to say "frivolous" lawsuits, but that is the gist of it.

I am glad to see that House Minority Leader Rep. David Lujan (D-Phoenix) took my advice to force the GOP Taliban insurgents to pay for their own frivolous lawsuit and not squander precious taxpayer dollars that should be spent on education and healthcare. Arizona shouldn't waste money, effort on useless health-reform lawsuit:

Gov. Jan Brewer called a special session this week that only will waste taxpayers' time and money on a misguided lawsuit against federal health reform.

As an attorney, in my legal opinion, Brewer's lawsuit is frivolous and based neither on fact nor on the law.

* * *

Brewer's claim that reform is a threat to our state's sovereignty is false and meritless.

The federal legislation doesn't force states to do anything. States have a choice. They can set up an insurance exchange to offer competitive policies and rates to individuals and small businesses, or they can decide not to.

Also, no provision of the Bill of Rights, or text found elsewhere in the Constitution, acts to prohibit Congress from enacting health reform.

Under an unbroken line of precedents stretching back 70 years, Congress holds the ability to regulate interstate commerce, which includes buying and selling insurance.

Constitutional doctrine clearly gives Congress the authority to decide whether to enact health reform.

In the Raich case in 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified the scope of the commerce power and reaffirmed the core principle that states cannot thwart national policy.

* * *

Even Justice Antonin Scalia, no fan of expansive claims of federal power, voted to affirm Congress' authority.

Therefore, Brewer's lawsuit is a waste of taxpayers' time and money when we could use that money for many things the state is lacking, such as better public safety by putting more police officers on our streets to crack down on violent criminals and to make our neighborhoods safer.

That's why I've introduced a bill in the Legislature to prevent any tax dollars from going toward this kind of frivolous lawsuit.

In doing so, I stand with Goddard, who declined to join Brewer's lawsuit.

He made the right call for Arizonans' pocketbooks. Our tax dollars should be going into our classrooms and police departments, not wasted on frivolous lawsuits.

Unfortunately, the GOP Taliban will not give Lujan's bill a hearing in committee. They will approve this misguided political posturing today.

Fool's Gold: One good education cut deserves another

by David Safier

Today, Clint Bolick weighed in on education funding, poaching on Matthew Ladner's territory. And though the style is different, the malady remains the same.

Bolick's opening argument is that we're spending a lower percentage in the classroom now than we did in 2000. He ends by concluding, that means we should cut back on education funding even further.

So let's figure this out. When overall spending per student goes down, and you still have to pay for transportation and food services and building maintenance and utilities, the only place left to save money is in the classroom. You can always bring in another old desk and put another student into an already crowded classroom. That doesn't cost a penny. Schools don't do that because they want to, of course. They do it because there's no choice.

That's why we have one of the highest student-to-teacher ratios in the nation.

Bolick's solution is to cut schools loose of districts and have each function on its own. That, he says, will get rid of unneeded bureaucracies and save money.

Let's see. Charter schools function that way, and their administrative/bureaucratic costs are through the roof, far higher than district schools. That's working well.

Oh, but Bolick says, private and charter schools "operate with significantly lower overhead." That may be true of private schools. Not offering free transportation or food services or the kind of support services needed when you have to take all students who enroll (private and charter schools have the luxury of sending trouble-makers and special education children back to district schools, who have to accept them) does cut down on overhead. If district schools cut out those services, they could save money too. Lots of kids couldn't get to school, of course, and students needing extra help would be on their own. But for G.I., that's not a bug; it's a feature.

These folks at G.I. make lots of money writing this kind of drivel. It's good immoral work, if you can get it.

Good reporting, Good column-ing

by David Safier

Here are a few wonderful moments in this morning's Star.

I loved a 2 paragraph passage in Howard Fischer's article about the governor and legislators' attempts to get Arizona to join the health care lawsuit. Adams complains about the "mandate" that he later has to admit really isn't a mandate.

House Speaker Kirk Adams, R-Mesa, said Arizona needs to step in to void the "mandate" from Washington that the state spend more money to provide health care for the poor between now and 2014, when the federal law takes effect.

But Adams conceded there is no actual mandate in the law that President Obama signed earlier this month. The only requirement is that states continue to provide the same level of services they did before the law was signed in order to be eligible for future Medicaid funds.

Note how Fischer is careful to put "mandate" in quotes in the first paragraph to show the word came out of Adams' mouth. Then it looks like he did what reporters are supposed to do and asked a follow-up question about the mandate (You have to do your homework so you know enough to ask the right questions. Fischer does his homework). Adams had to admit there isn't really a mandate.

Republicans get away with this kind of sloppy exaggeration and misuse of terms all the time. "It's a mandate because it feels to me like a mandate even if it isn't a mandate. And besides, isn't 'mandate' a great term?"

(I'm reminded of Matthew Ladner's "1-to-1 teacher to bureaucrat ratio." There's no such thing, but it sounds great, doesn't it? And why shouldn't Ladner use something that sounds great, even if it's complete and utter nonsense?)

Kudos to Fischer for getting it right, and putting the information into adjoining paragraphs to make the contradiction obvious.

Then there's this beautifully written piece in Garrison Keillor's column this morning about the fact that the Republican leadership is being led by the crazies and the entertainers:

The frenzy on the right is pure fear of stepping out of line with the Republican politburo and getting shipped to Siberia. This lockstep mentality is rare in American history. Here is a grand old party frozen, suspended, mesmerized, in thrall to a gaggle of showboats and radio entertainers and small mobs of fist-shakers standing staunch for unreality, and no Republican elected official dares say, "Let us not be nuts." There will be books written about this in years to come, and they will not be kind to the likes of Congressman Boehner and Senator McConnell.

The man can write.

The Farley Report: March 30, 2010

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Time once again for the Farley Report from Rep. Steve Farley (D-LD28):

Oops, she did it again.

Yes, Governor Jan Brewer has chosen to call her Eighth Special Session.

Perhaps you may be thinking -- wow -- she finally decided to do the right thing and is going to reinstate KidsCare so that we are qualified once again for the $7 billion in federal money each year that her recent budget tossed away.

If that was your thought, you are sadly wrong.

Instead, Brewer and the Republican legislature have decided to hold this unprecedented eighth special session in order to engage in a politically motivated stunt to engage the Federal Government in a frivolous lawsuit against the entire healthcare reform package.

There's a whole lot of reasons why this is a terrible idea. Number one, she is saying she would rather ship out scarce taxpayer money to high-priced Republican attorneys than take care of sick kids.

The suit they want to pay to join is already underway and is already seeking to overturn the healthcare reforms on behalf of all states whether we pay or not. And most legal observers on the right and left agree that the suit is sure to fail, based on clear, recent precedent from the conservative-leaning U.S. Supreme Court that allows the Federal Government to mandate healthcare, just like it did in creating Medicare.

It makes even less sense to be suing now that we know we will be receiving another $400 million in stimulus money that we can use to pay for the continuation of KidsCare and the people below the poverty line who are currently on AHCCCS healthcare through June 30, 2011. No Arizona money will be required.

The more people hear about the new healthcare plan, the more people like it. We can keep our most vulnerable citizens and children covered, and we can get a much higher match from the Feds -- $13 for every $1 we put in.

Thousands of new healthcare jobs will be created during this recession, discrimination based on pre-existing conditions is banned, the Medicare Part D "doughnut hole" is closed, lifetime limits on coverage are outlawed, preventive care is ramped up dramatically with no co-pays, and insurance companies can no longer kick people off their plan for getting sick. All of this actually reduces out national deficit by more than $1.3 trillion in the next twenty years.

One of my favorite parts of the new healthcare reform law is something I thought I had dreamed up about six months ago. It turns out that I wasn't the first to come up with the idea.

I have recently been developing a Senior Caucus in the legislature to hear from Arizona elders and their caregivers and come up with legislative solutions to their problems. I am like many people my age who are raising our kids at the same time as trying to provide the best care possible for our parents. We are discovering that decades of denial do not produce great policy.

Three years ago my family and I were thrust into the world of long-term care and end-of-life issues when my mother was diagnosed with frontotemporal dementia, a disease of the brain that will eventually kill her. As last year's infamous discussion of the fictitious "death panels" made clear, we are pretty good at pretending that we don't all get sick and die eventually.

That means that there are few places to turn for advice when the real world of eldercare crashes in on us. Thank goodness for the Pima Council on Aging and the Alzheimer's Association, who provide really crucial services even as their funds are being cut.

The biggest problem that I have experienced is long-term care. Figuring out which place was right for my mom was tough enough. Figuring out how to pay for it has been even more challenging.

Arizona has ALTCS, which provides funding for long-term care for those who are below certain income levels. Rich families have enough resources to afford the right care. But those of us in the shrinking middle class are stuck with a $3,000-$6,000 bill each month, and no way to pay for it.

That brings me back to my idea which turned out to be the late Ted Kennedy's idea and was enacted as part of the healthcare reform law. It's called the CLASS (Community Living Assistance Support Services) Act.

The basic idea is a voluntary, actuarially-sound Social-Security type program in which wage-earners contribute payroll deductions to a long-term care insurance trust which would pay out cash benefits to cover long-term care or disability care when they need it.

While it won't help me or my mom right now (you need to contribute for five years in order to vest), it will help fend off a long-term problem that currently costs our economy $107.6 billion each year, growing to $569.9 BILLION in today's dollars by 2045 as baby-boomers pour into the system.

And it is just one of the hundreds of really great features in the healthcare reform law that our Governor and Republican leaders are spending our money to overturn.

Speaking of Republicans spending our money...

You may not have heard about this, but House Speaker Kirk Adams (R-Mesa) introduced an amendment last Thursday to increase taxes on middle-class families and small businesses by $138 million, retroactive to January 2009. And every single Republican voted to go along with this tax hike.

My favorite part of it is the piece that raises $20 million in taxes on unemployed people. Retroactively.

How did this happen? The amendment was revealed an hour before the floor debate was to begin and I was the only member to object on the floor because it was cloaked as a technical amendment to a technical bill (HB2156).

Each year, the Legislature has to pass a bill to conform state tax law with federal tax law. This is called the IRS Conformity Bill. It should pass early, and be the first bill signed by the Governor, so that tax preparers and taxpayers can plan and pay their taxes accurately.

We usually accept full conformity without much argument, and this year tax preparers and taxpayers and tax software companies assumed full conformity because the bill was passed out of committee in early January with no changes and no indication that changes were coming.

Last Thursday, three weeks before the tax-filing deadline, Adams surprised everyone with an amendment to the conformity bill that threw us out of conformity with the federal code. Considering that up to 70% of Arizona taxpayers have already filed by some counts, and most will have filed by the time this bill makes it to the Governor, all those taxpayers will have to file amended returns and pay more taxes.

Perhaps it would have been better to get rid of the exemption on four-inch pipes instead of taxing unemployed people?

I suppose that might have to wait until we elect a different Governor and a different legislative majority. This November.

Finally tonight, in a bit of breaking news, this legislature actually did something good today. The House just passed a bill of mine, HB2300, that restricts trucks to the two right lanes of a highway of three or more lanes. The third-read vote was a strongly bipartisan 51-6, and had the support of the Fraternal Order of Police.

This bill will save lives by cutting down on the number of terrible accidents on I-10 between Tucson and Phoenix and elsewhere. Similar legislation has reduced truck-involved accidents by 78% in South Carolina and 68% in Texas. HB2300 now travels to the Senate where the committee process starts over again.

Perhaps next session, we can all work together to reduce Legislature-involved fiscal accidents.

I take my economics straight up and coastal, thank you very much.

by David Safier

B. Kalafut, an occasional commenter here, wrote this about me on his blog:

Safier is on the wrong side of very many things and probably read his econ texts upside down and backwards . . .

Ben, you're mostly, but not completely wrong. I used to challenge my econ profs by telling the number crunchers among them, they draw conclusions that are wrong to four decimal places. And I take my Paul Krugman straight up, no chaser.

But there's one economist I read upside down: Milton Friedman. I find that if you turn the text upside down, pick out the symbols that closely resemble ancient Aramaic, then coordinate them with some of the more arcane passages in the Kabbalah, you get the following message:

"Help! I'm being held prisoner by a group of Ayn Rand-crazed libertarians. Please get a message to Paul Krugman and have him round up a posse of coastal economists to GET ME THE HELL OUT OF HERE!"

I cut Kalafut's comment about me a little close. Here's the whole thing.

Safier is on the wrong side of very many things and probably read his econ texts upside down and backwards, but is usually on the right side of the truth, which is important. He's been taking the Goldwater Institute hacks to task for some time.

Ben and I don't agree on much, but we agree on our distaste for G.I. And his blog is called Goldwater State, of all things. Which means he thinks Ladner, Dranias, Schlomach, et al, are taking Barry's name in vain.

You're a good man, Ben. Misguided, but honest, and a good man.

Civil Nonobedience

by David Safier

Russell Pearce and his cronies hate children. It's no big deal for them to cut education to the bone and eliminate KidsCare. But their animus increases when the children have brown skin. To further their extreme right wing agenda, they're willing to sacrifice those children's chances to get an education and potentially endanger the rest of us due to an increase in the number of children and teens wandering around during school hours with nothing to do and little hope for the future.

I'm talking about SB1097.

State senators voted Monday to force schools to ask parents whether their children are in this country legally.

Pearce admits he can't keep these children out of school due to a Supreme Court decision, but he's willing to do everything he can to deny them an education.

However, there's a potential opening in the bill. Filling out the form about a child's legal status is voluntary. Schools will have to send the form to every family, but parents can choose not to return it.

Pearce has made sure it doesn't say anywhere on the form that it's voluntary. That would defeat the purpose of the legislation, he says.

If the bill passes, parents who object to it should refuse to return the form en masse.

This would be an easy gesture for parents whose legal status is beyond dispute. White parents should participate in the civil nonobedience (It's not disobedience, since giving the information is voluntary) and refuse to return the forms. For Native Americans, refusing to return the form would be a sly form of humor. "Go ahead, try and kick me out!" Hispanic families who have solid legal status should participate as well. If enough people choose to refuse, that will mean families where either the parents or children aren't here legally will not stick out if they don't return the form.

It may be that principals or teachers have the right to attach a note to the form saying it's voluntary. Educators who love and support their children should consider it a responsibility to do everything they can to render the legislation worthless.

Civil nonobedience. It doesn't have quite the ring of Thoreau's term, Civil Disobedience, but it won't land you in jail either.

NOTE: According to the bill's summary:

[The legislation] authorizes the Superintendent of Public Instruction to withhold a school district’s state aid apportionment for non-compliance with the requirements related to data collection for students who cannot demonstrate proof of legal U.S. residence.

I'm not a legislative expert, but to me, "non-compliance" means not getting the forms in the hands of families or not reporting the data to the DOE. It doesn't mean you can't tell families returning the form is voluntary.

I imagine the DOE can interpret "non-compliance" however it wants and put the screws to districts that inform families of their right not to participate. But if, say, a Democrat is elected Ed Supe, it seems the decision is up to him or her how to enforce this part of the legislation. Yet another reason to work for whichever Dem survives the primary.

And either way, it doesn't stop parents from mounting their own "choose to refuse" campaign.

8th Special Session: Welcome Back My Friends To The Show That Never Ends

Posted by Craig McDermott, cross-posted from Random Musngs

OK, they're not so "special" any more, but this one is definitely a "show". In fact, it is almost *all* show with no "substance," but that isn't stopping Jan Brewer and the Republicans in the legislature.

On Monday, the opening curtain rose, and some bills were introduced in each chamber for the special session.

HB2002/SB1001 states that federal health care reform infringes on states' rights (much like certain groups used to say about federal civil rights legislation) and giving the Governor the authority to bypass the state's Attorney General Terry Goddard in order to pursue a lawsuit against the health care reform law.

HCM2001/SCM1001 is a postcard to the U.S. Congress demanding that Congress pay all state costs associated with health care reform.

The House versions will be heard in the Appropriations Committee on Tuesday at 9:30 a.m. in HHR1; the Senate versions will be heard in the Judiciary Committee on Tuesday at 9 a.m. in SHR1. The respective chambers' Rules committees will hear the bills shortly after the main committees hear the bills.

Sharp-eyed readers may have noted that the relevant House Bill is numbered 2002, not the expected 2001.

Well, it turns out that one Democrat was quicker on the draw than the House's Republicans were.

HB2001 was introduced by Rep. David Lujan, the House Democratic leader as well as a candidate for Attorney General.

His bill would bar the use of taxpayer monies to fund such a lawsuit as is planned by the Republicans.

In an unsurprising non-development, Lujan's bill hasn't even been referred to committee, much less agendized. In other words, the Rs won't even allow the bill to be discussed, much less publicly voted on.

I signed in to the lege's Request to Speak system, not to speak but simply to comment on the bills. If you have visited the lege and set up a profile and login for the RTS system, you may want to do the same, to at least let the lege's Rs know that there are folks in this state who don't drink the Kool-Aid that they're pouring.

Here's the comment that I entered for both HB2002 and SB1001 -

Enough already. If you insist on engaging in partisan posturing, at least do it on the RNC's expense account, not that of the taxpayers of Arizona.

Based on today's news, the RNC has far more cash to burn on lost causes than we do.

That last refers to the latest news from the RNC's financials, which include expenditures on things like visits to a high-priced strip club, complete with leather lesbians, private jets, ritzy hotels, and worse.

I'm not sure where the Republicans' priorities are, but they aren't with the American people, and the AZGOP isn't interested in looking out for the average Arizonan.

G.I.'s "Busdrivers are bureaucrats": an update

by David Safier

The Goldwater Institute hasn't changed its answer to my "Are you really saying bus drivers are bureaucrats?" question. So G.I. is still holding to Ladner's laughable statement that there is "an almost 1-to-1 teacher to bureaucrat ratio" in our school districts. That can only be true if bus drivers, maintenance workers and food service workers are included as bureaucrats.

Since I last posted on the topic, I've been poking around, gathering more information. Commenter Todd gave me the link Arizona's DOE's 2007-8 Annual Report and pointed me toward some terrific information.

So let's look at some official DOE numbers.

Arizona's teacher make up 48% of school district's staff. Teachers' aides make up another 13%. So 62% 61% of the staff is right there in the classroom.

Administrators (3%) and managers (3%) combine for another 6% of staff.

The remaining 32% are classified as "Others." Of those, 4% are certified, meaning they're probably teachers in non teaching positions like counselors, curriculum specialists, etc. The rest, 28%, are classified (non certified), most of whom are probably bus drivers, maintenance workers, food service workers and secretaries.

Here' s the breakdown:

• Teachers and teacher aides: 62% 61%
• Administrators and mananagers: 6%
• Others: 32% (4% certified, 28% classified)

That doesn't sound like a 1-to-1 teacher to bureaucrat ratio to me, with 62% in the classroom and 28% in non-education related positions. Based on the DOE numbers, including secretaries and assorted other administrative support people as bureaucrats, I'll generously put the bureaucrat percentage at 15-20%. And that's very generous.

The report also breaks down school districts' personnel by dollars spent, using somewhat different classifications.

School districts spend about 54% of their money on Classroom Instruction and another 3% on Class Supplies. Student support, which includes "services such as social work, guidance, health, psychological, speech, audiology and other therapies" amounts to 7%. Other Support and Operations, which includes "expenditures for instructional staff support, media services, and non-instructional services such as food services, plant and maintenance support, transportation and community services operations" comes to about 26%. Administration weighs in at 9%.

Here's the dollar-by-dollar breakdown:

• Classroom instruction and supplies: 57%
• Student support: 7%
• Other support and operations: 26%
• Administration: 9%

Looking at either the number of employees or dollars spent, the percentages indicate that school districts have something close to a 5-to-1 teacher to bureaucrat ratio -- maybe less.

Based on trial balloons G.I. has sent up, its next "Public schools suck" number will say that private schools have a 3-to-1 teacher to non-teacher ratio. That's supposed to show how inefficient the public sector is.

If G.I. puts out that number, it needs to answer two questions.

First, where does the 3-to-1 number come from? Private schools tend to keep employment information pretty close to the vest, so it's hard to believe those numbers come from a representative sampling of schools. 

Second, what is the breakdown of the non-teaching staff? Private schools usually don't have their own bus services or food services, and since they pick and choose their students, they don't need some of the support services public schools provide. A comparison of the overall public-and-private school ratios mean little without an item-by-item comparison.

It would be nice to have all the information supplied by G.I. in one tidy package instead of getting the facts cherry-picked for maximum effect. That would be . . . what are the words I'm looking for? Oh yeah, honest and responsible.

The editors of the Arizona Republic owe its readers a retraction and an apology

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

David Safier briefly touched upon this story yesterday in Arizona media in the news.

An editorial opinion published in the Arizona Republic on Sunday is one of the worst examples of falsehoods and false equivalencies presented as fact by the editors of a major publication - presumably professional journalists - in some time.

The editorial in question is This has to stop - on both sides. The editorial starts out well enough, reminding readers that Barack Obama and the Democrats ran for office in 2008 promising health care reform as a principal issue, and that they won a landslide election giving them a mandate to reform health care. Fair enough.

But then the editors veer off the road and into the field:

To reject those fairly played events now and to turn to threats of violence and malicious acts because your side lost is to reject the system you claim to respect. Recall your disgust with ecoterrorists, destructive animal-rights activists and left-wing anarchists? Remember how you felt about the novels and films about assassinating George W. Bush? Well, those folks are you now if you succumb to your anger and do something stupid.

Comparing teabaggers to fringe ecoterrorists, animal rights activists and left-wing anarchists? Really? These small fringe groups are not supported by any major political party, and do not have a right-wing media machine dedicated to their promotion, i.e., FAUX News, talk radio, syndicated columnists, bloggers, etc., like the Tea Party does. Nor do these small fringe groups have well-financed corporate sponsors and K Street lobbyist front groups like Freedom Works and Americans for Prosperity organizing them.

As Sarah Palin and RNC Chairman Michael Steele recently reminded us, the Tea Party is the Republican Party, with its right-wing media machine at their disposal 24/7, financed by unlimited corporate funding and organized by professional lobbyist firms. This is not a small number of individuals engaged in random acts of violence and threats. The editors' attempt to minimalize the actions of Republican elected officials, conservative media and teabaggers over the past year by making a false equivalency quickly falls apart under examination.

The editors then fabricate another false equivalency to try to claim that Democrats are equally to blame:

To the Democratic Party apparatchiks exploiting predictable tensions to raise a few bucks and stigmatize your opponents:

Concern for the safety of members of Congress and their families is one thing. The campaign to mischaracterize and demonize Republicans as indifferent to portents of violence - or, in some obscene cases, accusing GOP leaders of actually fomenting violence - is beyond the pale. Some Democratic activists are conducting naked campaigns to portray the other side as violent, irrationally angry, hateful thugs, and that is shameful.

Are the editors attempting to deny that Republican elected officials have not used inflammatory language to incite the kind of response we have seen from teabaggers? Have they already forgotten the scenes from the health care townhalls this past year in which retired people on social security and medicare were irrationally angry about "socialist" government-run health care (hello!) and carried signs portraying the president as the joker from Batman or as an African witch doctor with a bone in his nose, or as Hitler, and signs calling the president a socialist/ communist/ marxist/ fascist/ nazi? And how about the birthers, supported by the conservative media, questioning the very legitimacy of Obama's election and his citizenship? This was daily fare on FAUX News. These individuals stigmatized themselves by their own extreme actions for all the world to see.

Here is a helpful video compilation from just the past week of Republican elected officials using inflammatory language to incite the teabaggers at the Capitol to jog the memory of the editors.

Democrats using the outrageous behavior from the past year to raise money to defend Democratic members of Congress is equivalent to the outrageous behavior itself? What kind of perverse logic is that? The images from the past year speak for themselves. The Democrats are not "exploiting" the outrageous actions of teabaggers and Republicans. They have a right to rally their voters.

As Digby observed in Making Daddy Mad: "America's wife beaters have actually decided to use the defense that these Democrats are "asking for" death threats from the right wingers because they are 'making them mad.'" Democrats complaining about their inflammatory rhetoric made the teabaggers snap. "If they'd just stayed quiet and not made daddy mad, he wouldn't have had to hit them."

The editors next engage in perpetuating a false story to invent yet another false equivalency to claim that Democrats are equally to blame:

The most disturbingly violent act to date was a gunshot fired into the offices of Rep. Eric Cantor - a Republican. We pray it ends there.

By the time this editorial was published on Sunday, the Eric Cantor story had already been fully debunked by Virgina police and the news media. Even Eric Cantor had walked back his story. See Cantor's story unravels (Thursday), Cantor not targeted: Richmond PD says bullet fired randomly (Thursday), Cantor's "campaign office" isn't in his congressional district (Friday), Richmond Police on Cantor 'shooting': "Stray bullet...random gunfire" (Friday), Cantor digs deeper (Friday). Joan Walsh had published Eric Cantor's phony victim story - Salon.com on Friday, comparing Eric Cantor to Ashley Todd, the white McCain supporter who claimed she was assaulted by a black Obama backer in October 2008 who carved a backwards "B" in her cheek.

One has to question whether the editors of the Arizona Republic failed to do even a cursory Google search to find out the facts of the Eric Cantor story, or whether they did not care about the facts to create their false equivalency. In either case, the editors of the Arizona Republic owe its readers a retraction and an apology.

As for the general point of the editorial, the DNC offered to issue a joint civility statement with the RNC. On Friday, the RNC rejected the DNC joint civility statement. Sorta undermines the editors' false equivalency, now doesn't it?

Talking Points Memo references Star's Minuteman story

by David Safier

If you don't follow Talking Points Memo on a semi-regular basis, you're missing one of the best sources for news and information anywhere. It combines a top reporting staff with first rate blogging. It's the home page for my browser. I read over it thoroughly in the morning, then glance at it during the day.

This morning, TPM ran a piece going over the Star's informative article about the disbanding of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps. TPM wanted to bring the topic to wider notice, especially the fact that the Minuteman leader asked members to bring their "long arms" to the border, "locked, loaded and ready."

TPM didn't mention, as I did in a post about the article, that no one at the Star got a comment from Al Melvin on the topic. So far as I know, the self-declared "proud Minuteman" who has said he wants an unbroken border fence stretching from San Diego through Texas, is the highest ranking elected Arizonan with direct ties to the group.

How direct are his ties? These photos are from Melvin's 2006 campaign website.

The Accidental Governor's hissy-fit special session on Monday

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Why do conservatives waste millions of state taxpayer dollars on "junk lawsuits" that are frivolous claims? Because it feeds their fundraising coffers from their conservative base.

Monday is a special session called by the Accidental Governor for political posturing, pure and simple. Attorney General Terry Goddard would not join the politically motivated lawsuit to challenge the health care reform act, finding that the claims are not supported by fact or existing law (Rule 11 requirement for attorneys not to file frivolous claims).

So our Accidental Governor wants to hire her own attorney, at taxpayer expense mind you, to join this politically motivated lawsuit (paging Kenneth Starr). It is political posturing because the Accidental Governor believes she will be the Republican nominee for governor (a big assumption on her part) and Terry Goddard will be the Democratic nominee for governor in November.

Our John Birch Society, Tenther, states' rights nullification, secessionist radical Republicans in the Arizona Legislature will give the Accidental Governor the authority she seeks.

Arizonans should demand that the Accidental Governor and these radical Republicans pay the attorney's fees and cost for this politically motivated frivolous lawsuit out of their own pockets. The taxpayers should not be forced to pay for political posturing to benefit the Jan Brewer for Governor campaign and adding to the deficit in our state budget. Contact your state legislators and demand that they not waste your precious tax dollars on junk lawsuits when they should be spending the money on education and health care.

This "junk lawsuit" is based upon antiquated commerce clause and Tenth Amendment theories rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court since the 1930s. This case has virtually no chance of succeeding in court. As the New York Times editorializes today The Legal Assault on Health Reforms:

No sooner had President Obama signed comprehensive health care reform than the attorneys general of 14 states scurried to the federal courts to challenge the law. Their claims range from far-fetched to arguable and look mostly like political posturing for the fall elections or a “Hail Mary” pass by disgruntled conservatives who cannot accept what Congress and the president have done.

They seem unlikely to succeed because the law was carefully drafted to withstand just this kind of challenge.

* * *

A central contention of both suits is that Congress has no power under the Constitution to compel individuals to buy health insurance or pay a penalty. Congress has never before compelled people to buy anything from a private company, so there is no precisely apt Supreme Court precedent. Still, two provisions in the Constitution give Congress broad powers to regulate economic activity — the power to impose taxes for the general welfare and the power to regulate interstate commerce.

The new law has been framed to fall within both of those provisions. The penalties for not buying insurance have been structured as a tax, to be collected by the Internal Revenue Service. And the law’s text includes a series of Congressional findings: that health insurance and health care comprise a significant part of the economy, that most policies are sold and claims paid through interstate commerce, and that the mandate is essential to achieving the goals of creating effective health insurance markets and achieving near-universal coverage.

Such findings don’t make the new law bullet-proof, but they help to insulate it from attack. It seems a long shot that the Supreme Court would invalidate the mandate, if the cases ever reach that level.

A second contention, emphasized by the 13 state attorneys general, is that the new law amounts to an unprecedented encroachment on the sovereignty of the states. It will require them to greatly expand their Medicaid programs, imposing substantial costs, and add administrative burdens in setting up new insurance exchanges that will offer an array of private policies.

That seems a stretch. No state is required to set up an exchange. If states fail to do so, the federal government will take over. Nor is any state required to participate in Medicaid, a joint federal-state program in which Washington pays half or more of the costs.

It is true, as the suit contends, that it may not be practical for states to drop out of a Medicaid program that serves many of their poorest residents. But it is well established that Congress can attach conditions to the money it supplies, and Congress has long imposed Medicaid requirements that states must meet.

The attorneys general are doing a disservice to their constituents . . .

There was a decent legal analysis in the Arizona Republic on Sunday with which I would agree. Precedent on side of health-care law:

Defenders of the newly enacted national health-care law and its rule that all Americans get health insurance have a powerful and recent Supreme Court precedent on their side, a 2005 ruling that upheld federal restrictions on homegrown marijuana in California.

At issue in that case, like the coming challenge to the health-care mandate, was the reach of the federal government's power.

Conservative [activist] Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy joined a 6-3 ruling that said Congress could regulate marijuana that was neither bought nor sold on the market but rather grown at home legally for sick patients. They said the Constitution gave Congress nearly unlimited power to regulate the marketplace as part of its authority "to regulate commerce." Even "non-economic local activity" can come under federal regulation if it is "a necessary part of a more general regulation of interstate commerce," Scalia wrote.

Last week, Obama administration lawyers pointed to Scalia's opinion as supporting the constitutionality of broad federal regulation of health insurance, and most legal experts agreed.

* * *

The court's ruling in the 2005 case, Gonzales vs. Raich, "is an enormous problem" for those who contend the health-care mandate is unconstitutional, said Simon Lazarus, a lawyer for the National Senior Citizens Law Center.

"It clearly says Congress has vast regulatory authority over interstate commerce."

* * *

While the Bill of Rights put clear limits on the government's power to interfere with an individual's freedom of speech or free exercise of their religion, the Constitution does not put clear limits on Congress's power. Article I says "Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes . . . (to) provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States . . . (and) to regulate commerce." Since the New Deal era of the 1930s, the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that the federal government can regulate almost anything that involves economic or commercial activity.

Several constitutional-law experts said last week it is somewhere between unlikely and hard to imagine that the Supreme Court would strike down the new national health-care law.

"In my view, there is a less than 1 percent chance that the courts will invalidate the individual mandate," said George Washington law professor Orin Kerr, a former clerk to Justice Kennedy.

* * *

Critics of the new mandate to have health insurance often claim the Founding Fathers could never have envisioned the federal government telling individuals they must take an action or buy a private product. This is not quite correct.

As one of its earliest actions, Congress passed the Militia Act of 1792, which was signed by President George Washington. It mandated that "each and every able-bodied white male citizen" must "be enrolled in the militia." Hardly shy about imposing federal regulations on private citizens, the militia law said each new recruit must show up within six months carrying "a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a knapsack (and) a pouch to contain not less than 24 cartridges suited to the bore of his musket or firelock."

Winkler also dismisses the argument that Congress cannot penalize someone for "doing nothing," such as not buying health insurance. "If you don't believe me, just 'do nothing' this April 15 when your tax bill is due," he said.

I find it curious that Republicans who whine the loudest about tort reform and junk lawsuits which are frivolous claims are the ones who file so many of these junk lawsuit frivolous claims.

Three must-read opinions this weekend

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

There are three excellent opinions this weekend that put the current state of affairs in this country into historical context. The past informs our present, and gives us guidance for the future. We ignore the lessons of the past at our own peril.

Frank Rich of the New York Times puts the Tea Party temper-tantrum into proper context in The Rage Is Not About Health Care - NYTimes.com:

No less curious is how disproportionate this red-hot anger is to its proximate cause. The historic Obama-Pelosi health care victory is a big deal, all right, so much so it doesn’t need Joe Biden’s adjective to hype it. But the bill does not erect a huge New Deal-Great Society-style government program. In lieu of a public option, it delivers 32 million newly insured Americans to private insurers. As no less a conservative authority than The Wall Street Journal editorial page observed last week, the bill’s prototype is the health care legislation Mitt Romney signed into law in Massachusetts. It contains what used to be considered Republican ideas.

Yet it’s this bill that inspired G.O.P. congressmen on the House floor to egg on disruptive protesters even as they were being evicted from the gallery by the Capitol Police last Sunday. It’s this bill that prompted a congressman to shout “baby killer” at Bart Stupak, a staunch anti-abortion Democrat. It’s this bill that drove a demonstrator to spit on Emanuel Cleaver, a black representative from Missouri. And it’s this “middle-of-the-road” bill, as Obama accurately calls it, that has incited an unglued firestorm of homicidal rhetoric, from “Kill the bill!” to Sarah Palin’s cry for her followers to “reload.” At least four of the House members hit with death threats or vandalism are among the 20 political targets Palin marks with rifle crosshairs on a map on her Facebook page.

When Social Security was passed by Congress in 1935 and Medicare in 1965, there was indeed heated opposition. As Dana Milbank wrote in The Washington Post, Alf Landon built his catastrophic 1936 presidential campaign on a call for repealing Social Security. (Democrats can only pray that the G.O.P. will “go for it” again in 2010, as Obama goaded them on Thursday, and keep demanding repeal of a bill that by September will shower benefits on the elderly and children alike.) When L.B.J. scored his Medicare coup, there were the inevitable cries of “socialism” along with ultimately empty rumblings of a boycott from the American Medical Association.

But there was nothing like this. To find a prototype for the overheated reaction to the health care bill, you have to look a year before Medicare, to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Both laws passed by similar majorities in Congress; the Civil Rights Act received even more votes in the Senate (73) than Medicare (70). But it was only the civil rights bill that made some Americans run off the rails. That’s because it was the one that signaled an inexorable and immutable change in the very identity of America, not just its governance.

The apocalyptic predictions then, like those about health care now, were all framed in constitutional pieties, of course. Barry Goldwater, running for president in ’64, drew on the counsel of two young legal allies, William Rehnquist and Robert Bork, to characterize the bill as a “threat to the very essence of our basic system” and a “usurpation” of states’ rights that “would force you to admit drunks, a known murderer or an insane person into your place of business.” Richard Russell, the segregationist Democratic senator from Georgia, said the bill “would destroy the free enterprise system.” David Lawrence, a widely syndicated conservative columnist, bemoaned the establishment of “a federal dictatorship.” Meanwhile, three civil rights workers were murdered in Philadelphia, Miss.

That a tsunami of anger is gathering today is illogical, given that what the right calls “Obamacare” is less provocative than either the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or Medicare, an epic entitlement that actually did precipitate a government takeover of a sizable chunk of American health care. But the explanation is plain: the health care bill is not the main source of this anger and never has been. It’s merely a handy excuse. The real source of the over-the-top rage of 2010 is the same kind of national existential reordering that roiled America in 1964.

In fact, the current surge of anger — and the accompanying rise in right-wing extremism — predates the entire health care debate. The first signs were the shrieks of “traitor” and “off with his head” at Palin rallies as Obama’s election became more likely in October 2008. Those passions have spiraled ever since — from Gov. Rick Perry’s kowtowing to secessionists at a Tea Party rally in Texas to the gratuitous brandishing of assault weapons at Obama health care rallies last summer to “You lie!” piercing the president’s address to Congress last fall like an ominous shot.

If Obama’s first legislative priority had been immigration or financial reform or climate change, we would have seen the same trajectory. The conjunction of a black president and a female speaker of the House — topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay Congressional committee chairman — would sow fears of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threatened minority in the country no matter what policies were in play. It’s not happenstance that Frank, Lewis and Cleaver — none of them major Democratic players in the health care push — received a major share of last weekend’s abuse. When you hear demonstrators chant the slogan “Take our country back!,” these are the people they want to take the country back from.

They can’t. Demographics are avatars of a change bigger than any bill contemplated by Obama or Congress. The week before the health care vote, The Times reported that births to Asian, black and Hispanic women accounted for 48 percent of all births in America in the 12 months ending in July 2008. By 2012, the next presidential election year, non-Hispanic white births will be in the minority. The Tea Party movement is virtually all white. The Republicans haven’t had a single African-American in the Senate or the House since 2003 and have had only three in total since 1935. Their anxieties about a rapidly changing America are well-grounded.

* * *

After the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, some responsible leaders in both parties spoke out to try to put a lid on the resistance and violence. The arch-segregationist Russell of Georgia, concerned about what might happen in his own backyard, declared flatly that the law is “now on the books.” Yet no Republican or conservative leader of stature has taken on Palin, Perry, Boehner or any of the others who have been stoking these fires for a good 17 months now. Last week McCain even endorsed Palin’s “reload” rhetoric.

Are these politicians so frightened of offending anyone in the Tea Party-Glenn Beck base that they would rather fall silent than call out its extremist elements and their enablers? Seemingly so, and if G.O.P. leaders of all stripes, from Romney to Mitch McConnell to Olympia Snowe to Lindsey Graham, are afraid of these forces, that’s the strongest possible indicator that the rest of us have reason to fear them too.

The next opinion by Charles Blow of the New York Times expands upon the "take our country back!" theme Whose Country Is It? - NYTimes.com: 

The bullying, threats, and acts of violence following the passage of health care reform have been shocking, but they’re only the most recent manifestations of an increasing sense of desperation.

It’s an extension of a now-familiar theme: some version of “take our country back.” The problem is that the country romanticized by the far right hasn’t existed for some time, and its ability to deny that fact grows more dim every day. President Obama and what he represents has jolted extremists into the present and forced them to confront the future. And it scares them.

Even the optics must be irritating. A woman (Nancy Pelosi) pushed the health care bill through the House. The bill’s most visible and vocal proponents included a gay man (Barney Frank) and a Jew (Anthony Weiner). And the black man in the White House signed the bill into law. It’s enough to make a good old boy go crazy.

Hence their anger and frustration, which is playing out in ways large and small. There is the current spattering of threats and violence, but there also is the run on guns and the explosive growth of nefarious antigovernment and anti-immigrant groups. In fact, according to a report entitled “Rage on the Right: The Year in Hate and Extremism” recently released by the Southern Poverty Law Center, “nativist extremist” groups that confront and harass suspected immigrants have increased nearly 80 percent since President Obama took office, and antigovernment “patriot” groups more than tripled over that period.

Politically, this frustration is epitomized by the Tea Party movement. It may have some legitimate concerns (taxation, the role of government, etc.), but its message is lost in the madness. And now the anemic Republican establishment, covetous of the Tea Party’s passion, is moving to absorb it, not admonish it. Instead of jettisoning the radical language, rabid bigotry and rising violence, the Republicans justify it. (They don’t want to refute it as much as funnel it.)

There may be a short-term benefit in this strategy, but it’s a long-term loser.

A Quinnipiac University poll released on Wednesday took a look at the Tea Party members and found them to be just as anachronistic to the direction of the country’s demographics as the Republican Party. For instance, they were disproportionately white, evangelical Christian and “less educated ... than the average Joe and Jane Six-Pack.” This at a time when the country is becoming more diverse (some demographers believe that 2010 could be the first year that most children born in the country will be nonwhite), less doctrinally dogmatic, and college enrollment is through the roof. The Tea Party, my friends, is not the future.

You may want “your country back,” but you can’t have it. That sound you hear is the relentless, irrepressible march of change. Welcome to America: The Remix.

For those of us old enough to have lived in a segregated America and through the turbulent civil rights movement, this is nothing new. The anger in their faces and the racially coded language they speak is all too familiar. This is what Colbert King of the Washington Post writes about in In the faces of Tea Party shouters, images of hate and history - washingtonpost.com:

The angry faces at Tea Party rallies are eerily familiar. They resemble faces of protesters lining the street at the University of Alabama in 1956 as Autherine Lucy, the school's first black student, bravely tried to walk to class.

Those same jeering faces could be seen gathered around the Arkansas National Guard troopers who blocked nine black children from entering Little Rock's Central High School in 1957.

"They moved closer and closer," recalled Elizabeth Eckford, one of the Little Rock Nine. "Somebody started yelling, 'Lynch her! Lynch her!' I tried to see a friendly face somewhere in the crowd -- someone who maybe could help. I looked into the face of an old woman and it seemed a kind face, but when I looked at her again, she spat on me."

Those were the faces I saw at a David Duke rally in Metairie, La., in 1991: sullen with resentment, wallowing in victimhood, then exploding with yells of excitement as the ex-Klansman and Republican gubernatorial candidate spewed vitriolic white-power rhetoric.

People like that old woman in Little Rock, the Alabama mob that hounded Autherine Lucy, the embracers of Duke's demagoguery in Louisiana, never go away.

They were spotted last weekend on Capitol Hill under the Tea Party banner protesting the health-care-reform bill. Some carried a signs that read "If Brown [Scott Brown (R-Mass.)] can't stop it, a Browning [high power weapon] can." Some shouted racial and homophobic epithets at members of Congress. Others assumed the role of rabble, responding to the calls of instigating Republican representatives gathered on a Capitol balcony.

Tea Party members, as with their forerunners who showed up at the University of Alabama and Central High School, behave as they do because they have been culturally conditioned to believe they are entitled to do whatever they want, and to whomever they want, because they are the "real Americans," while all who don't think or look like them are not.

And they are consequential. Without folks like them, there would be no Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity or Pat Buchanan. There would never have been a George Corley Wallace, the Alabama governor dubbed by Pulitzer Prize-winning author Diane McWhorter in a 2008 Slate article as "the godfather, avatar of a national uprising against the three G's of government, Godlessness, and gun control."

Hence, an explanation for the familiarity of faces: today's Tea Party adherents are George Wallace legacies.

They, like Wallace's followers, smolder with anger. They fear they are being driven from their rightful place in America.

They see the world through the eyes of the anti-civil rights alumni. "Washington, D.C." now, as then, is regarded as the Great Satan. This is the place that created the civil rights laws that were shoved down their throats. This is the birthplace of their much-feared "Big Government" and the playground of the "elite national news media."

And they are faithful to the old Wallace playbook.

McWhorter wrote how Wallace, in a 1963 speech to the political arm of Alabama's Ku Klux Klan, "referred to the recent bombings in Birmingham against prominent black citizens, citing the lack of fatalities as proof that the 'nigras' were throwing the dynamite themselves in order to attract publicity and money."

Fast-forward to today. Note the pro-Tea Party conservative commentary debunking last weekend's racist and homophobic slurs as a work of fiction and exaggeration strictly for political reasons. Noticeable, too, is the influence of George Wallace, Limbaugh, Beck and their followers on outcomes.

The angry '50s and '60s crowds threatened and intimidated; some among them even murdered. That notwithstanding, Americans of goodwill gathered in the White House to witness the signing of landmark civil rights laws.

Schoolhouse doors were blocked, and little children were demeaned. Yet the bigots didn't get the last word. Justice rolled down like a mighty river, sweeping them aside.

They insulted, abused, lied and vandalized. Still, President Obama fulfilled his promise to sign historic health-care reform into law by the end of his first term.

Those angry faces won't go away. But neither can they stand in the way of progress.

The mobs of yesteryear were on the wrong side of history. Tea Party supporters and their right-wing fellow travelers are on the wrong side now. It shows up in their faces.

The coming week - legislative edition

Posted by Craig McDermott, cross-posted from Random Musings

As usual, all info gathered from the website of the Arizona Legislature, except where noted, and subject to change without notice...

The highlight (so to speak) this week looks to be the eighth special session of the lege, called by the Governor to ask for permission to sue the feds over health care reform. More on that set piece here. No bill proposals or committee agendas have been posted for the special session as yet.

Regular session committee work is starting to wind down, and this week's agendas show it - while most committees are meeting, most of their agendas are short ones.

On the House side of the quad -

- Education is meeting on Monday at 10 a.m. in HHR3. Looks quiet so far.

- Rules will meet at 1 p.m. in HHR4. *Not* quiet, but this committee is a rubber stamp. If a measure makes it onto this agenda, it means that the Speaker supports the bill and it will be approved by the committee.

- Natural Resources and Rural Affairs will meet at 2 p.m. in HHR4. The agenda includes consideration of a strike-everything amendment to SB1154, relating to "underground storage tanks". The bill's language hasn't been posted online yet, but the fact sheet written by legislative staff is here. Also on the agenda is SB1349, which mandates that the director of the AZ Department of Administration allow the state parks board to enter into contracts with a "public or private entity or Indian tribes" to operate the state's parks.

- Banking and Insurance will meet at 2 p.m. in HHR5. The agenda is short, but includes SB1348, wreaking all sorts of mischief regarding regulatory rules and rulemaking.

- On Tuesday, Public Employees, Retirement, and Entitlement Reform will meet at 2 p.m. in HHR3. Quiet thus far.

- On Wednesday, Military Affairs and Public Safety will meet at 9 a.m. in HHR3. This one includes SB1070, the Russell Pearce-penned measure to direct law enforcement personnel in Arizona to ignore enforcement of other laws in order to become immigration police, outlaw "sanctuary city" policies, and reduce probable cause requirements for law enforcement officers stopping vehicles and persons, among other things. In short, SB1070 is a potpourri of ugly.

- Health and Human Services will meet at 9 a.m. in HHR4. This may be the longest agenda of the week, outside of the Rules agenda. On the agenda: SB1306 and SB1307, measures written by the Center for Turning Arizona Into A Theocracy Arizona Policy regarding human embryos and human egg providers. Also up: SB1309, relating to expanding parents' rights; SB1314, an exercise in right-wing legislators interfering in family court procedures regarding custody disputes; and SCR1044, a ballot referral of an amendment to the AZ constitution banning the cloning of humans.

- On Thursday, Water and Energy will meet at 9 a.m. in HHR5. Looks quiet so far, but a striker will be offered to HB2561 regarding "groundwater transportation; Big Chino sub-basin." No language posted online as yet.

- Transportation and Infrastructure will meet at 9 a.m. in HHR3. Very quiet so far.

- Judiciary will meet at 9 a.m. in HHR4. This one is full of parting gifts from Jonathan Paton, such as SCR1009, the plan to end Clean Elections in Arizona, and SCR1013, changing the job title of the Secretary of State to "Lieutenant Governor." SCR1013 also removes the requirement for a run-off election if none of the candidates for an executive branch office doesn't gain a majority of the votes in an election. Instead, the legislature would get to choose the occupant of the office, in the event of a tie. Otherwise, the highest vote getter for an office would win that office (I think so anyway - the measure isn't specific on that).


Over on the Senate side -

- Rules will meet on Monday in 1st Floor Caucus Room upon adjournment of the floor session.

- Natural Resources, Infrastructure, and Public Debt will meet at 1:30 p.m. in SHR109. This one contains SB1445, relating to "groundwater transportation; Big Chino sub-basin." I'm guessing that this measure is a match for the unknown striker listed above, but I have no idea what its real impact will be.

- Judiciary will meet at 1:30 p.m. in SHR1. Looks relatively quiet so far.

- On Tuesday, Commerce and Economic Development will meet at 1:30 p.m. in SHR1. This one contains HB2337, a measure declaring that incandescent light bulbs manufactured and used in Arizona aren't subject to any federal regulation.

- Appropriations will meet at 1:30 in SHR109. Relatively quiet so far.

- On Wednesday, Healthcare and Medical Liability Reform will meet at 9 a.m in SHR1. Quiet thus far.

- Public Safety and Human Services will meet at 10 a.m. in SHR3. The agenda includes consideration of HB2246, deregulating "consumer" fireworks. if this passes, look for a busy brushfire season in Arizona.

- Veterans and Military Affairs will meet at 1:30 p.m. in SHR2. Quiet thus far.

- Finance will meet at 1:30 p.m. in SHR3. This one has a lot of bad on it: a striker to SB2001, letting faculty members at the state's community colleges and universities carry concealed weapons on campus; HB2496, letting people who contribute to school tuition organizations this year by April 15 to claim it on last year's tax returns; a striker to HB2598 (language not yet available) regarding the repeal of photo radar; and HCR2056, phasing out the state's business personal property tax.

- Education Accountability and Reform will meet at 1:30 p.m. in SHR1. This agenda is a long one, but the highlights include HB2663 and HB2664, relating to STOs and tax credits (hint: these don't exactly increase oversight and accountability of STOs).

- Government Institutions will meet on Thursday at 10 a.m. in SHR1. Looks quiet so far.

Floor calendars for Monday have been posted -

House Third Read (final passage) is here; Senate COW is here; Senate Third Read is here.

Later...

RNC rejects DNC joint civility statement

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Republican National Committee has rejected a proposal from the Democratic National Committee to sign a joint “civility” statement. "It's a trap!" The Party of No is also the party of paranoia and conspiracy theories. RNC rejects joint 'civility' statement - POLITICO.com:

Various members of the DNC — including Chairman Tim Kaine, Executive Director Jen O’Malley Dillon and Communications Director Brad Woodhouse — contacted their respective RNC counterparts this week in hopes of getting RNC Chairman Michael Steele to co-sign a document with Kaine that, in part, called for “elected officials of both parties to set an example of the civility we want to see in our citizenry.”

“We also call on all Americans to respect differences of opinion, to refrain from inappropriate forms of intimidation, to reject violence and vandalism, and to scale back rhetoric that might reasonably be misinterpreted by those prone to such behavior,” read the proposed joint statement, which came at the end of a week that saw acts of vandalism and threats of violence directed at members of Congress from both parties, but mostly aimed at Democrats who voted yes on the health care bill.

Republicans see the statement as an attempt to force them to either reject the statement — allowing Democrats to say the RNC finds the incidents acceptable — or to sign on to something that the DNC would later wield against them.

The proposed statement was faxed and hand-delivered to the RNC at midmorning Friday. POLITICO learned Friday afternoon that the RNC would not sign the DNC statement.

* * *

Woodhouse told POLITICO that the DNC is “disappointed” that the RNC would not agree to a statement that “would carry a lot weight symbolically.”

“It’s very disappointing, but perhaps not surprising, that Chairman Steele, who authored a fundraising presentation that depicted the president as the Joker, the speaker of the House as Cruella de Vil, raised money online showing the speaker on fire and said she should be put before a firing squad would refuse to do a joint statement with Chairman Kaine to ratchet down the rhetoric and condemn the violence and threats which Republican supporters have engaged in since the passage of health reform,” Woodhouse said.

“Chairman Steele’s own overheated rhetoric and the Republican Party’s fear tactics have contributed to an environment of anger and frustration that is unhealthy and counterproductive to our political dialogue,” he added. “Rather than take responsibility for their own actions, Chairman Steele not only refused the good-faith offer of issuing a joint statement, he then sent his spokesperson out to go on the attack in a breathtaking display of chutzpah and hypocrisy. Chairman Kaine and Democrats will continue to work towards a civil and responsible debate on the issues of the day even as Republicans continue to be pulled farther and farther towards the radical extreme.”

DNC ad thanks Rep. Giffords for standing up for Arizonans against insurance company abuses

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

And you should thank her too.

Arizona media in the news

by David Safier

Here are a few bits and pieces about recent handlings mishandling of the news by local and state newspapers.

• Brewer screwed up and appointed people to the new Rio Nuevo board who are supposed to be Tucson residents, but aren't. Here's the opening line of Rob O'Dell's article: "At least two of the state's first appointees to the new board overseeing the Rio Nuevo redevelopment district are ineligible to serve because they don't meet residency requirements." You have to read further to find out Brewer is responsible. Could be the City Council for all we know. The day before, O'Dell wrote an article about a proposed city increase in property taxes. Here's the opening line: "City property owners could soon see a big tax increase to start paying down an $18 million deficit in the city's self-insurance fund." The "big tax increase" begins at $2 a year on a $200,000 home, then goes up to $12 a year. O'Dell downplayed a Brewer screwup at Tucson's expense, then blew a tiny city tax hike out of proportion.
• The Arizona Education Network is a statewide organization, but its powerhouse is right here in Tucson. Its members broke the story about the abuse of tuition tax credits which got big play in the Republic and the East Valley Trib but got almost no coverage in the Star. They recently held a news conference in Phoenix about the educational voting records of state legislators. It was overlooked in the Star until today, when it was mentioned in a Star editorial. Tucson should be proud of this incredible effort by local folks to spotlight problems with education funding and seek solutions. Instead, Tucson's paper with its touted emphasis on local stories all but ignores their existence.
• At the Palin-McCain event in Mesa, there was some heckling. According to the Republic, one of the hecklers was throwing elbows and was removed, but the McCain campaign doesn't plan to press charges. The East Valley Trib tells a different story. It writes nothing about the hecklers throwing elbows. The first "was placed in a headlock and escorted out by McCain’s campaign volunteers." The second "was pulled by the hair and removed  after he shouted that Republicans had overspent on the war in Iraq." Here's a youtube video of one of the hecklers being held down outside the rally. It sounds like the police are asking the person holding the heckler down to let go. In another video, about 50 seconds in, you can see one of the hecklers being dragged out but no evidence he was throwing elbows beforehand.
• The Republic has an editorial, This has to stop - on both sides, talking about the heated rhetoric and violence lately. It pretty much blames both sides equally. It writes, "The most disturbingly violent act to date was a gunshot fired into the offices of Rep. Eric Cantor - a Republican. We pray it ends there." Eric Cantor himself, after claiming a bullet was shot at his office, later admitted the police say it was a random bullet fired into the air which came down and hit a window, either in Cantor's office or another window in the building. It wasn't intended to hit his, or any, office. Somehow, the people writing the editorial missed both the police report and Cantor's recanting of his original story.

Political Calendar: Week of March 28, 2010

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.

Monday evening begins Passover. The week concludes with Easter Sunday. Wishing you all a happy holiday with your family and friends.

Political Calendar For The Week of March 28, 2010

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

Sunday, March 28, Noon: Congressman Raúl Grijalva is hosting a "Sunday Health Care Appreciation Walk" today at Noon. The event begins at Grijalva's re-election headquarters at 452 S. Stone Avenue.

Monday, March 29, 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. Special Guest speaker is Congressman Raúl Grijalva. (Congressional candidate Jon Hulburd had to reschedule).

Thursday, April 1, 6:00 p.m.: The 21st Annual LULAC Educational Awards & Scholarship Banquet,  at the Tucson Convention Center Copper Room, 260 S. Church; (no-host cocktails at 5:30 PM). This year Congressman Raúl Grijalva and Attorney General Terry Goddard will receive special recognition for their work in bettering the lives of young people. Tickets are $75 (tax-deductible for the amount exceeding $25). Proceeds will go to LULAC Council 1057's effort to send students to attend the LULAC Washington National Youth Leadership Seminar and to provide scholarships with LULAC's National Scholarship Foundation. Please send a check payable to the Southern Arizona Institute of Leadership (a 501(c)3 non-profit) to: SAIL, c/o LULAC 1057, P.O. Box 2443, Tucson, AZ 85702. Please RSVP by phone at (520) 903-2838, fax at (520) 792-6388, or e-mail at lulac1057@cox.net.

Saturday April 3, 10:00a.m.: Legislative District 30 meeting, at the Kirk-Bear Canyon Library, 8959 E. Tanque Verde Road (Tucson). For more information please contact Suzanne Newton at (520) 733-0627 or aznewton4@aol.com.

Special Announcements:

Democrats of Greater Tucson Special Event

Monday, April 5, 11:30 a.m: 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. The regular program has been rescheduled this week to encourage attendance at Terry Goddard's formal Campaign Kickoff event in Tucson on the same date and time. DGT will meet early for vanpooling to the Goddard Campaign Kickoff event from the restaurant. (Although the regular luncheon will not take place, DGT requests that members come early and continue to support the restaurant this week!)

Goddard for Governor Campaign Kickoff Event - Tucson

Monday, April 5, Noon: Goddard for Governor Campaign Kickoff Event at the old Pima County Courthouse (courtyard on West side), 115 N. Church Avenue. Terry Goddard will formally kickoff his campaign for governor with a speech scheduled to begin at approximately 12:15 p.m. Please come out and show Terry that we support him and that Arizona is ready for change!

Ted Prezelski's Second Annual Southwestern Dyngus Day Celebration

Monday, April 5, 5:30 p.m.: Join the Elías family and the Prezelski family to celebrate Dyngus Day (a Polish holiday celebrated the Monday after Easter) with Polish and Mexican cuisine, great company and complimentary beverages. Please RSVP to prezelski2010@gmail.com or look for us on Facebook.

The League of Women Voters of Greater Tucson and the Catalina United Methodist Church Committee on Church, Society and Missions Forum on Prop. 100

Tuesday, April 13, 7:00 p.m.: The League of Women Voters of Greater Tucson and the Catalina United Methodist Church Committee on Church, Society and Missions will host a forum on Prop. 100, at the Fellowship Hall on the Catalina United Methodist Campus, 2700 E. Speedway (Tucson). Prop. 100 is the temporary 1-cent-per-dollar sales-tax increase that will be on the May 18 ballot. The two-hour forum will begin at 7 p.m. On the pro side: former Tucson lawmaker Pete Hershberger and education activist Ann-Eve Pedersen. Against: former Pima County Supervisor Paul Marsh and John Kromko, president of the Pima Association of Taxpayers.

Arizona Democratic Party Spring State Committee Meeting in Tucson

Saturday, April 24, 2010: Arizona Democratic Party Spring State Committee Meeting in Tucson, at Sunnyside High School 1725 E. Bilby Road. Caucus and Committee meetings 8:00 a.m.- Noon. Registration 9:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m. Business meeting begins at 1:00 p.m. State committeemen can download the committee packet at www.azdem.org.

Giffords-Grijalva Dinner After the State Committee Meeting

Saturday, April 24, 6:00 p.m.: The Pima County Democratic Party will host a special dinner featuring Congressman Raúl Grijalva, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, and Congressman Joseph Crowley (of New York's 7th District) and other special guests at the Desert Diamond Hotel Ballroom, 7350 S. Nogales Highway (Tucson). Cocktail Hour at 5:00 p.m., Dinner at 6:00 p.m. Our out-of-town guests for the State Committee meeting are encouraged to stay and enjoy the evening with us! Tickets are $75, $65 for Precinct Committeepersons and $50 for students/current Young Democrats. For the most convenient method of purchasing tickets, please visit our page at ActBlue, http://www.actblue.com/page/giffordsgrijalva. Alternatively, you may pay via credit card by calling (520) 326-3716, or you may mail a check to: Pima County Democratic Party, P.O. Box 40211, Tucson, AZ 85717. Program and table sponsorships are available. For more information please contact PCDP Executive Director, Adam Kinsey, at (520) 326-3716 or akinsey@pimadems.org.

10th Annual Roosevelt-Kennedy Dinner

Saturday, April 24, 5:00 p.m.: Coconino County Democratic Party's 10th Annual Roosevelt-Kennedy Dinner, at the High Country Conference Center, 201 W. Butler Avenue (Flagstaff). This is one of our primary fundraising events of the year. Come meet elected officials and candidates for office and give financial support to our county party headquarters. Please RSVP for dinner reservations to (928) 214-0393.

UPDATED

Just in time for April Fools Day - Another Special Session

posted by Craig McDermott

In a development that surprised very few observers, on Friday, Arizona's governor called an 8th Special Session of the 49th Arizona Legislature.

The subject of the special session won't be penny-ante issues like the state's budget mess, or the failing state education system, or the vanishing soclal safety net, or any of the other dozens of issues facing the state (water?  energy?).

Nope, Jan Brewer has called for a special session to address what is possibly the most pressing issue of this or any other day -

Federal health care reform that will help people obtain and retain medical insurance that is both adequate and affordable.

She wants permission to use ever more scarce state resources to sue the federal government over its recently enacted health care reform, a reform package that has incensed Republicans across the U.S.

There seems to be two likely reasons for the Governor's zeal about representing the state in court -

1. Terry Goddard, the Arizona Attorney General, declined to do Brewer's bidding; and

2. Brewer faces a primary in her bid for an elected term on the 9th floor, and is trying to out-wingnut her Republican primary challengers.

No bills have been posted as yet on the lege's website, nor has any committee or floor action been scheduled.  The tentative schedule seems to be to convene the special session on Monday with the bill "work" to take place on Tuesday and Wednesday, followed by adjournment on Wednesday or Thursday.

The session will be a "show" session - all votes will be along party lines, and anything passed will be all but meaningless because it won't take effect until 90 days after the session ends (say...early July).  By then, Brewer will be in the middle of a knock down/drag out primary season that may end with her being a lame duck.

They can get around the 90 day period by attaching an "emergency clause" to a bill, but that would take a 2/3 vote to enact.  That's not going to happen; they may not even be able to muster a quorum. 

Stay tuned.  I don't expect this special session to be all that interesting, other than producing a few quotable gems of the "Oh those crAZy Republicans!" variety, but things could change.

Later!

Credit where credit is due

by David Safier

I taught both photography and photojournalism, so I love a good photo, and I can recognize when a photographer has taken that extra effort to make a shot work. That iconic photo of Giffords' office with the flag partially obscured by shattered glass but still standing proud is one of those photos that work, thanks to a photographer finding the right elements and pulling them together in a strong composition. That's why it's been used by the NY Times, the Washington Post and by countless television news programs around the country. It has become the symbol of the ugliness from the right following the passage of health care reform legislation.

And of course, it ran in Tucson's paper of record, the Star. Oh, I'm sorry, did I say the Star? My bad. It was in the online Star -- that story may have been the first reporting anywhere, or close to it -- but for some reason I cannot understand, the photo never made it to the printed version of Tucson's only daily.

I have not seen anyone give the photographer the credit he deserves. So here, below the photograph where it belongs, is the photo credit.

Photo by Gary Jones 

Fitz on the Palin Palooza Tour

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Arizona McMedia is in the pocket of Grampy crabbypants, always has been. That kind of media saturation is how John McCain has stayed in office for 28 years.

Rather than report the McMedia's servile reporting here, instead I'll let David Fitzsimmons give his comedic take on the Palin Palooza Tour this weekend. It's better to laugh than to cry. Paradise for Udall, nap time for Melvin, out for Fagen:

Sarah Palin appeared with John McCain at the Pima County Fairgrounds. Halfway through the rally, she quit. Palin claimed, "The decision to quit midway through was tough - but it's my habit." She added that it was time "to get back to plugging my book."

The former Alaska governor displayed her comprehensive knowledge about Arizona when she announced from the stage, "I can see Mexico from here."

Throughout the rally Palin referred to McCain's opponent as "Mr. Hay." An aide later explained that the name "J. D. Hayworth" was too long to fit on her palm.

Star will not cover Tancredo event with CD-8 Republican candidates

by David Safier

One of the Republicans' most controversial figures (and that's saying a lot!), Tom Tancredo, will be in Southern Arizona today at a Tea Party event (I believe it's in Sonoita, but I'm not positive). Scheduled to share the stage with him are all the Republican candidates for the CD-8 congressional seat and, I've been told, John Munger, who's running for Governor.

The Star has said it won't be there. The paper doesn't think it's newsworthy that the candidates who want to replace Giffords will pay homage to this man to stay in the good graces of the Tea Partiers.

To embrace Tom Tancredo is to embrace the most virulent strain of anti-immigrant nativism.

To give you an idea of how vile this man is, Dick Armey said:

"The Republicans — when I was a Majority Leader — I saw to it that Tom Tancredo did not get on a stage because I saw how destructive he was."

The Pima County Democratic Party has publicized the event, because it believes the CD-8 candidates should be called to task if they are willing share the stage with Tancredo and endorse his views.

The Star, however, apparently doesn't consider it newsworthy.

Arizona List Candidate Endorsements

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Arizona List is holding its 6th Anniversary Celebration today:

Saturday, March 27, 11:30 a.m.: Arizona List 6th Anniversary Luncheon Celebration, at the Doubletree Hotel, 445 S. Alvernon Way (Tucson). Luncheon honoring Catherene Morton, and featuring Amy Walter, one of the leading journalists covering Washington today! Ticket prices: 2010 Renewed Members: $50; Non-Members: $75; Students: $25. Tables of Ten: Dessert Table $750; Rose Mofford Tribute Dessert Table $1,000; and Sponsorship Table $2,000 or $5,000. For more information and to RSVP, please contact Nettie Silleck at (520) 327-0520.

Saturday, March 27, 5:00 p.m.: Arizona List Phoenix Hors D'Oeuvers and Dessert Reception, at the Wrigley Mansion, 2501 E. Telewa Trail (Phoenix). Come join us for our 6th Anniversary celebration, honoring Jim Pederson and Sylvia Urrutia, and featuring Amy Walter, one of the leading journalists covering Washington today! Ticket prices: 2010 Renewed Members: $40; Non-Members: $60; Students: $25. Tables of Ten: Dessert Table $600; Rose Mofford Tribute Dessert Table $1,000; and Sponsorship Table $2,000 or $5,000. For more information and to RSVP, please contact Nettie Silleck at (520) 327-0520.

Arizona List has announced its candidate endorsements in advance of today's festivities in its Newsletter.

Early Endorsements Announced for Legislative Candidates

This year Arizona List has an exciting group of candidates running for the Arizona State Legislature. Our Endorsement Committee met last week and endorsed a record 23 candidates for your attention this year. These candidates will depend on you, our Arizona List members, to support their campaigns with volunteer time. The candidates who are running traditionally will welcome your contributions. Future newsletters will profile these candidates individually. We encourage you to check out their web pages to make financial contributions to their campaigns, volunteer, or to sign up for regular campaign updates.

Arizona State Senate
LD   9 Senate – Sheri Van Horsen – Clean
LD 11 Senate – Rita Dickinson – Clean
LD 13 Senate – Rep. Martha Garcia – Traditional
LD 15 Senate – Rep. Kyrsten Sinema – Traditional
LD 23 Senate – Sen. Rebecca Rios – Clean
LD 24 Senate – Sen. Amanda Aguirre - Clean
LD 26 Senate – Cheryl Cage – Traditional
LD 27 Senate – Rep. Olivia Cajero Bedford – Clean
LD 28 Senate – Sen. Paula Aboud – Clean
LD 29 Senate – Sen. Linda Lopez – Traditional

Arizona State House
LD 10 House – Jackie Thrasher - Clean
LD 12 House – Angela Cotera – Traditional
LD 14 House – Sen. Debbie McCune-Davis - Traditional
LD 15 House – Lela Alston – Traditional
LD 15 House – Katie Hobbs – Traditional
LD 20 House – Rep. Rae Waters – Clean
LD 23 House – Rep. Barbara McGuire - Clean
LD 24 House – Rep. Lynne Pancrazi –Clean
LD 25 House – Rep. Pat Fleming – Traditional
LD 26 House – Rep. Nancy Young-Wright – Traditional
LD 27 House – Sally Ann Gonzales – Clean
LD 28 House – Mohur Sidhwa – Clean
LD 30 House – Andrea Dalessandro – Traditional

Giffords on AZ Illustrated, 6:30pm

by David Safier

The Star hasn't run an interview with Giffords since her office was vandalized. The editors must have some reason for ignoring a local story that's been covered nationally, and for refusing to run an iconic photo in their print addition which seems to be appearing everywhere else. I certainly don't know what their reason is, but they must have one, right?

Anyway, here's a chance to see and hear Giffords on AZ Illustrated. It airs tonight (Friday) 6:30, or you can watch it below.

NOTE: I've been told the Arizona Illustrated feeds sometimes crash people's computers, so here's the link. You can watch it on their website.

Arizona Ed Network tallies voting records on education

by David Safier

The Arizona Education Network (AEN) has put together a chart of all the state legislators' voting records on education.

AEN found twenty-one (21) different pieces of legislation that dealt directly with public education budgets and the dollars allocated to it. AEN totaled each legislator’s votes “FOR” and “AGAINST” public education.

Not surprisingly, most Democrats score high -- between 90% and 100% -- and only something like 3 Republicans score over 30%. In Southern Arizona, every Republican earned a zero except Vic Williams, who came in at about 30%.

Sen. John Huppenthal, who's running for Ed Supe, scored a zero.

Why do Republicans hate unemployed Americans?

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

First it was Arizona's embarrassment, Senator Obstruction, Jon Kyl, who blocked the extension of unemployment benefits last fall because he wanted the Paris Hilton Tax (estate tax) for idle rich kids to inherit their parents' fortune to be dealt with first.

Then it was Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY) who blocked the extension of unemployment benefits earlier this year in a one man filibuster over the insincere claim that the benefits were not paid for by Congress (Bunning had two weeks earlier voted against the Pay-Go rules that he now claimed the Senate was violating).

Now "Doctor Evil," Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) has promised that he'd be the next Sen. Jim Bunning if he had to be, and last night, he made good on his threat. Coburn Blocks Unemployment Extension - And His Party Backs Him Up

Yep, here we go again. Party before country, temper tantrums before the country's business:

Coburn is blocking unanimous consent on extension of unemployment benefits, just as Bunning did a few weeks ago. Only this time, Coburn's not alone -- the Republican caucus has joined with Coburn, promising to block billions in unemployment benefits just as the Senate is set to leave on a two-week recess.

Due to the timing of the blockade, benefits could expire on April 5, a situation that would not be remedied for a week while the Senate is out of town. Senators will return from their Easter break on April 12.

When Bunning blocked the benefits extension in early March, government programs funded by the money -- which includes everything from construction work, unemployment payments and doctor's fees -- were only shut down for a matter of hours. This time, with the expiration coming on April 5 while the Senate is in recess, the shutdown could last for days.

Coburn and the Republicans are making the same argument this time that Bunning made back on March 1: if Democrats want to extend the benefits, they need to find a way to pay for them. On the Senate floor, Coburn said he was blocking the benefits on behalf that old political standby, the average Joe.

The average Joe, Doctor Evil, is that man or woman standing in the unemployment line desperate to find gainful employment to feed their family and to keep a roof over their head. That unemployment check may make all the difference from going into foreclosure and bankruptcy and living in a homeless shelter and feeding their family in soup kitchens.

Over the past decade, Republican economic policies failed to create a single net new job. Republican economic policies did, however, create the worst economic calamity since the Great Depression. You would think Republicans bear some sense of responsibility and shame for their failed economic policies, and some sense of compassion towards their fellow American citizens in desperate circumstances (don't they all claim to be good Christians?). You would be wrong.

It was Sen. Jon Kyl who suggested several weeks ago that the unemployed are just lazy and living off unemployment benefits. They should get a job (that doesn't exist). Bah-Humbug!

And who could ever forget the cold lack of compassion Doctor Evil showed for this desperate woman to recite his GOP talking points. (Keep in mind Coburn was a doctor. I pity his patients.)

The Teabagger's Prayer

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I ran across an interesting post at Daily Kos today by terryballard, The Teabagger's Prayer, that fans of Mark Twain may appreciate:

Mark Twain once wrote a short piece called "The War Prayer" about what people really are asking for when they pray for their troops' victory. I adapted the words to cover today's righteous mobs. It didn't take much.

:: ::

It was a time of great and exalting excitement. The country was up in arms, their signs were waving proudly in front of the capitol. The fight was on, in every breast burned the holy fire of patriotism. In the churches the pastors preached devotion to flag and country, warned us of socialism and invoked the God of Battles beseeching His aid in our good cause. It was indeed a glad and gracious time, and the half dozen rash spirits that ventured to disapprove of the cause and cast a doubt upon its righteousness straightway got such a stern and angry warning that for their personal safety's sake they quickly shrank out of sight and offended no more in that way.

Sunday morning came -- the church was filled; the teabaggers were there, their old faces stern with fear -- visions of the fevered advance, the gathering momentum, the coverage on Fox News, proclaiming this as an important sign that the American People have had enough. Then home from the struggle, bronzed heroes, welcomed, adored, submerged in golden seas of glory! There to win for the flag, or, failing, die the noblest of deaths. The service proceeded. A war chapter from the Old Testament was read. the first prayer was said, followed by an organ burst that shook the building, and, as one, the worshippers rose, with glowing eyes and beating hearts, and poured out that tremendous invocation:

"God the all-terrible! Thou who ordainest! Thunder thy clarion and lightning thy sword!"

An aged stranger entered and moved with slow and noiseless step up the main aisle, his eyes fixed upon the minister, his long body clothed in a robe that reached to his feet, his head bare, his white hair descending to his shoulders, his face unnaturally pale. With all eyes following him and wondering, he made his silent way; without pausing, he ascended to the preacher's side and stood waiting. With shut lids the preacher, unconscious of his presence, continued with his moving prayer, and at last finished it with the words, uttered in fervent appeal, "Bless our cause, grant us the victory, O Lord our God, Father and Protector of our land and flag!"

The stranger touched his arm, motioned him to step aside, which the startled minister did, and took his place. During some moments he surveyed the spellbound audience with solemn eyes, in which burned an uncanny light; then in a deep voice he said:

"I come from the Throne -- bearing a message from Almighty God!" The words shocked the house. If the stranger noticed he gave no attention. "He has heard the prayer of His servant your shepherd, and will grant it if you still wish it after I, His messenger, have explained to you its full meaning. For it is like unto many of the prayers of men, in that it asks for more than he who speaks it knows - unless he pause and think.

"You have heard your servant's prayer -- the spoken part of it. I am commissioned of God to put into words the other part of it - that part which the pastor, and also you in your hearts, fervently prayed silently. You heard these words: 'Grant us the victory, O Lord our God!' That is sufficient. the whole of the spoken prayer is compacted into those pregnant words. Elaborations were not necessary. When you have prayed for victory you have prayed for other unsaid results which follow victory--*must follow it, cannot help but follow it. Upon the listening spirit of God fell also the unspoken part of the prayer. He commanded me to put it into words. Listen!

"O Lord our Father, O Lord our God, help us to send desperate people to emergency rooms as their first line of defense when they can stand the pain no longer, knowing that they can never pay for any services they receive; help us to send the uninsured to early painful deaths; help us to bury them in unmarked mass pauper's graves and send their widows and children from their humble homes at the point of police guns. Help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it -- for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears. Help us to send more profits to medical insurance companies so that their leaders may gather eight-figure bonuses and use the money to do Thy work. We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him who taught us to love our enemy and turn the other cheek, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen.

(*After a pause.*) "Ye have prayed it; if ye still desire it, speak! The messenger of the Most High waits!"

It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said. He walked out, muttering something about "Those who help the least of these..." *

:: ::

* (Matthew 25.35-40):

"For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me."

Then the righteous will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?'

And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'"

In defense of Rhonda Bodfield

by David Safier

I almost always agree with what AZ Blue Meanie writes and always admire both his style and the depth of his commentary. However, I sometimes -- not often, but sometimes -- take exception to his tone. This is one of those times. I think his criticism of Rhonda Bodfield in a recent post was excessive.

I've taken my share of hits at the Star and will continue to do so, possibly even today (at Rob O'Dell's soft article Thursday on Brewer's botched Rio Nuevo appointments compared with his slam of the City Council for thinking about raising property taxes between $2 and $12 a year on a $200,000 home). But I've generally praised Bodfield's talents as a reporter. When I've been critical, it's been of a specific article, not of her reporting in general.

When Bodfield had the education beat, I thought her articles combined information and depth. They had the facts, and they went beyond the facts to give background and context I benefited from. The times she erred were when her articles condemned some "big spending" move by TUSD that had more to do with reorganization than added expenditures. At times like that, I felt she was doing the bidding of the publisher and editors whose motto for TUSD and the City Council seems to be, "Make it bleed so it leads, and put the bloody knife in the Supe's or the City Council's hand." The paper does a disservice to its readers in its unbalanced coverage of our schools and city government, and it troubled me when Bodfield's articles participated in the unreasonable negativity. I criticized articles like that in the past and tried to correct their slant.

Bodfield assumed the political beat at a time when the Star's right wing stance was hardening. Like AZ Blue Meanie, I had hoped she would move us toward a more balanced coverage of the political scene. That hasn't happened. Her coverage isn't much different from Scarpinato's before her.

You can say the Republican political scene is more entertaining right now than the Democratic scene, so naturally, it gets more coverage. But they're always more entertaining, because they're not restrained by facts or by any need to keep what they say within reasonable bounds. The circus is more entertaining than an open lecture at UA as well. "Crazy" is more entertaining than reason. But a good newspaper whose purpose is to put the local and national political scene into its proper perspective doesn't give one point of view more coverage just because it can make more clowns climb out of a VW than the other side.

Before Bodfield had a chance to get her feet on the ground in her new political beat, she was already covering the circus at a paper whose conservative-leaning editorial climate had taken firm hold. I think she has failed to strike the necessary balance. I fault her for not standing outside the chaos of the newsroom and looking at what's going on from the vantage point of a quality journalist. She has taught at UA. She understands this stuff. If she were outside looking in, she would see what's going on more clearly. I daresay she might even be critical of her own reporting. But she's in the pressure cooker, having to produce ever more copy at a paper whose staff is cut to the bone and whose publisher is pushing a strong conservative agenda.

This clearly isn't a whole hearted endorsement of Bodfield's work. You can say I'm damning her with faint praise, or maybe praising her with faint damns. But with someone of her caliber, I would prefer to point out specific instances when I disagree with her coverage rather than criticize her more roundly.

I hope that as the political season heats up, Bodfield will find a way to balance her coverage, both in quantity and quality. And I hope, when necessary, she will fight the good fight against any publisher's and/or editors' attempts to slant her reporting.

Right wing races toward the bottom

by David Safier

Craig of Random Musings who cross-posts here, giving us invaluable information from the State Capitol, wrote about another one of those indications that the right is continuing its descent into hate and barbarism.

The Republic wrote an article about a 65 year old woman collapsing at a rally in Tempe supporting Harry Mitchell's vote for the health care legislation. 

When she collapsed, an anonymous bystander began chest compressions immediately, before paramedics arrived.

"These chest compressions being performed likely contributed to her survival," said Tempe Fire spokesman Mike Reichling.

Great story, right? Good samaritan saves woman's life. Not to some people. The comments on the story were so vile, the Republic had to take them down.

Here are two of the comments Craig documented. You can find more on his post.

They should have let her die just to prove a point. Fricken hilarious! (commenter DISSONANT)

Too bad it wasn't obama, pelosi, and reid having the heart attacks with no one there to help them. That would be great! (commenter demsrslime)

As AZ Blue Meanie pointed out right below this post, Mitchell himself was on Countdown last night talking about threats he has received. Meanwhile, the Republican leaders say they kinda think this kind of thing isn't right, but hey, they understand where the crazies are coming from. Really, who can blame them for being in a homicidal rage because a majority of Congress voted to approve Health Care Reform?

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

Harry Mitchell and family receive death threats

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Character matters Sen. McCain. Do you still believe "The language that we should be using today is the language that we are using." McCain: Palin's "reload" and her cross hairs are "the language that we should be using".

When you meet with Sister Sarah today, it is your obligation to tell her to stop fanning the flames with her inflammatory rhetoric that the mentally unstable in our society act upon. With leadership comes great responsibility.

Congressman Harry Mitchell and his family have received death threats from the mentally unstable. Mitchell, family targets of threats, harassment:

"Congressman Mitchell has received physical threats, including threats on his life, both before and after a vote on health-care reform," Adam Bozzi, his spokesman, said in a written statement released Thursday. "Recently, the congressman received a call from an individual who said she was so filled with rage that she warned the congressman to 'watch his back' and called for a bomber to blow up his Scottsdale office."

Mitchell and his office in Scottsdale also have received numerous hostile phone calls as well as notes attached to animal feces throughout the past year, Bozzi's statement said. His wife "has been harassed at their Tempe home" while his son, Tempe City Councilman Mark Mitchell, also received "menacing calls," Bozzi said.

On Thursday, House Republican Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, denounced the disturbing trend, saying, "Threats and violence should not be part of a political debate." John McCain, however, laughed it off and was dismissive because he was asked specifically about Sarah Palin's inflammatory comments. The man's character and judgment are to be questioned.

Harry Mitchell was interviewed last night on Countdown with Keith Olbermann.

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

Ask Melvin, "proud Minuteman," his opinion about Minuteman demise

by David Safier

The Minuteman Civil Defense Corps finally shut down after 5 years.

So far as I know, Al Melvin is the highest ranking Arizonan who has direct connections with the Minuteman group. In his first (unsuccessful) run for state senate in 2006, he declared himself a "proud Minuteman" at every event I went to. He also advocated for an unbroken fence covering the entire U.S./Mexico border. Ask him sometime. He'll tell you.

He had the photos below posted on his campaign website back then (Click on them for a larger version). You won't find them on his current website, and I couldn't find a whisper about the Minuteman group on the site either. After his 2006 loss, Melvin decided he would abandon his extremist ways on the campaign trail and run as a "moderate."

I'm sure Sen. Melvin has some interesting insights about the group's history and his affiliation with it. Someone in the media should really ask him. It would make for a good story.

For instance, Melvin might be able to explain the recent Minuteman email which was sent to members asking them to bring "long arms" to the border.

On March 16, Mercer sent an e-mail urging members to come to the border "locked, loaded and ready" and urged people to bring "long arms." She proposed changing the group's rules to allow members to track illegal immigrants and drug smugglers instead of just reporting the activity to the Border Patrol.

It seems this modest little call to arms got a bit too crazy a response, even for Mercer.

Mercer said she received a more feverish response than she expected and decided the group couldn't shoulder the responsibility and liability of what could occur, she said.

Imagine that. You call folks to bring long arms locked, loaded and ready to hunt down people crossing the border, and some of them misunderstand and get a little carried away. Who would've guessed?

The thing that prodded Mercer to send the email was -- surprise -- health care reform, combined with her fury at Janet Napolitano.

Mercer said her anger with the federal government about health-care reform and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano's claims that the border is secure led her to send out the March 16 e-mail.

Is Al Melvin still proud of his Minuteman days? Does he still advocate an unbroken border fence starting in San Diego and stretching across Arizona, New Mexico and Texas? A newspaper or a TV station that ran with the story might find an fascinated audience out there. Melvin always has something interesting to say.

School House Rock was never like this!

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

School House Rock was an ABC After School Special education program. One of my favorites was "I'm a Bill on Capitol Hill." The simplistic explanation of how a bill becomes law is no longer accurate.

This School House Rock video has now been updated by the Late Night with Jimmy Fallon Show. (Not appropriate for children). Unfortunately you have to watch an ad first.

About that McCain idea for an individual health insurance mandate

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

President Obama barely barely had completed his signature on the health care reform bill before a collection of Republican (and one Democrat) state attorneys general filed a lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of the Act on a specious "commerce clause" theory.

Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard refused to go along stating "Our lawyers agree with the overwhelming majority of constitutional scholars of both parties that the lawsuits have little merit, and that participating in them would be a waste of scarce taxpayer dollars."

The Accidental Governor threw a hissy-fit and tthreatened to hire her own lawyers to join this politically motivated lawsuit. Brewer wants OK to sue vs. health law

Brewer had no explanation for how the state of Arizona is going to pay the attorney's fees and costs for this frivolous lawsuit. I would suggest that these state attorneys general review the penalties for filing frivolous claims under Rule 11.

The best part is that the individual health insurance mandate provision that these obstructionist Republicans are challenging in court has long been advocated by conservatives, big business and the insurance industry. Individual health insurance mandate started as a Republican idea - Business Breaking News - MiamiHerald.com:

The lawsuit by [the state] attorneys general, focuses on the provision that virtually all Americans will need to have health insurance by 2014 or face penalties.

The lawsuit calls this an ``unprecedented encroachment on the liberty of individuals.'' It states the Constitution doesn't authorize such a mandate, the proposed tax penalty is unlawful and is an ``unprecedented encroachment on the sovereignty of the states.''

``The truth is this is a Republican idea,'' said Linda Quick, president of the South Florida Hospital and Healthcare Association. She said she first heard the concept of the ``individual mandate'' in a Miami speech in the early 1990s by Sen. John McCain, a conservative Republican from Arizona, to counter the ``Hillarycare'' the Clintons were proposing.

McCain did not embrace the concept during his 2008 election campaign, but other leading Republicans did, including Tommy Thompson, secretary of Health and Human Services under President George W. Bush.

* * *

Among the other Republicans who had embraced the idea was Mitt Romney, who as governor of Massachusetts crafted a huge reform by requiring almost all citizens to have coverage.

``Some of my libertarian friends balk at what looks like an individual mandate,'' Romney wrote in The Wall Street Journal in 2006. ``But remember, someone has to pay for the health care that must, by law, be provided: Either the individual pays or the taxpayers pay. A free ride on government is not libertarian.''

During his presidential election campaign, Barack Obama was opposed to an individual mandate, preferring instead strong requirements that employers be required to provide coverage.

Still, the concept was gathering a strong momentum. The Business Roundtable, an association of chief executives of America's largest companies, supported it in the summer of 2008, thinking it much better than a broad requirement to force businesses of all sizes to offer coverage -- something that could increase business costs and make them less competitive.

Others joined the bandwagon, including the liberal Service Employees International Union and the Commonwealth Fund, a nonpartisan nonprofit that studies American healthcare problems.

In November 2008, just days after Obama's landslide victory, America's Health Insurance Plans, a trade group, made a stunning announcement, saying it favored universal coverage and supported a law that would stop insurers from rejecting applicants because of preexisting conditions.

``Universal coverage is within reach,'' the group said in a historic press release.

After being adamantly opposed to reform during the Clinton years, AHIP said it had changed its mind -- based on one condition: Any reform plan had to require that all individuals have insurance or pay stiff penalties.

AHIP's reasoning was simple: Many of the uninsured are healthy and under age 35. They either have jobs that don't offer insurance or they didn't pay for insurance because they were certain they wouldn't get sick.

Having this group in an insurance pool spreads risk. Without an individual mandate requiring them to get insurance, Americans could wait until they got sick and then sign up for insurance -- a trend that would mean only sick people would be paying premiums while running up huge bills. In this scenario, healthy people would have no need to buy insurance -- a financially disastrous situation for insurance companies.

The Obama administration saw that the mandate was the only way to get a reform package passed and it became a foundation of the legislation, along with subsidies for those who couldn't afford coverage.

John McCain proposed an individual health insurance mandate before he was against it. Arizonans never know which John McCain is going to show up.

UPDATE: Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) explained today that his "Empowering States to be Innovative" amendment would, quite literally, give states the right to set up their own health care system -- with or without an individual mandate or, for that matter, with or without a public option -- provided that, as Wyden puts it, "they can meet the coverage requirements of the bill." Wyden: Health Care Lawsuits Moot, States Can Opt Out Of Mandate

The provision actually was taken directly from Wyden's Healthy Americans Act -- the far-more innovative health care reform legislation he authored with Republican co-sponsors. States that found the mandate objectionable could simply create and insert a new system in its place. All it would require is applying for a waiver from the Department of Health and Human Services, which has a 180-day window to confirm or deny such a waiver.

The current Republican leadership of Arizona has demonstrated that it is entirely incapable of establishing a state health care system because it simply will not enact taxes to pay for it.

AZ Dems call on GOP CD 8 candidates to renounce Tea Party in light of violence, threats, racism

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Press release from the Arizona Democratic Party:

CD 8 candidates: Will you renounce Tea Party in light of violence, threats, racism?

TUCSON -- In the next 48 hours, southern Arizona will play host to a McCain-Palin reunion and a Tea Party event featuring one of Congress' most inflammatory Republicans, Tom Tancredo, who earlier this year at a Tea Party convention called for a return to Jim Crow-style literacy tests because Barack Obama was elected president.

These two events take on new meaning in light of the past week: On Tuesday, Palin released a "hit list," showing congressional districts (including CD8) in gun crosshairs and imploring her followers to "reload." And last Saturday's racist and homophobic Tea Party protest on Capitol Hill helped set off a wave of violence and threats across the U.S. that targeted lawmakers who voted for health reform. Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' Tucson office was among those attacked. [http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6330278n&tag=contentMain;contentBody]

But rather than renounce the increasingly incendiary Tea Party movement, all of the Republican congressional district 8 candidates - Jesse Kelly, Jonathan Paton, Brian Miller and Andy Goss -- will be attending one or both of these events.

"If these Republican candidates do not sever ties with the Tea Party, then they are giving their tacit approval to the threatening, inflammatory and even violent tactics that are occurring," said Luis Heredia, Arizona Democratic Party executive director. "They're trying to have it both ways. They use extreme rhetoric to work these groups into a frenzy or scare them about imaginary government takeovers, yet the candidates don't want responsibility for any actions their words may help incite."

As a result of the recent violence and threats, many members of Congress and their families have had to be assigned higher security because of concerns about their physical safety. In recent months, more and more images and slogans laced with racism and implied violence have appeared at Tea Party and other radical far-right protests across the country [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/20/tea-party-protests-nier-f_n_507116.html], including a rally Paton headlined in 2009. (See photo)

Text of Tea Party sign next to Paton: "1 Black Prez Leads U.S. Into Slavery"

The bigotry and violence reached an especially troubling level at Saturday's Tea Party protest of the health-insurance reform bill on Capitol Hill. At the protest, participants shouted racial and homophobic slurs at members of Congress, including longtime civil rights leader Rep. John Lewis and Rep. Barney Frank.  Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, an African American, also reported being spat upon by protesters while walking from his office to the U.S. Capitol. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mc2dOY5Nok8]  

"Shouting racist epithets at heroic civil rights leaders and spitting on members of Congress is outrageous at best and hate speech at worst," Heredia said. "This is a far cry from the values of freedom and free speech the Tea Party movement claims to espouse."

"Rather than take a stand against the violence occurring in their own backyard, the candidates in CD8 are essentially choosing to turn a blind eye. This is unacceptable, especially for those seeking to hold public office," he said. "We call on Kelly, Miller, Goss and Paton to condemn these acts of bigotry and violence and sever their ties with the Tea Party movement."

###

NY Times carries photo of Giffords, vandalism. The Star? Nothing.

by David Safier

The NY Times ran a story today, After Health Vote, Threats on Democrats. The only photos related to the vandalism in the online piece (I don't have the paper itself) are the most evocative photo taken of the vandalism anywhere in the country, the flag behind broken glass at Giffords' Tucson office, and a photo of Giffords herself.

I would love to ask the editors at the Star, "If you had run that flag-behind-broken-glass photo on the front page above the fold the next day, how many extra copies of the paper do you think you would have sold from the newsstands?"

I once took a tour of the Star and was allowed to sit in on the editors' meeting where they decide what stories go where in the paper. Lining the walls of the room were past front pages that sold newspapers. And one of their main questions was, "What do we run above the fold tomorrow?" They know, the right photo and the right story sells papers. Obviously, that's a very big deal.

The editors, with the photo of the vandalism in hand (I alread had the photo, which I ran online, so they must have had it too), decided they would cover the vandalism in paragraph 17 of a story on an inside page. It was also mentioned in an editorial that day.

So what do we have in today's paper, now that the iconic photo has shown in nearly every major news outlet around the country and Giffords has been interviewed about the vandalism numerous times elsewhere?

We have a story pieced together from wire reports, FBI looks at flurry of threats against members of Congress. No photo anywhere. The local incident at Giffords' office, which put Tucson on the national news map, is mentioned in the third paragraph from the bottom of the article. Here's the entire paragraph:

Bricks were also thrown through district offices of Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., and Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz.

The Star has made an editorial decision to downplay the vandalism to Giffords' office. And it isn't wavering. Unless the paper changes its mind, it will not run a single photo of Giffords' office or a single quote from Giffords herself.

I have to be fair. I can't say the Star treated the vandalism like it didn't happen. The truth is, the Star treated the vandalism like it didn't matter.